Talk:Marie Byrd Land

US Antarctica?!?
I refer enquirers to my comments on the talk page of Antarctic territorial claims. 80.68.39.212 14:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC) Raymi.

New Zealand Claims not Universally Recognized
I've changed "The portion west of 150°W is part of Ross Dependency of New Zealand." to "The portion west of 150°W is part of Ross Dependency claimed by New Zealand." I assume that's the NPOV, but let me know if you think otherwise. Sowelilitokiemu (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2020
This legal documents entitles Marie Byrd Land to be renamed as specified under the strict order of the king himself.

Updated Map Of Zona: Please edit this protected post on behalf of the king himself. Governmentofzona (talk) 07:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No we don't add made up claims. KylieTastic (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What's to stop someone say myself (Mingus Casey), from simply stating in front of various military power representatives that Marie Byrd land is mine? Say I did that, and authorised legitimate science, and clean energy, and of course, basic needs for survival, what then?
 * Should there be a section in the article about that? 202.124.109.203 (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

1 Year protection… needlessly preventing legitimate editings!
Hello,

I find this 1-year-duration pretty ridiculous! The previous protection was done so many years before, nothing justifies such a new 1 year protection (in the history, I see very few vandalisms in July 2019 & just a bit more in December 2018), as it prevents so many legitimate editions from good willing recent or anonymous users! Honestly, in such situations, a legitimate protection of a week, maybe a month if vandalisms were coming back more frequently was a valid answer to the vandalism waves, but 1-year-duration, honestly, it's an abuse of the protection system! And globally it's counter-productive to the good functionning of the wikipedian principles! 1-year-duration should be reserved to popular articles that are constantly vandalized, and keep being vandalized again & again after every end of short-term protections.

BTW : For a start, I wanted to add the following link: WAIS Divide. But the protection duration removed me the will to try any further thinking about how to improve this article. Feel free to apply the edition yourself, if you have the right doing so and the willing to improve the article.

Yours,

2A02:2788:22A:100D:4169:D178:FCCC:5DDD (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Boundaries
Hi, can someone point me in the direction of a source for the boundaries? I've seen some maps that use 90°W to 150°W. Many thanks! NeutronStop (talk) 03:13, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

update and improve MBL
Comments welcome on my plan to do this. I see a lack of geographic and geologic information and some errors. For example, The Ellsworth Mountains are not in MBL. I also would like to do some rearranging with Popular culture placed last, and add a section on Further reading along with See also. I have done research in MBL and visited it five times. Apparently, there are controversies about boundaries stated on this page. I don't have a stake in that and won't edit anything until the BGN GNIS search functions are back online. BrucePL (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

"Discovery" of Marie Byrd Land and its naming.
The second paragraph under Exploration can be improved. First of all, citing Rodgers' book (in refs) and the NYT in refs, Dean Smith and crew first saw the east interior or what would be called Marie Byrd Land on a flight on February 18, 1929. After this, Byrd did a radio interview with the NYT (published February 21, 1929; in refs), that names the new lands seen by Smith and crew Marie Byrd Land. The second significant flight eastward was on December 5, 1929, piloted by Alton Parker, where a greater eastward extent of Marie Byrd Land was seen. Byrd was on that flight. In a Geographic Review article (cited by Rodgers) Byrd "implied" that this was the flight that revealed Marie Byrd Land, setting himself up for the credit of discovery, not Smith. Only the facts of the story are worthy of inclusion; Smith's crew saw the interior February 1929, Parker's crew with Byrd found a greater extent of MBL on December 5 1929. Comments? BrucePL (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Terra Nullis
The article seems to neglect to offer an explanation of why MBL is unclaimed by any nation; the casual reader is left thinking "Why doesn't my country just claim it?" - I assume a good source can be found offering the explanation (which I infer is simply the ATS requirement that any signatory cannot raise new land claims that did not exist before 1961?). Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Pitcairn
It should be mentioned that the centre of the land is opposite Pitcairn. --95.24.65.132 (talk) 02:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Elaborate or risk being removed. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)