 | Antarctica Template‑class | ||||||
| |||||||
Brazil doesn't actually make a claim on Antarctica. And where is the evidence that South Africa did? Astrotrain 23:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I added these things in 3 different edits, so that you don't revert all at once and only the appropriate. Reasons for add - in changes history. Alinor 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- This is a navigational template and not the place to dicsuss Antarctica. The sole point is to direct readers to the different articles on the country's claim. As USA or Russia do not claim Antarctica, they don't have an article on the subject, so can't go in here. South Africa has never claimed Antarctica- it is misleading to have it here. Astrotrain 13:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- Countries that never made a claim obviously don't belong in the list (certainly applies to US & Russia). Another matter are those mentioned at http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Antarctica.html#Brazil - Brazil made an 'informal' claim, which is a claim (none is more then a declaration, no power every held any effective control; all other claims are equally frozen), but since you insist on the (rather hollow, but technically correct) distinction, I'll give it an explicit label as such. Since it is not certain if South Africa has made a (former) claim (but NOT certain it didn't) I hesitate, but 'freeze' this case till we may know more (which should then first be mentioned on a page to link to) Fastifex 07:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- The Brazil claim is INFORMAL, so it has no legal value. It is only a 1986 suggestion by the then ruling government in Brazil. Is this suggestion still supported by the current government? Hard to be sure, because they don't have to "denounce" it officialy, because it was informal in the first place. Also this "informal" claim was made AFTER Brazil already signed the Antarctic Treaty, of course without recognising claims already made, but WITHOUT whitholding the right to make a claim in the future (as US/USSR did). And wait, now I readed this in the article: "was never an official Brazilian government position, but it was widely accepted by Brazilian geopoliticians". So this "informal claim" is not even informal - there is no such thing. This is only a wishfull thinking between some people (albeit "geopolititians") in Brazil. If we start this way we should maybe add every nation that has research stations - if some of its people think that this is "our place" (the station). I think that we should remove the "informal" category. Alinor 08:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I would insist instead to include USA and Russia, because they are the last states (not counting non-signatories to the ATS) that MAY make some claim. The reasons for excluding them are that they have not done so till now and that this is only a navigational template to lead to appropriate articles (and general Russia/USA articles are not appropriate, I agree. It is better to have some explanatory info about their antarctic claim-right reserve - reasons for them to ask such thing, reasons for the others original signatories to accept this WHITOUT reciprocial right-reserve for them, etc.) Alinor 08:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I can find no evidence of any South African claim. I can find no evidence of any Brazilian claim, until such evidence is found, and actual articles exist for these claims- they can't appear on the template. The possibilities of such claims cannot be discussed in a template. Astrotrain 17:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
===>There are references and an article The template links to the Brazilian article. What more do you need? - Justin (koavf), talk 23:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Have you actually seen the Brazilian page? It isn't actually called Brazilian Antarctica, and confirms there is no claim by the Brazilian government on any territory under the Antarctic Treaty. Plus no South African article exists, and there is no reference to a reputable source to support any historical claim. I have atlases of the region from the period of the stated claim which do not show South Africa. Astrotrain 18:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
===>Why should this template be different than the article? If the article mentions Brazil's Zone of Interest, why wouldn't this template? - Justin (koavf), talk 18:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've removed it from the article, as there is no well documented proof of a Brazil Zone of Interest. Astrotrain 19:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
===>That's funny I put "Brazil Antarctica 'Zone of Interest'" into Yahoo! and found the following resources:
Do you need an article from the Academic Journal of Antartic Geopolitical Studies or something? - Justin (koavf), talk 01:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Whatever these unreputable websites state:
- A zone of interest is not a territory; is not considered a legal entity; and is not considered a declaration of sovereignty.
- An unverified, unknown claim is not a territory. How can you have a territory if no one knows where it is?
Astrotrain 15:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that Sweden had made territorial claims in Antarctica. Can anyone provide documentation for this? -- Nidator T / C 11:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Its actually Norway. It's called Queen Maud Land.-- 76.88.243.13 ( talk) 15:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
As Australia has the various named territories included in this template under the main Australian Antarctic Territory article, I have added Queen Elizabeth Land under the British Antarctic Territory article. Dunarc ( talk) 21:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)