Talk:Antarctica/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Likely hood that Russia or the U.S. will claim Ant. in a hundred years time?

Is there any information that either nation has plans to incorporate Ant. into another state or territory? If not, who is more likely to obtain it? -G

Australian stations

Felt the need to make the names of the Aussie bases less ambiguous. They were all named after explorers, so they are naturally ambiguous from day one. Davis already has a disambiguation pages due to the US place names. - Gaz 12:38 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

No problem, Gaz. You and I will disagree about some place names, no doubt, but these (I think) are clearly better for your change. Tannin

...and I am (after some research) about to rename them again. Seems the word "station" is appropriate in their names. See AAD home page. As a generality, I much prefer unambiguous names throughout. ie I would love to move [[Paris]] to [[Paris, France]]. I'm just not spoiling for a fight right now. (one day though...) - Gaz 13:30 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)

Birth

The opening paragraph of this article claims that only one person has been born in Antarctica, but the "Demographics of Antarctica" article says there have been three. What do you think?

(William M. Connolley 16:38, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)) I don't like this piece of info being there, so prompted by your comment above I've removed it. It was wrong (the demog article lists names so is presumably accurate). And that kind of info belongs in demog anyway. But worse: the births-in-antarctica stuff are distasteful (and also completely pointless) political stunts designed to bolster political claims. So its best not over-publicised.

I've heard a succestion, that the first birth would have been already around the late 40's, with a member of the Soviet whaling fleet being the mother. Anyhow the claim about Palma sounds like Argentine propaganda. When there's no scientific success, it's the only way to get to the records with such nonsense. Could be removed as such.

Politically nonsense or not it is a na event that hold meaning in Antarctica and to the world. You people are a bunch of wanna be intellectuals with no common sense.

Copyrighted map?

The map appears to be from National Geographic magazine. I'm pretty sure that magazine has a copyright policy. Can someone verify or refute this? (And remove the map if necessary.) --Eitheladar 06:20, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outposts of Antarctica

This is bad grammar. An outpost of something is a small area offset from the larger, named area. Guam is an outpost of the United States. Any outposts of Antarctica would have to be established elsewhere by Antarctic citizens. I'm thinking of moving the category to Outposts in Antarctica. --Yath 07:07, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Little America

I just created a page for this, but don't really know whether it's already listed on Antarctica under another name... if somebody can help... [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 10:32, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Time Zone

I wonder if someone was to ask you "May I have the time, please?" What would you say? Maybe this is a stupid question but, what's the time zone for Antartica? How's time being calcualted down there? --Garlics82 19:52, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

So far as the Australian stations go:

• Macquarie Island works off Tasmanian time, AEST (GMT+10) or AEDT (GMT+11).
• Casey is 2 hours behind - (GMT+8)
• Davis is 3 hours behind - (GMT+7)
• Mawson is 4 hours behind - (GMT+6)

See [1]. I'll integrate this into the article. -- Chuq 01:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Officially, it's GMT, although McMurdo Station uses Christchurch, NZ time. -- Dave Cohoe 06:37, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Antarctica article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Antarctica}} to this page. — LinkBot 09:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC) I would like to request a Tourism of Antarctica article, but I don't know where I would. I'll post this on the Economy of Antarctica talk page too. Theaterfreak64 00:40, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Missing Picture

At some point I saw a picture on Wikipedia (or maybe the Commons) of a mountain in Antarctica, and a field of bluish ice in the forground. The caption explained somethign about how the ice was blue from layers melting and refreezing, I believe. I have searched like CRAZY but I can't find the image again. Anyone know what I'm talking about? --Brian Z 04:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like Image:Lake_Fryxell.jpg I reckon. Worldtraveller 00:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 09:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)) I think you're talking about a "blue ice area" [2]. I thought it was formed when the overlying snow blows off (not by melting), but the ref I've just found says both occur.

Image:Lake_Fryxell.jpg was the one! Thanks so much Worldtraveller!. --Brian Z 04:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Altered Picture

Why is an altered version of the Lake Fryxell picture used? The original (http://photolibrary.usap.gov/AntarcticaLibrary/LAKEFRYXELL.JPG) shows a lovely sky with a few small clouds, while the altered version puts a larger expanse of obviously fake-looking digital blue sky gradient over everything. Based on my technical expertise as a reader of a Kim Stanley Robinson novel, I get the impression that little clouds are important down there, or at least, I think they make for a nicer picture. Would you agree? Mike Serfas 18:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Area?

This article does not mention the size of Antarctica (surface area, km²). — Timwi 19:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Never mind, found it on de :-) — Timwi 19:14, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External Links

Does the South Shetland page need its own Educative Links section? How is this different than the other external links, which appear to be educational as well? -- Dave C. 19:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can I claim Antartica?

So, is it possible for two young navigators to claim the slice between 90 degrees and 150?

Can you donate some of your pictures of Antarctica to WP? We need more pictures of ice. Oh, and some snow too. (SEWilco 15:36, 29 May 2005 (UTC))

No, you cannot, it must be a country that has dne something important there. ive been there (Argentinian Air force gave a little help) it is completely unusable and far from all countries (far from both Australia and South America) Argentino 11:55, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello Everyking, Government of Dominion of Melchizedek has official recognition from UN member states so its claim has more authority, and its claim is much older than yours. Melchizedek's Ambassador, Dr. Dewey Painter has actually spent 6 months there. Please return the reference to the article.

DoM also claims a large section of Antarctica. None of these claims is recognized by any established government.Insert non-formatted text here

I, Nachomania, wish to claim 1000 acres of Antarctica, maily for camping/exploration/barbeques. The land will be owned by Canada, with me as its premier, and probable sole resident. Just want to make sure everyone knows. Ok? :) I wish! Also, I wish about the barbeque. I'll be in my backyard...anyways, you probably couldn't, becuase you're not a country, and, if you were, I don't think it would go to well in the world today. Land claims are more...BNA era at the latest, really. Ooh! Triangle character!Δ! I hope that answers your question! User:Nachomania 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC) And I, Jimbo, contest your claim. I also claim ALL of Antartica for Canada, with ME as its Premier. Ohh, and I did so like a week before you did. So there, what are you gonna do about it :P

Literature, Cinema, and TV set in Antarctica

Why do we have a huge section that's just a list of non-important films and anime, that is almost as beg as the rest of the Article? --Mariano July 5, 2005 08:05 (UTC)

Fair point. I bet "Europe" doesn't have such a list. Trim it to just the important ones, or delete entirely? William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 10:53:19 (UTC).

Another alternative would be to put it in a separate article. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 5 July 2005 12:03 (UTC)

A hole article about things that name Antarctica? I think there's nothing important in the list to preserve. Perhaps some Paper or Article about Antarctic climate, fauna or anything like that, but it doesn't apply for any of these examples. -Mariano July 5, 2005 13:22 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's useless and should be deleted. Argentino 5 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)

I don't see anything similar in Africa or Europe. Delete it. (SEWilco 5 July 2005 19:05 (UTC))

OK, I've removed it. For possible use, its pasted below. William M. Connolley 2005-07-05 21:03:57 (UTC).

"Pop culture references" was latest incarnation, pasted below. (SEWilco 18:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC))

Well done! William M. Connolley 21:43:16, 2005-08-23 (UTC).

---

Literature, Cinema, and TV set in Antarctica

• Beryl Bainbridge's The Birthday Boys (1991) (a fictionalised account of the expedition of Robert Falcon Scott)
• H.P. Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness (1936)
• Edgar Allan Poe's The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1838) (though Poe's imagined Antarctica has little in common with the real one)
• Nikos Kazantzakis' epic poem The Odyssey: A Modern Sequel ends with the death of Odysseus in Antarctica.
• Matthew Reilly's Ice Station (1997)
• Kim Stanley Robinson's Antarctica (1997)
• Elizabeth Arthur's "Antarctic Navigation" (1995)
• John Calvin Batchelor's "The Birth of the People's Republic of Antarctica" (1983)
• John W. Campbell Jr.'s Who Goes There? (1938) (the basis for The Thing from Another World (1951) and The Thing (1982))
• Komatsu Sakyo's Day of Resurrection (Japanese title Fukkatsu no Hi)
• Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay (2001)
• Alien vs. Predator (movie) (2004)
• Stargate SG-1 (TV; several episodes) (1997, still running)
• Stargate Atlantis (TV; first episode) (2004, still running)
• Neon Genesis Evangelion (Briefly, though it plays a key rôle) (1995)
• Michael Crichton's "State Of Fear" (2004)
• Greg Rucka's "Whiteout" and "Whiteout: Melt"
• Nicolas Johnson "Big Dead Place: Inside the strange and menacing world of Antarctica"
• Godzilla: Final Wars, Antarctica is where Godzilla is imprisoned at the begining of the film and is later set free.

---

Pop Culture References

• The continent has been a recurring setting for the Stargate SG1 and Stargate Atlantis television series. (Details)
• A bulk of HP Lovecraft's novella At the Mountains of Madness takes place in Antarctica. In the novella an expedition to Antarctica discover unknown lifeforms, and excitement ensues.
• Antarctica is the subject of a Duran Duran song, "My Antarctica".
• The film The Day After Tomorrow opens with scientists studying and collecting data in Antarctica.
• A version of the Antarctic Treaty appears in the anime Mobile Suit Gundam

---

Prehistoric Antarctica

Why isn't there a section in the article about the history of the continent throughout pre-historic times? It has not always been Earth's freezer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.33.111.21 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 17 July 2005.

• Thank you for your suggestion regarding [[: regarding [[:{{{1}}}]]]]! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. (SEWilco 03:12, 18 July 2005 (UTC))
• i added a short section 'geological history' which is rougly a (bad) translation from the german wp. Sarefo 03:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Melchisedek claim

Quoting from Washington Post article about Melchisedek: "Melchizidek has leaders, laws, religion, a flag, a disputed homeland and an unreasonable territorial claim -- the textbook definition of your basic nation-state. Who's to say it's phony?" Unsigned by 68.121.47.161 As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will be then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you.

En.wikipedia.org does; this isn't the article to contest its status. El_C 02:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I was looking for an article. Nothing much on the web, and nothing on the CIA's World Fact Book. :) -- Dave C. 05:08, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice work on Frank Zappa, I'm a big fan. Hugely underestimated guitarplayer, very fond of the instrumentals esp. (treacherous cretins).  :) El_C 05:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it melting?

Hakusa - Wiki addict: 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Isn't it melting due to global warming? And if so, can anyone tell me wheather it is true that scientists estimate there will be more animals on it than at can hold sometime in the future.

For most of it, no. Most of antarctica is sufficiently cold (see pix, Climate_of_Antarctica) that a small rise in T won't make it melt. In fact the prediction is that increased snowfall (warmer air -> more moisture -> more snow) outweights the melt, for the next 100 years. Apart from surprises. Only the antarctic peninsula is melting: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=146. Dunno about the animals: I'm not a bio. William M. Connolley 20:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC).

I'm sure the definition of "more animals than it can hold" is awkward. I wonder how it is predicted that animals which currently live on rock and ice would be affected by having more rock. Even if grass appears I don't expect sheep and coyotes to quickly affect Antarctic animals. (SEWilco 20:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

Hakusa - Wiki addict: 20:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC) OK thanks very much.

The flag

Antarctica has no official flag. Its probably impossible to have one, since it isn't a nation state. Putting a flag on the ant page, with the title "flag of antarctica", is misleading (only if you click on the link do you get told, there is no flag). Why is there any reason to put this flag on the page? William M. Connolley 19:53, 15 October 2005 (UTC).

I think it is better to delete it. Argentino 21:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

• In cases where there is no offical flag, the defacto flag or unoffical flag can be used eg Northern Ireland is a good example. The Flag of Antartica is slightly different since it does not relate to a politcal entity. However I believe the one used is in use in the continent from info provided at Flags of the World. Astrotrain 14:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

But I see no evidence that this is the defacto flag either. Antarctica is not an entity, so there is never any need to use the flag. Where do you see it used, and for what purpose? William M. Connolley 18:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC). See Image:Antarc-flag2.gif for info provided on its usage. It seems to be an accepted flag in many quarters. Astrotrain 19:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone wanted to use a country template to summarize some info about the region. The flag can be mentioned in the text. (SEWilco 20:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC))

Terra Australis?

The first sighting of Terra Australis was made by Captian James Cook in his first voyage(1768-1771). His mission was to discover the great southern land(Terra Australis) and he did so by discovering Australia. He called what he discovred Terra Australis Incognita this is where we get the word Australia from. His first actual sighting of Antartica was during his second voyage(1772-1775). He quickly added Antartica to Terra Australis Icongnita after this sighting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aussiebludgerned (talk • contribs). I dont remember the story that way. i cant remember, however, where in this encyclopedia (it is so much divided in sections!) i read that Cook had seen dust upon icebergs and had deduced that there was land, so i went to the Argentine National Library, near my house and find in a book about cook, written by a guy "Longheatr" the same fact. I realy dont know what to beelive Argentino 19:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Just report what the book says and create a citation (title, author, publisher, year) for the book for verifiability of the fact. If the library's catalog is not online you might have to visit the library again to get the information. Fill in the blanks in a {{book reference}} entry and it will be formatted for you (see the template's Discussion page for documentation). (SEWilco 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

yea, because i live to work for free for the encyclopedia, you know, maybe none of you dont work/study, but I do. The next time i go to the library i'll do it. Argentino 12:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Discovery

I think there should be a section talking about the discovery of Antarctica, and about the speculation that Antarctica existed before it was even discovered. -- Phaldo 16:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC) I think there should be some mention of the Scott Expedition along side of the Amundsen one. It seems disrespectful to omit it as they lost their lives attempting the same thing as Amundsen. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.88.201.100 (talk • contribs).

I agree -- it seems odd that there is no mention of Scott anywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plesner (talk • contribs)

A question about Antarctic land

===>Always wondered this... How much of Antarctica's surface actually contains land underneath? That is to say, what percentage of it is not simply an ice shelf? Justin (koavf) 00:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of Antarctica contains land beneath the ice, and there are even some areas McMurdo Dry Valleys with exposed land. The major ice shelves are Ross Ice Shelf, and Ronne Ice Shelf, with numerous smaller ice shelves flanking the coasts. A specific percentage? I don't know, but in 2001, the National Geographic produced the best map of Antarctica (satellite image-based) that I know of, in conjunction with the Byrd Polar Research Center [3]. Sorry, it's a commercial link for buying the map, but you can view it/zoom in by clicking on "More Views". It shows where these ice shelves are and how large, in relation to the continent. -Aude (talk | contribs) 00:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

===>Thanks for the speedy response. Justin (koavf) 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

To expand on that a bit... some of the Antarctic land underneath the ice is actually below sea level. See http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/aedc/bedmap/examples/bed10.gif and http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/aedc/bedmap/. William M. Connolley 11:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC).

Todo

I've added a todo table at the top of this page. Feel free to add or remove things. Gflores ^Talk 01:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You did such a good job, I'm not sure I can add anything! Maurreen 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Appearance

Does the layout look bad for anyone else? Do you see trapped white space? Maurreen 03:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the order of the sections or the placement of images and such? Also, what do you mean by "trapped white space"? Gflores ^Talk 03:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean, on my screen, there are sections where the images or text trap a blank area -- an empty chunk of white space. That's the only problem I see, but it might be my browser. Maurreen 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Couple questions

Under economy:

"The environmental protection act that was added to the Antarctic Treaty prevents such struggle for resources. In 1998, a compromise agreement was reached to add a 50-year ban on mining until the year 2048, further preventing any economic system from taking place. The primary agricultural activity is the capture and offshore trading of fish."

1. I made "Environmental" lowercase to match "protection act", but I'm not sure whether they should be capitalized.
2. Instead of "...further preventing any economic system from taking place," would it be better to say something like "...further preventing limiting economic development and exploitation"?

Maurreen 04:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for proofreading. Gflores ^Talk 07:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Note: The picture labeled "Patagonian toothfish" is actually Antartic cod. I can't confirm this from personal education, but look at the file names and the article for Patagonian toothfish. --Mr Minchin 22:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

layout

Does anyone else have a weird layout with the images, specifically in the flora/fauna section. image, that's how it looks to me. Of course, it could be just my resolution. Gflores ^Talk 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The layout looks good to me. Maurreen 19:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica in fiction/popular culture

I think that this article needs such a section to be truly comprehensive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Geographical scope of Antarctica

This article covers the Antarctic Continent alone, while in the English language 'Antarctica' refers both to the mainland and the wider geographical region comprising also the islands and waters situated south of the Antarctic Convergence. (See Livingston Island for further details.) So the article should probably cover the rest of Antarctica as well. Apcbg 22:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Currency

Does Antarctica have a Currency? If so, is it worth mentioning in the 'Economy' section? Liam Plested 01:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Each base may or may not use its national currency William M. Connolley 14:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a currency called Antarctican dollar, but is created by a private company. I don't think it's used in Antarctica. Just a fun thing for bill collectors. --Apoc2400 06:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Population

I removed, and Gflores reverted back in, the stuff about who-was-born-first. I argue that:

• this is all tedious politics
• its out of place: there is an article about demographics; if it belongs anywhere, its there

William M. Connolley 14:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's an interesting fact as it's the only continent in which we know who was the first person born there. It's not controversial or untasteful as you say. However, I do see it being a little long now, so maybe a good compromise is to still mention it but shorten it, so there isn't two whole paragraphs on 2 births. What do you think? Gflores ^Talk 18:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Its all wrapped up in politics. The baby was imported to be born there for (completely pointless) policitcal ends; hence the "distasteful" bit (and the recent additions don't help...). I would rather it were out. But, AFAIK its a true factoid. Are we also going to include the first person to die there? :-) William M. Connolley 19:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

The paragraph on the (historical) population of South Georgia is hardly politics in the sense you mean; the sealers and whalers were sent by no government but rather pursued their normal industry. Some of them used to live there for several decades (albeit none for more than one generation), some enjoyed normal family life with marriages, divorces, and children born and raised. Incidentally, I have met one such born and bred native South Georgian: Mrs. Jan Cheek of Stanley, until recently a Falkland Islands Councillor. As for the first persons to die in Antarctica, the earliest recorded grave is that of the sealer Frank Gabriel who died on 14 October 1820 on South Georgia, while the first people known to have died in Antarctica were most probably the 644 Spanish seamen and soldiers onboard the San Telmo believed wrecked off Livingston Island in September 1819. (The latter were sent by their government indeed, even if to fight colonial rebels in the Viceroyalty of Peru rather than conquer Antarctica.) Apcbg 22:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The Russian priest, Father Gerogy, has a permanent home near his church, lives on the continent year-round, and has been stationed to the continent on an indefinite, and decidedly long-term basis. If that doesn't make him a permanent resident of the continent, how does one define permanent population in a meaningful way. The population should be listed as one permanent. User:suncrush

Flag of Antarctica?

Do correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think Antarctica has an official flag, the one with the UN blue shown is the proposed one. Should we include the flag here, or perhaps add a note to the side of the side noting it as only a proposition? --Shibo77 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Flat earth viewpoint

I only thought of this while admonishing another user for doing something similar, but is it notable for this article that some Flat Earthers do not believe that Antartica exists. Perhaps a note in the geography section? savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Gflores^Talk 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? According to the Flat Earth article, the non-existence of Antarctica and/or the antipodes may have been a belief of some in the middle ages, although that claim is disputed. But in modern times there is no evidence anyone holds the belief that Antarctica doesn't exist. According to that article, there probably aren't even any Flat Earthers any more, since their association's founder died in 2001 they have not been around. Derek Balsam 03:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Image in lead

Is it just me or does anyone else think the image in the lead section throws off the layout and makes it seem jumbled? It's been added and removed before, so I'd just like some input from other users with different monitor resolutions. Gflores^Talk 02:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"Geology of present-day Antarctica"

Antarctica without its ice-shield.

The whole section titled "Geology of present-day Antarctica" is fantastically bad. You couldn't possibly remove the icesheet fast enough to not add at least 100m of elevation from isostatic rebound, and once it comes to equilibrium you'd get over a km of uplift in some places. All of the attractive "fjords" and "basins" in East Antarctica would be above sea level even after accounting for ~70m of sea level rise. Nor would West Antarctica be nearly as fragmented as it rendered there. I realize the images says it ignores uplift, but it is still misleading because people are not given the right impression that after uplift East Antarctica would better resemble Australia than some criss-crossed mess of seas. Dragons flight 04:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll support you if you correct it. --Mboverload 04:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

For the moment, I've killed the worst paragraph and edited the figure caption. I may look at it again later. Dragons flight 08:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that I have contributed the worst paragraph of a fantastically bad section. Sorry for doing that. For those who still like the paragraph and don't want to dig into the history, here it is:

Without the ice-shield, the continent's shape would look fully different from how it is presented on common maps. West Antarctica would resolve into three major parts: the Antarctic peninsula, Marie Byrd Land, and Vinson massif. East Antarctica would consist in a landmass with huge bays (e.g. Aurora Subglacial Basin and Wilkes Subglacial Basin) and fjords (e.g. at the location of Amery Glacier and around the South pole). The East Antarctic landmass would be littered with lakes and endorheic seas, parts of their grounds being far lower than sea level. East Antarctica would look somewhat like Canada or Finland nowadays.

Neither the graph, nor the text suggest that removing the icesheet takes place, should be done, or could be done in a short period of time. Both graph and text simply show the bedrock as it is in fact now, according to the most recent meta-studies. It's a fact, and, to my mind, it's pretty interesting.

By the way, post-glacial rebound should not been overestimated; it is a slow process. In Northern Europe and Canada it was at most 0.075 m/yr, but most of the time it was only 0.025 m/yr. Of course, the ice-shield did not melt away instantly, so the rate would have been higher under such hypothetical conditions, but we are not talking about 100 m/yr.

The two phenomena sea level rise and uplift compete each other. Sea level rise (estimates are between 59 and 80 m) would happen instantly, so that the bassins, for a few months or years, would probably be even larger than displayed on the graph.

The lakes and endorheic seas would probably not be effected for a few thousand years until rivers would create valleys to drain them. So the Canada-like look would last for a pretty long time, independently of sea level rise and uplift.

So, after all, aren't there good reasons why to insert the killed paragraph again?

--Panda17 13:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Panda, you are mistaken on several issues. First, the uplift during unloading is a factor of several higher than post-glacial rebound. Secondly, the Laurentide ice sheet (North America) can conservatively be said to be unloading for at least 3 kyr (probably closer to 10 kyr). For reasonable rheologies, 3 kyr is long enough that ~50% of the ultimate total rebound occurs during the unloading process. For a site under several kilometers of ice, that's several hundred meters before the ice is totally removed. Unless you can imagine some way to magic away to ice a lot faster, there is no way that most of those "bays" would ever be below sea level by the time the ice has melted regardless of sea level rise. Dragons flight 15:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

;-) And I'm not mistaken on those issues not mentionned in the above reply...? Whatever - as to myself, I'll stop the thread here. If the majority of readers of this section consider the above worst paragraph useful, put it back into the article, maybe with some modifications. Otherwise, somebody should remove the map as well, to be consistent. For those still interested in Antarctic rock surface: see the map at [4] or the entire site at [5] by the British Antarctic Survey. The maps are based on the same data as the map presented here, with a precise description of the data collection/consolidation process. However, the maps don't use 0 elevation as a reference, and they don't fill hollows with lakes - which may make interpretation more difficult to non-academic readers, but the information is the same. A less sophisticated rock surface map is also published on the Antarctica Travel Map by International Travel Maps, Vancouver.--Panda17 03:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Early 1513 AD Map

It was about to remove this section and its link in 'See also'. It does however appear that there is some notability to this claim. The map is called the Piri Reis map and the author of a book on the subject was Charles Hapgood. As the map article says: "Many scholars, however, dispute this conclusion, citing the fact that for centuries cartographers had been depicting a southern landmass on global maps based on the theoretical assumption that one must exist." If anything, this section could be subsumed into the Exploration section, but it doesn't deserve a section of its own (and not where it has been placed and formatted). --BillC 07:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Did it myself, and someone else removed the inappropriate Amazon link. --BillC 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Is the South Pole really on land?

According to this image: [6], if we were to remove all the ice from Antarctica, the South Pole would be on a small isle (islet?) in one of the major bays in Antarctica's main "continent", or possibly between Antarctica's two major "continents". So it is really on land, in contrast to the North Pole, which floats above the sea. Is this true? JIP | Talk 09:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably it would be a part of the continent as the continent would rise, if that was to happen. One estimate is, that f.e. during the last ice age Nordic countries would have been ~50 m deeper compared to the sea level.

Presently it is solid all the way from ice surface to bedrock, which is plenty to say it is on land, and if you removed the ice there would be enough uplift that it would still be above sea level (see the topic 2 above this). Dragons flight 03:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No of countries with claims

3rd para. "seven countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, India, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom) maintain territorial claims." Should it say 8, or should one of these not be in the list? Nurg 09:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone just added India a few minutes ago. It was reverted because no claims were cited, so 7 is most likely correct. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

All of the measurements seem to be given in Metric, alienating Americans. This should be remedied. R'son-W 10:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Since Antartica is full of scientists, I would have thought metric would be common usage? I could be wrong. Maeve 10:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If it were the other way around, I guess you'd be as happy as lark with that, right? JIP | Talk 11:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't mean WP:NPOV. At the very most, you're raising an issue over globalization. And, as others have pointed out, metric measurements are entirely appropriate for this article. --BillC 12:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I am american and can't relate metric measurements well I fully support the use of the metric system on an article such as this. The scientific community uses the metric system, so a scientific article should use them, also.--Mboverload 04:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm Anmerican too, and did what I thought was the 'wiki' thing - I added the Good Old American Measurements (Inside Parenthesis). It becomes a habit..- Only time I get testy about it is when they try to put the Metric first on American Stuff... Bo 17:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably not really NPOV, but hardly worthly of a point all on it's own: The image in the Politics section is captioned "Logistics support by the Navy". Shouldn't the nationality of the navy in question be specified? Being a Brit, I assume it's the RN (recognising this bias), but my ship recognition skills just aren't up to the job! Great article BTW, congrats to all involved. M1rtyn 08:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact that Antarctic supply ship is the Vanguardia, Uruguayan Navy. Apcbg 09:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent news

Some of the recent news needs to be incorporated into the article.

• Under-Ice Lakes in Antarctica Linked by Buried Channels
• Antarctica's Atmosphere Warming Dramatically, Study Finds

-71.96.234.140 05:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Meteor crater

See "Big crater seen beneath ice sheet", BBC News.

What appears to be a 480km-wide (300 miles) crater has been detected under the East Antarctic Ice Sheet. The scientists behind the discovery say it could have been made by a massive meteorite strike 250 million years ago. If the crater really was formed at the time von Frese and colleagues believe, it will raise interest as a possible cause of the "great dying" - the biggest of all the Earth's mass extinctions when 95% of all marine life and 70% of all land species disappeared.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CatherineMunro (talk • contribs).

"Highest"

This was a WP:FAR concern. Can we source that? Marskell 21:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is covered with a ~3 km ice sheet. Just look at topo map. [7] The Himalayas and isolated peaks in other places are higher, but on a continental scale there is nothing even competing with the average height of Antarctica. Dragons flight 21:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. As WP:V (more or less) says: the obvious should be sourced too. So throw a topo map down here maybe. Marskell 21:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I threw the ref in quickly. Marskell 21:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dry Ice, -78.5C and Global Warming

Antactica can get below -80C. Dry Ice forms at -78.5C. So maybe CO2 can be turned to dry ice in an Antarctic winter? What are the implications?

... for natural processes already in place ... if they exist ... if they stop?

... for human processes encouraging CO2 removal ... is there a way? Perhaps it is a silly idea anyway ... it could melt as a large mass and dump co2 into the atmosphere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.82.240 (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Drake Passage?

On the Drake Passage page it says that the passage was opened 41Mya in the late Eocene - "^ Helen Briggs. "Fossil gives clue to big chill", BBC News, 21 April 2006. Retrieved on 2007-11-01. " The Antartica page puts it at 25Mya. Can we get some agreement on this? Batmo (talk) 19:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)B82mo Bold text==Currency== It should be noted that the currencies of the ruling countries are used in the claims. Also, the unofficial Antarctican Dollar should be mentioned in the table at the top-right of the arcticle. C ya all l8er... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.126.160 (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the currency of the base's home country is generally used at each base. For instance, McMurdo Station uses US currency despite being within New Zealand's Ross Dependency. So New Zealanders passing through McMurdo Station on the way to Scott Base have been advised to purchase US dollars for any purchases they need to make there,[8] despite theoretically still being in New Zealand territory. -- Avenue (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

HI

Two Continents?

I recall reading that if it were not for the ice cap Antarctica would be two continents and not one. If this is true, then it should be noted. Can't find a reputable source though. Anyone know? 4.142.45.181 06:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)eric

There's a diagram showing Antarctica without the ice cap in the Geology section. The peninsula area and much of Wilkes Land becomes an archipelago, and the rest is a continent of sorts. I'm not sure if that counts as two continents or not.--Efil's god 12:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Government & international cooperation

It's not accurate to list the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat as the government or even the de facto government of Antarctica, although it certainly plays a role in managing the continent. The secretariat is an administrative office, set up by the dozens of governments that get together annually to make decisions under their Antarctic Treaty about governing the continent. They set up the secretariat to implement their consensus decisions, and they decide what the secretariat does - it doesn't govern in its own right. It would be better to refer to Antarctic Treaty Parties or the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting as playing the role of government.

You are right, and your suggested wording seems adequate. Apcbg 07:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all governments are signatories to the treaty...so why could this even be considered a government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.87.109 (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Sport boys le ganò al cienciano

Why doesn't Russia claim it?

Considering they were the ones that found it. -G Perhaps it's because Antarctica is inhabitable and you would have to travel across the entire indian to get there. 68.49.1.207 16:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC) Italic text== transfer from minor to major review == Please see the listing for the reason. Tony 12:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) you must mean uninhabitable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.188.251.253 (talk) 04:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC) --76.194.229.95 (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bumbershoot

I just took the paragraph below out of the article. Not a chance it's true...it is, however, mildly amusing. --Aelffin 16:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC) The first manned flight to Antarctica is credited to Edgar Bumbershoot, a quadraplegic who could only operate his plane with an assortment of pulleys and strings which he pulled with his teeth. Amazingly, he made the journey successfully, only to be so overwhelmed with excitement at its completion that he used one of his pulleys to pull himself out of the plane so he could touch the Antarctic ground. Unfortunately, being a quadraplegic, he could not get back into his plane and froze to death.

Vandalism

Watch out for Vandalism there was alot the last 2 weeks, that is why i made a revert. The Green Fish 09:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sport?

I saw an "Antartica RC" rugby kit. Is this a joke, or do they actually have a sanctioned (or unsanctioned) side? It might be interesting to note. - Plasticbadge 02:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Rugby has been played in Antarctica for many years, between members of the Scott Base rugby team and the McMurdo rugby team. The games are played on a full size field on the snow covered Ross ice shelf. Im not sure if there is a cont. wide team. The main article does not need this info. Snowwayout 23:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Nazis?

I heard that in the 30's there was a nazi expedition to Antarctica in which they claimed it for themselves. This true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.92.168.168 (talk • contribs).

lol, and the significance of Antartica to Germany would have been? The asnwer is no.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.157.66 (talk • contribs).

Yes, it is true. See New Swabia. lolx0rz. TomTheHand 18:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Flora and fauna

Under flora, fungus is not mentioned. However, this is scientifically inaccurate. My suggestion:

1. Find more information on the fungus of Antarctica.
2. Create a new subsection under "Flora and fauna" for fungi.
3. Rename the section to "Biota", "Organisms", etc. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 01:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't they list all of the life on Antartica?

Probably too much. I wonder, since there've been quite a lot of an animals and plants discovered lately (including new species), if there could be a link to a new site showing some of this stuff off. Brian Pearson 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Too Many Pictures?

There seems to be a few too many pictures in this article, that or they need to be better distributed. The main problem is under the exploration section, which is set up so two pictures appear before any text causing a large blank area between the title "Exploration" and the rest of the text. I don't want to arbitrarily remove a picture, any agreement on which one should go or where to move one if we want to keep them all? --The Way 04:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Claus Expedition: Whimsical vandalism, folks!

I noticed the sentence about a "long-forgotten" Claus expedition. Mr Tambourine Man added this whimsical tidbit of vandalism just before this article was featured back in April of this year ('06). This was Mr Tambourine Man's only contribution. See the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Mr+Tambourine+Man&page= which dates from April 6; and especially: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mr_Tambourine_Man late on April 8. As of this writing, I have yet to track the changes that susbsequently were made to this sentence since April. Anyone who would like to step through half a year of diffs is welcome to do so.  Schweiwikist   (talk)  15:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC) UPDATE: See this version, which was updated by an anonymous editor. Popups made this easy to find.  Schweiwikist   (talk)  18:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good catch! I thought the sentence was suspicious too, but I wasn't bold enough to do anything about it. --Apoc2400 06:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent

FA class for an article of top importance... THIS is the kind of thing Version 1.0 readers will want to see! If you have contributed significantly to Antarctica, feel free to put this barnstar on your page:

File:Interlingual Barnstar.png		The Geography Barnstar
		For commendable contributions to Antarctica, you have earned this Geography Barnstar! Gray PorpoisePhocoenidae, not Delphinidae 14:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll proofread the article soon. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 14:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Frequent vandalism

It seems this page gets a lot of vandalism. Is there any way for editors or others to protect this page? A302b 07:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Timezone

Probably an odd question, but what timezone(s) are used in Antarctica? Does the entire continent use UTC, or is it divided into 24 zones? Koweja 18:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) It looks like the the brits want the peninsula to use UTC-3, and much of the rest has no time zone. see http://www.cfht.hawaii.edu/~savalle/net/tzonemap.html Speciate 07:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)speciate My experience (McMurdo, South Pole, Terra Nova Bay, Dumont d'Urville, and Dome C Stations) is that the stations generally use something close to the time zone that they are in, based on their longitude. There are of course exceptions. South Pole has its choice as its buildings span all longitudes; they use the same time zone as McMurdo (New Zealand time, UTC+12 or UTC+13 in summer) for logistical convenience. Their have been winters in the past when South Pole switched to US Mountain time to better communicate with the US Antarctic Program folks in Denver. Dome C and DDU use their local standard time zones. StephenHudson 17:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

There now is a proposed WikiProject for Antarctica at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Antarctica. Any individuals in joining should indicate such there, and we will see if there is enough interest to create such a project. Badbilltucker 21:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Article is biased in it's political part. USSR and US during cold war agreed not to make territorial claims nor to recognize them in Antarctida, but in the article i can only see that it was smth like an exceptional nobility act of US. Please correct this part of the article.

Political chapter is biased

During cold war USSR (Russia) an US agreed not to make any territorial claims nor to recognize them for the time being. But in article it looks like exceptional act of US nobility. Plz correct this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.159.244.170 (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

The similar positions of Russia and the USA have nothing to do with nobility, it was an act of nations that did not wish to make and enforce sovereignty claims of their own at the time when other nations tried that, but at the same time they reserved the right to make such claims in the future, and explicitly rejected all claims i.e. the USA and Russia effectively prevented possible attempts by other nations to enforce claims. Such a course of action matters in international law; undoubtedly, that behaviour of the USA and Russia helped pave the way towards the Antarctic Treaty. Apcbg 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

South Orkney Islands

The map that states which countries have claimed the various parts of Antarcta, seems to be inaccurate. It states that the South Orkney Islands is controlled by Argentina which it most certainly is not! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.164.165 (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

South Orkney Islands

The map that states which countries have claimed the various parts of Antarcta, seems to be inaccurate. It states that the South Orkney Islands is controlled by Argentina which it most certainly is not! Please could you explain this and correct it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.164.165 (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

The map says no such thing. It shows an Argentine station on those islands, like it shows several stations of other stations elsewhere. The claims are marked by coloured delimitation lines. Apcbg 19:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Gabriel de Castilla

USer:Xareu bs added [9], sourcing this to http://www.elmundo.es/elmundo/2007/01/10/ciencia/1168421707.html. Which I can't read as its in Spanish. Gabriel de Castilla doesn't mention it. It looks entirely speculative to me, and the google translation [10] says the same: Also it is where is the island Livingston, chosen by Spain to install his first scientific base in 1988, located next to the beach where it assumes that they went to stop the shipwrecks of the “Gabriel de Castilla”, ship of the Spanish Navy that at the end of century XVIII was dragged by a weather. Those Spaniards to whom the Antártida swallowed could be, against their will, the first settlers. Spain has been looking for for years the test of that event, but not yet it has been. William M. Connolley 12:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, there are blank spots in the early history of Antarctica, conjectures accepted by some historians and rejected by others while supported by very scarce or virtually nonexistant historical evidence. The quoted article however is not even in that category; unfortunately its author has messed everything up: Gabriel de Castilla was person not ship, he did not wreck in Antarctica but returned safely, and he did not live in the XVIII but in XVI-XVII Centuries. All that is known about his voyage to the south is a couple of sentences recording evidence by a Dutch sailor who took part in it. Nothing and nobody (excepting the confused author of that article) relates Gabriel de Castilla with any wreckage at any particular island (he didn't wreck after all). Yes Spanish archeologists have been doing research on Livingston Island (cf. Livingston Island:History) for some years, for good reasons too, looking for evidence of the Spanish gunship San Telmo lost in September 1819 together with its crew and troops numbering 644 men. Nothing to do with Gabriel de Castilla though. Apcbg 14:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot (obrigado) for this information. I found it very interesting.--Xareu bs 14:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete request for Província Brasileira na Antartica

I've deleted the recent edits by Stokage, which added a mention of a supposed Brazilian claim between (the editor's text) "250°E to 300°E" (?!?). I've also asked for a speedy delete of the article Província Brasileira na Antartica (created today by the same editor) on the following basis:

"There is no evidence on Google or reputable Antarctic pages; the article contradicts Brazil Antarctic Geopolitics, itself cited for contradicting Antarctic territorial claims; the article contains what appear to be nonsense claims about thousands of inhabitants, snowboard championships, and a village of five thousand people named "Qjaskwalla"."

If anyone knows of any reason why this should be taken seriously, please let me know, and I'll pull the SD request. However, given the number of apparent fallacies in the article, and the amount of vandalism that occurs here, it seems pretty suspicious. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

That article is a joke of course; there is no Brazilian sovereignty claim but a declared 'zone of interest' (not much promoted) which is in Western Antarctica, very far from the funny claim. Apcbg 08:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree there is no Brazilian claim William M. Connolley 09:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

BA!

1.6?

In one section it ssys that the average thickness of the ice sheet is 1.6 Km, in another 1.6 Miles. Does anyone know the correct thickness of the ice sheet?Richbank 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)richbank

Hello! I think this might be difficult to pin down (given the estimated volume of ice) and, hence, sources vary: a perusal of these sources indicates: "1.6 km (1 mi)", "6,500 ft (2,000 m)", "1.5 miles (2.45 km)", and (vaguely) "thousands of feet thick". My geographical dictionary indicates that the ice sheet averages 1 mi (1.6 km) in thickness. To be safe yet accurate, I revised the introduction to read "at least 1.6 km", which is accurate no matter what value is ultimately correct. Quizatz Haderach 13:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely there is some uncertainty, but just saying 'at least 1.6 km' seems to give it too much uncertainty. If you take the numbers for ice volume from Climate of Antarctica and divide by the ice-sheet area you get 2.45 km, and even if you divide that volume by the area of the continent, including rock and ice shelves, you get about 2.1 km. I would suggest 'between 2.0 and 2.5 km', or at least 'between 1.6 and 2.5 km' to put an upper limit on it. Any objections/suggestions? StephenHudson 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm; I would suggest including an agreeable figure we can cite. The above lesser figure is from a geographical dictionary (and the current version at least provides for some wiggle room); I would not object to revising figures based on the morphometric data (from Drewry, 1983) in the Climate of Antarctica article -- 2.16 km, representing the average thickness of the sheet which includes ice shelves and rises -- or another authority and updating said figures wherever they might appear. Since we are dealing with an average, though, I'd much prefer to indicate '(around) x', 'at least x', or 'x +/-y' as opposed to 'between a and b'. Quizatz Haderach 21:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have since made editions of 'around 2.2 km' in a number of spots. Quizatz Haderach 00:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

1850 m: Matthew B. Lythe, David G. Vaughan, and the Consortium BEDMAP (2001). "BEDMAP: A new ice thickness and subglacial topographic model of Antarctica". JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH. 106 (B6): 11335–11352.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Same source gives a volume of 25.4 million km^3, which is notably lower than the 1983 work cited in Climate of Antarctica. Dragons flight 05:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Maybe in light of this, I'll defer to my prior comments/position and not have to pull my hair out too much. :) Quizatz Haderach 05:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Antarctic Flora

I removed the link to the Antarctic Flora article. That is a paleobotanical article about trees etc that lived on Antarctica a long time ago, not about current flora of Antarctica. Ordinary Person 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Someone put the link back in... Stop doing that! The section is about the Flora of Antarctica. The palaeobotanical article "Antarctic Flora" is about a particular botanical development tens of millions of years ago. It is not appropriate to have a link to that article in this section. Perhaps a good idea would be to create a separate detailed article, perhaps called Flora Of Antarctica, in which more detail on that topic can be added. Ordinary Person 06:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The Image

If you look at the picture of Antarctia without it's ice-shield, it looks like a bunch of Islands. If you go somewhere here on the Wiki, you'll find information about Antarctica stating that in millions of years, the islands will become a lush rainforest. But the thing is, the Scientists didn't think about continents/islands colliding, creating mountainous areas.

Recently discovered predator?

I thought I read in the papers some years ago of a newly discovered predator in Antarctica. It has a forehead and snout richly supplied with blood vessels, and has a high body temperature. It uses that to help burrow through ice. Apparently, a group of them will go burrowing under the ice where a penguin is standing, undermining it until the penguin falls through. Then they attack and eat the penguin. Can anybody shed any light? 140.147.160.78 16:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

This is nonsense. Dragons flight 17:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You are thinking of the fictional Hotheaded Naked Ice Borers. This was a hoax perpetrated by Discover Magazine in its April 1995 issue: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/aprilfool/comments/864/ Wbrameld 06:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh great! You're absolutely right. I followed that link, and I remember that picture. OK, I've been had. 72.66.108.162 03:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Turns out the Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer has a Wikipedia article. So I've linked your reference to it. Thanks for sorting me out (hangs head in shame). 72.66.108.162 03:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

references

Does anyone mind if I convert the existing references to use the Wikipedia:Citation templates? Mahanga^{Talk to me} 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 17:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Which ocean?

After some back-and-forth between Southern Ocean and World Ocean, the lead now refers to the "big three" for clarity. The term "World Ocean" isn't terribly common, especially for the general public. Personally, I prefer leaving "Southern Ocean", but if there is consensus that it is not official, I think "Pacific" etc. is more helpful. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the prior wording. All these details are in the Geography section of the article -- in the introduction, we do not need to complicate and repeat everything that's noted elsewhere. This is a concise article about the continent, and it is important to demonstrate that Antarctica is surrounded by one and/or three oceans. The fact that the terms World Ocean (or global ocean) may be uncommon is beside the point, and this is debatable since typical definitions for 'ocean' indicate it being a continuous body of water surrounding the Earth -- that article merely iterates and elaborates the same point accurately (listing and exhibiting the major oceanic constituents) and may be of similar utility to readers. As well, the term Southern Ocean, while it may be more common and precise, remains unofficial. I am open to tweaking the introductory wording, though. Quizatz Haderach 01:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed "World Ocean" in favour of the more generic "Pacific/Atlantic/Indian" for now. "World" being less common is directly relevant to this discussion - there is no point in using an unfamiliar term when we can do better. Before we restore either version, though, it would be best to see what other editors think. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The point is the current version is not better and excludes other equally valid interpretations -- the Southern Ocean may not have official status but is nonetheless fairly common, and the current version is rather inaccurate if that is taken into account (i.e., it may not be washed upon by the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans). The use of World Ocean is impartial and all-inclusive no matter how one interprets the concept: one may consider it to comprise one ocean, include just the three 'big' ones, those plus the Arctic, and or those plus the Southern Ocean. I invite added input; when timely, though, I propose and am prepared to merely edit in 'surrounded by the (southern)(waters of the)(global) ocean' or similar, since all details are already in the Geography section below. Thoughts? Quizatz Haderach 02:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not accurate to say that "World Ocean" is impartial, especially if you're downplaying "Southern Ocean" on the basis that it isn't "official". ("World Ocean" would seem to have even less of a formal standing.) I would suggest leaving the current version (listing the three majors) pending input, as it at least has the benefit of being easily understood by the majority of readers. "Surrounded by the (global) ocean" would just make the lead more vague. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, World Ocean (or global ocean) is the most impartial and accurate, it's just the least common. Other variants to date -- including the current lead -- may be more common but are unsatisfactory and arguably inaccurate. I'd rather be vague than that and, again, details are in the section below. I invite added input but needn't wait for it; per above, I will be changing the lead when timely. Quizatz Haderach 02:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you claim it's "the most impartial", when the term itself doesn't appear to have any official standing? Even the discussion at the Ocean article had questions as to whether that term was overrepresented in the article's lead. I would strongly suggest that it would be best to wait for additional input, in the interests of achieving consensus. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing it and I invite added input, but I am not sitting on my hands. A number of reliable sources have been provided regarding the concept of the global ocean (use lower case if you will), and yet others allude to this in their definitions of ocean ( [11] [12]). And there is no consensus for the current version (which is arguably inaccurate) as opposed to others, so (when timely) I will boldly edit with this in mind ... Quizatz Haderach 03:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think waiting a few days for input from other editors is considered "sitting on your hands" - especially when what you are proposing is, in your own terms, "vague" and "uncommon". If you have a solid, reputable organization using the term (and not just alluding to it) that is one thing. However, removing text that is clear and understandable, and replacing it with something vague and unofficial, may not be the best approach. (Sorry to be blunt.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The text remains inaccurate and unclear (particularly for those who contend for the existence of not just the 'big three oceans'), so I'm doing no disservice in replacing it and being more precise. And (sorry to be blunt) but, even though days haven't passed yet, you haven't apparently taken the time to consult the references in the articles which clearly use the terms or to understand the concepts therein. For instance, the link for the UN Atlas of the Oceans clearly uses the term World Ocean numerous times and also indicates the term Southern Ocean is unofficial; the entry for "ocean" in the Columbia Encyclopedia also describes the "ocean" that way (title in upper case, though lower case in text); other related references also live on that same webpage, including entries which define it as a 'single continuous body of water'. And the various viewpoints already live in the Geography section of the article. Until you can clearly demonstrate why the versions you have added should be maintained, I see little reason to. Quizatz Haderach 02:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

As well, this germane journal article entitled "Maps of the whole world ocean" indicates the following upfront: "That the world ocean is a continuous body of water with relatively free interchange between its parts is of fundamental importance to oceanography." Quizatz Haderach 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's no consensus on what to call the surrounding ocean, how about we avoid naming it at all (at least in the lead section)? Instead we could simply describe it: "Antarctica is surrounded by frigid and tempestuous ocean waters" or something similar. -- Avenue 04:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer that (or similar) to the current version, which is arguably inaccurate anyway. Quizatz Haderach 01:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is under discussion, I've placed Avenue's text in for now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have tweaked it somewhat ("frigid and tempestuous" sounds unencyclopedic to me and is otherwise not really useful); however, please note that other attempts to equitably reconcile various viewpoints have yet been unsatisfactory, and (unless otherwise demonstrated) may be changed again shortly. Quizatz Haderach 06:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please focus on the discussion, and avoid overdoing the links to Wikipedia guidelines. Repeated suggestions that opposition to your preferred choice reflects a POV stance won't help to resolve this matter. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Your ignorance of links to cited information during this discussion and insistence on substandard, subjective text without real backing will not solve this matter, either. And I have provided a number of reasoned choices based on citations, whereas you have not and are simply being argumentative. Until you discuss matters within the norms of Wikipedia guidelines and something new arises, I can't reply to your commentary further and will wait a few days before changing the article. A bientot. Quizatz Haderach 14:11, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Quizatz, where I take issue with your position is in your insistence on using the term "World Ocean" as if it were the "name" of the ocean. This article is about the continent of Antarctica, and we are discussing the body (or bodies) of water that surround it. I have already looked through the links you suggested, and some others as well. "World ocean" is used as a concept, and as an expression of how the waters are not separate and distinct - not as the name. Based on your arguments here, we would need to go through every article relating to land masses and reword them - for example, saying that North America and Europe are separated by the World Ocean instead of by the Atlantic. Obviously, that's not going to happen - but why should Antarctica be treated any differently than the other continents? The uncertainty here lies in whether to refer to the surrounding waters as the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, or as the Southern/Antarctic Ocean. Your argument that using P/A/I is possibly incorrect is tied to the "Southern" question - either it is the Southern Ocean, or it is not. We can't say that P/A/I is incorrect, and then say that the reason it is considered incorrect is "unofficial" and thus incorrect. I certainly have no problem with the concept of the "world ocean" for the purposes of understanding the interconnected nature of Earth's water. After all, it only makes sense, much like we wouldn't consider the presence of political borders to affect geological processes. However, "World Ocean" is not the name of a body of water - and treating it as such will only create confusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, your continual reversion of MY prior comments on this talk page will be reverted -- I alone will refactor my comments (and have), and otherwise stand by them.

Second, I have taken issue with your position and your arguments. Antarctica should be treated differently than other continents because, given its location, it alone is surrounded by those unique, southerly oceanic waters that may be referred to in a number of ways. While Southern Ocean is fairly common and not inaccurate (I've no basic objection to using it), it remains unofficial; considering this, noting that Antarctica is surrounded by the 'big three oceans' would be inaccurate -- thus, neither can or should be noted on their own. (So, yes, solely using one or the other may be partial and incorrect.) On the other hand, usage of ('southerly') world ocean (upper or lower case) -- while it may be relatively uncommon -- IS a certainty (reference where the term is used in direct relation to Antarctic oceanography), unquestionably accurate, and (given the above) most impartial. Even so, it is also accurately used as a name for the ocean in toto, and some of the sources provided render it that way (i.e., in upper case) -- this may be somewhat akin to the variable rendition of 'Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.' And please note that I do not insist on capitalising the term (a prior conciliatory edit rendered global ocean in lower case) or using it solely, but I insist that it somehow be included in the lead. Reputable sources HAVE been provided throughout that use the term (as requested) and as a name, so (yes) you continue to glaze over those or pass them off. Thus, unless you or someone else has something else to add, I will be changing the lead to reflect this simply and impartially. Quizatz Haderach 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not "reverting your comments" - I am removing material I consider personally insulting, and will continue to do so, as is my right per Wikipedia guidelines. The alternative would be to issue a warning to you about keeping discussions focused on the subject, and not the people involved. However, I really do not want to have to resort to such formal steps, and would rather pursue this as a civil discussion. If you wish to restate the offending material yourself, I would certainly appreciate it as it would avoid this back-and-forth cycle. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have remained focused on the topic ... and I will continue to restore these deletions of comments. Simply put, you have been argumentative throughout, asking for references or making assertions while ignoring references since provided or pointed out that have addressed them ... all the while, providing none. Don't perpetuate mis/perceptions by continuing them -- if you want to not be 'insulted', demonstrate that you're paying attention or don't comment. I will comment hereafter only when necessary. And if you continue to remove comments while being polemic, that may constitute disruption and will be dealt with appropriately. Quizatz Haderach 19:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, don't make this personal. I have been listening to your point of view, and I have been responding to it. This is not worth arguing over. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you listening? YOU are making it personal: pay attention and don't ask for references for notions that have already been provided or pointed out repeatedly. Quizatz Haderach 19:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You're really being quite unfair. You're completely disregarding my concerns about the insinuations you've made against me, and you have also repeatedly rewritten your comments above to make your replies look "better" after the fact. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Unfair? Please: I am merely copyediting MY comments to more clearly demonstrate my points or to correct for typos. If you are unable or unwilling to do the same or to substantiate the issues at play, that's not my concern. And I am not disregarding anything -- it is because of your concerns that I have had to reiterate notions, and will continue to call them as I see them. Anyhow, until you demonstrate a clear reason for remaining argumentative, I am ending my involvement in this discussion. Quizatz Haderach 20:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You might wish to read this Wikipedia guideline about talk page etiquette, which states "Changing or deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context.". The section also outlines ways in which to avoid those problems. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted, and I'll perhaps use the draft feature more, but this is merely a guideline (as indicated atop that page) and notions expressed herein remain unchanged. Quizatz Haderach 20:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ocean/World Ocean/something else

This has been going back and forth between Quizatz Haderach and me for a few days - I'd like to hear what others think. If it works for the editors, I'd suggest that QH and I keep our discussion to the previous section, and this new section be reserved for thoughts and comments from the rest of the group. (As such, I'm not going to post my opinion here.) The question: How to refer to the waters surrounding the Antarctic. Is it the "world ocean" (or variations on that theme), the "Southern Ocean" (or Antarctic Ocean or other related terms), the southern waters of the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian oceans, or something different? Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

What "correctness" it has, I don't know, but I would usually refer to it as the Southern Ocean. Just my 2 cents. Dragons flight 20:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I will iterate the issue here, but briefly. The challenge is how to describe this accurately, yet equitably and concisely in the introduction. Antarctica is unique among the continents because, given its location, it alone is surrounded by those southerly oceanic waters that may be referred to in a number of ways. Above all, the ocean is noted in various texts as a single, continuous body of water subdivided into a number of principal components (the three-plus commonly-named oceans). While Southern Ocean is fairly common and not inaccurate, it remains unofficial (according to the UN Atlas of the Oceans); the last session of the International Hydrographic Organisation named the fifth ocean, but the basic draft hasn't been internationally approved yet. Considering this, noting that Antarctica is surrounded by the 'big three oceans' (Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian) may or may not also be correct. Thus, neither of these can or should be noted on their own.

On the other hand, noting that Antarctica is surrounded by the [southerly waters of the] world ocean (global ocean) (upper or lower case, which that article notes upfront) -- while relatively uncommon -- is certainly valid (reference where the term is used in direct relation to Antarctic oceanography), accurate, and (given the above) impartial. It is also accurately (though rarely) used as a name for the ocean in toto, and some of the sources provided throughout render it that way (i.e., upper case in the UN Atlas of the Oceans link above). While capitalising the term or using it solely is unnecessary (a prior conciliatory edit rendered global ocean in lower case with Southern Ocean), I believe this notion must somehow be included in the lead. Also, throughout, note that all of these perspectives are in the 'Geography' section of the article. Quizatz Haderach 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ocean is a valid official name recently approved by the authoritative international body responsible for the naming of ocean features, the IHO. Naturally, such changes take some time to find their place in publications that are updated infrequently, so the above references to editions preceding the IHO decision are misplaced — in my opinion anyway. Apcbg 09:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It may be a valid name, but without corroboration -- and I see none -- the assertion that it is official is disputed. The naming of Southern Ocean occurred in 2000. However, according to the IHO, the third edition of Limits of Oceans and Seas (1953) (which delimits bodies of water) "is the last approved edition; however, it needs revision and is out of print. ... A preliminary revision of [this publication], dated 1986, radically different from the 1953 version, is widely cited on Internet websites. [The CIA World Fact Book contains] some information from this draft, which has not yet been internationally approved." And in that listing of principal oceans and seas, the Southern Ocean remains unlisted. This also perhaps explains why Southern Ocean hasn't fully caught on yet and is still frequently not used or cited in publication -- e.g., the National Geographic Atlas of the Ocean (2001) treats the Southern Ocean as essentially a footnote. Anyhow, the UN ocean atlas above clearly and explicitly indicates it remains unofficial (and there's no reason to believe it's invalid), so contrassertions are -- well -- misplaced ... in my opinion anyway. And, this changes nothing: regardless, the current article notes this term and others to promote clarity. Quizatz Haderach 12:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The 1953 edition deals with the precise limits of the oceans and seas, it does not define oceans. The publication of a new edition is by no means a necessary condition for the IHO decision to come in force. The IHO decision is valid since its adoption. Your reference to a UN atlas is questionable as you fail to provide the date of publication of that atlas; by the way the quoted page in that atlas refers to yet another -- undated -- single source, the Russian hydrographic office. The statement in that Russian / then UN source was probablly valid when made, but you have to show that it is valid today which you haven't, and cannot, because the name is official by virtue of the IHO decision. There is no other authoritative body in the naming of ocean features but the IHO. I do not object to the present wording but to a faulty reasoning. Apcbg 13:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Upon digging, I believe the foreword of the UN atlas was written/translated in January 1998; I'm unsure of the rest of the content. Relatedly, however, this does not invalidate the term or notion of World Ocean ... which is one point of contention.

As well, your first point makes no sense and the basic premise of your argument is questionable. You contend that Limits of Oceans and Seas delimits, but strangely does not define, the oceans. Read the approved 1953 document carefully -- on p. 6, the IHO purposely "omitted" the Southern Ocean. While later decisions may have changed this, this has not been demonstrated clearly -- the burden of proof is on you and like editors to demonstrate that the term Southern Ocean is currently official and authoritative. Thus, please provide reputable references from the IHO defining the oceans and indicating that the term Southern Ocean is official. I see a lot of argumentation/supposition, but still nothing that directly supports this assertion -- and if this is incontrovertible, it shouldn't be difficult to cite. Second-hand sources may be insufficient, since a number of sources do name it as the fifth ocean and yet others -- current ones, despite challenges and your reasoning -- exclude it or indicate otherwise. Again, despite the dedicated entry in the current 2006 CIA World Fact Book, the parallel listing of oceans and seas from that volume (predicated on the 1986 IHO briefing, still unapproved) excludes it. Lastly, this raises the question of whether the IHO is truly authoritative in this respect (e.g., International Oceanographic Commission; Australian definition of the Southern Ocean which differs from that indicated above), so the only true virtue herein is that of patience.

In any event, I'm glad that the current wording is agreeable -- again, I've no real objection to noting Southern Ocean, but (given the above and attempts to reconcile apparently contradictory information) I challenge its authority and contend it can't be noted alone in the introduction in this context at this point. I will accept whatever a consensus arrives at and can be convinced otherwise, but that hasn't happened yet. :) Quizatz Haderach 18:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Southern Ocean is official now, per various organizations: [13]Mzmadmike (talk) 20:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

What a relief it has gone beyond just two eds - good to see others in there too - from a non expert and interested observor - I would vote for Southern Ocean SatuSuro 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SatuSuro as I've never heard of "World Ocean" in my life and, originating from the Northern Hemisphere, the name completely fails to convince me. :o) --Ibn Battuta 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK -- belatedly, I will relent from including this notion in the introduction of this article for now ... Thanks for the feedback. Quizatz Haderach 00:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

image really at night?

inverse night? or just a day?

I'm wondering about the image of the Endurance at "night"... Yes, I know it says it's a night photograph both in the caption and at the Library of Congress page... but...

• The image is remarkably well-lit; even the mast's of the ship, considerably further away than the foreground, are still very bright
• I'm not familiar enough with the history of flashes, but at least the magnesium-potassium flashes supposedly were prone to exploding; I don't know if Shackleton would've wanted that on his ship (but maybe the ingredients could be transported separately and then be mixed on the spot?); or else he maybe still used the magnesium-only flashes, again, I don't know enough, but wonder...
• The light clearly comes from the side; now, that could be due to the fact that the early flashes were just material that burnt for several seconds--so Shackleton (or whoever took the photograph) maybe just had someone light it there because of the effect on shades etc.; again, the view of an "expert" on the history of flashes would seem interesting; at least, the large angle between the photographer's view and the light source are remarkable.
• Old pictures are sometimes filed as inverse images (don't know why, maybe they just got the negatives, whatever)
• The picture simply looks just as good when inverted--dark foreground, which could be explained by the light conditions, but apart from that, simply a regular picture during daytime.

So much for my musings. Any ideas? --Ibn Battuta 15:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Either way - what's that something behind the ship?

Thanks for your streams of consciousness! :o) I've asked at the Commons, and having found that the expedition has taken at least some night photographs, it might actually be one of them... Just to satisfy your insatiate appetite for information about this picture. --Ibn Battuta 19:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

If the photo was taken during the Antarctic summer, there would have been daylight in the nighttime hours. ---Ransom (--69.105.84.54 23:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC))

ANTARCTICA POPULATION

There is in fact a stable population of about 130 people living in the Antarctic pensinsula. It is called "Villa Las Estrellas", and it is a chilean settlement. You OUGHT to put this information in this article. And it´s not vandalism. Here is the article in spanish: Villa Las Estrellas es junto a la base argentina "Esperanza", la única población estable en la Antártica. Fue inaugurada el 9 de abril de 1984, y pertenece a Chile. Forma parte del complejo de la Base Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva, dependiente de la Fuerza Aérea de Chile, el que está conformado por el Centro Meteorológico Antártico Presidente Eduardo Frei Montalva, la Base Aérea Teniente Rodolfo Marsh Martin y la Villa Las Estrellas. La villa está compuesta por aproximadamente 15 casas que habitan familias de funcionarios de la Fuerza Aérea de Chile, de la Dirección General de Aeronáutica Civil, científicos y profesores, todos los cuales permanecen entre uno y dos años en el lugar. La población varía de unos 80 habitantes en invierno a más de 150 en verano. La villa sirve como cabecera de la comuna Antártica Chilena, la que junto a la comuna de Cabo de Hornos, forman la provincia Antártica Chilena. Para los efectos administrativos y electorales, la comuna Antártica, forma una agrupación comunal con la de Cabo de Hornos, por lo que no elige autoridades propias. Infraestructura Entre sus instalaciones la villa cuenta con: Escuela F-50 "Villa Las Estrellas": dos profesores son los responsables de impartir la educación primaria (1º a 8º grado de Enseñanza General Básica) a los aproximadamente 15 niños de Villa Las Estrellas, en esta escuela que depende del Ministerio de Educación. Cuentan con el apoyo de modernos equipos de computación, lo que le permite estar incorporada a la Red Enlaces. Hospital: depende de la Fuerza Aérea de Chile y cuenta en forma permanente con un médico y un enfermero. Está dotado de moderno instrumental: equipo de rayos X, laboratorio, quirófano, equipo de anestesia, esterilizador y farmacia. Hay dos camas para hospitalizados y se dispone de una clínica dental. Mediante un proyecto tecnológico que se está implementando recientemente con personal del Instituto Antártico Chileno y de la Universidad de Chile, en casos de urgencia -mediante un enlace satelital- se pueden enviar fotografías de afecciones a la piel o de anomalías oculares, imágenes de electrocardiogramas, radiografías, etc., a centros de salud especializados ubicados en Santiago, o entidades de Argentina, Alemania e Italia, vinculados al proyecto, los que colaboran en el diagnóstico y sugieren el tratamiento. El equipamiento que dispone el hospital permite efectuar ciertas operaciones de urgencia. Oficina de Correos: esta oficina depende de la Empresa de Correos de Chile y durante el verano es atendida por uno de sus funcionarios; en invierno, está a cargo del comandante de la base. Toda la correspondencia dirigida a las bases chilenas y extranjeras del sector llega a las dependencias de Punta Arenas y desde allí es remitida a la Villa Las Estrellas. Aquí, el encargado la clasifica y distribuye vía avión o helicóptero a sus destinatarios. Por su parte, la correspondencia que sale de la Antártica se centraliza en esta base y se remite a Punta Arenas desde donde se distribuye a las diferentes ciudades y países. Bancos: una sucursal del Banco de Crédito e Inversiones opera durante todo el año a cargo de un funcionario de esa entidad bancaria. Los servicios allí prestados sirven a nacionales y exranjeros, normalmente científicos, que depositan o giran dinero habitualmente. También existe una sucursal del BancoEstado. Iglesia: hay una capilla católica, ("Santa María Reina de la Paz") que es visitada por los habitantes de las diversas bases de la isla Rey Jorge. Gimnasio: de moderna construcción, ofrece facilidades para la práctica del tenis, beibifútbol, básquetbol y vóleibol. Dispone de máquinas de ejercicios, mesas de ping pong, camarines y sauna. Andarivel: un andarivel de arrastre de cien metros de largo permite desarrollar actividades de ski en las cercanías de la base. Supermercado: abastecido de los alimentos necesarios, es utilizado principalmente por las familias de Villa Las Estrellas. Biblioteca Pública Nº 291: cuenta con un significativo número de libros y revistas que están a disposición de quien lo requiera. Radio F.M. "Soberanía": emite en la frecuencia de 90.5 MHz. Funciona durante el día proporcionando música e informaciones a todas las bases del sector. Difunde también ciertos programas culturales y de entretención realizados por el personal y sus familias. Hostería "Estrella Polar": se ubica en las cercanías del aeródromo y tiene capacidad para 80 personas. Es utilizada por personal de la Fuerza Aérea, visitas y científicos nacionales o extranjeros. Bazar: una pequeña tienda de venta de recuerdos es administrada por algunas de las señoras de la villa; el producto de las ventas es a beneficio del Consejo Nacional de Protección a la Ancianidad (CONAPRAN). Oficina del Servicio de Registro Civil e Identificación de Chile: el jefe de la base, dado el caso, se desempeña como oficial de Registro Civil con todas las atribuciones inherentes a este cargo. Teléfonos: para la base y el aeródromo, existe enlace telefónico via satélite; además, para los habitantes del sector hay un teléfono público operado con monedas y tarjetas de prepago. Antena de telefonía móvil: desde 2005 existe una antena de telefonía móvil perteneciente a la empresa chilena Entel PCS. Servicio de Internet. Estación repetidora de Televisión Nacional de Chile.

Our article at Villa Las Estrellas states that it is a research base - albiet one with some families - and is listed at List of research stations in Antarctica. I'm not sure why it would require specific mention on the main Antarctica page. -- Chuq (talk) 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re Unclaimed Territory

Not knocking the article. I learn a lot. In any event, the article contains this sentence (which is, of course, footnoted to its source): “The area between 90°W and 150°W is the only part of Antarctica, indeed the only solid land on Earth, not claimed by any country.” I can think of an exception to this: the West Bank (exclusive of East Jerusalem, which, whether one agrees with the claim or not, is at least claimed by Israel). Wikipedia's own article on the West Bank notes: “From 1948 until 1967, the area was under Jordanian rule, though Jordan did not officially relinquish its claim to the area until 1988. It has been occupied by Israel following the conclusion of the Six-Day War.[1] With the exception of East Jerusalem, it was not annexed by Israel. The West Bank is currently considered under international law to be de jure a territory not part of any state.” No other country--not even Israel (with the exception noted) or Jordan -- claims the West Bank territory as being de jure its own. Perhaps the exception could be noted... some student someplace will cite the Wikipedia for the proposition that this wedge of Antarctica is the only unclaimed solid land on earth... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.197.146.171 (talk • contribs).

The sentence remains correct in spirit, since the State of Palestine claims the West Bank (among other areas). The State of Palestine is also one of the countries included in our List_of_countries, so it's not clear to me that the sentence is even technically incorrect. But if you'd prefer some other wording, please feel free to suggest it. -- Avenue 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The size of california just melted in antartica

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/16/antarctica.melting.reut/index.html wow yeah wow, call me a sceptic, but, if 2007 satellite technology were available in the year 1850 or 1750 or any other 50 what's to say they wouldn't show exactly the same thing?! That ICE melts, and re-freezes, even huge chunks the size of California!. A few modern, pretty, colourful fancy graphs and the argument is done and dusted. Or just spin it for the ratings doom and gloom cable-network style. I'm not saying for a minute that global warming isn't happening presently, it has to be going some direction, the Earth is warming or cooling in cycles, and they're a lot longer than 30 year cycles.--Dean1970 04:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC) p.s please sign your edits. Thanks.

Polar ocean 'soaking up less CO2'

even more bad news http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm

Religion?

Should there be a blurb about religion? I seem to recall at least one Russian Orthodox Church on Antarctica. 71.93.238.14 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Here it is - Trinity Church, Antarctica. I added it to the See Also.71.93.238.14 22:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done an article entitled "Religion in Antarctica" that covers most aspects of this. If someone could link to it from the Antarctica main article (probably under "population" or under a new section "religion" or "demographics") it would be appreciated... Thanks. Gdr05a (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I added a link to Religion in Antarctica in the article on demographics, which describes the people there. -- SEWilco (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page receive so much vandalism?

It's not a particularly obvious vandalism target. Any theories?--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 14:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

IF the ice caps were to melt the whole world will be under water...and globle warming couses them to mealt and indestry couses glouble warming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.156.197 (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Dogs not allowed on Antarctica

I watched a TV series about modern remakes of the Amundsen & Scott expeditions, using the original equipment, clothes, sleigh dogs, etc, but where the actual trip took place on Greenland since dogs (they claimed) are not allowed on Antarctica. Is this correct? Does anybody know why? --KYN 18:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Because no alien species whatsoever are allowed in Antarctica, the sole exception (partial) being Homo Sapiens. Apcbg 19:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the background of this "alien species" ban, who made the decicion, why and when? --KYN 20:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

There appear to be two parts to the dog and alien species ban. The ban on alien species is to keep them from taking hold in an environment that has evolved without them (if polar bears were introduced to the Antarctic coast and they managed to survive, they could devastate the penguin population, which raise their young unprotected on the ice since they have no natural predators out of the water). Introduced species have caused environmental problems around the world. For some time dogs were exempted (humans and food still are), but then there was concern that canine diseases might be transmitted to seals, leading to the removal of all dogs by 1994. Read more on these British Antarctic Survey pages: [14] and [15]. StephenHudson 02:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The survey pages were very enlightening, thanks! --KYN 08:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)