Talk:Queen Maud Land/Archive 1

Requested move February 2006

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move proposal February 2006
Dronning Maud Land → Queen Maud Land : So far as the proposer is aware, it is generally known as "Queen Maud Land" to English-speaking people and appears on the maps he has seen as such.

Voting
Please add * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using " ~ "
 * Support. David Kernow 15:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (proposer)
 * Oppose. Actually, it's known to English-speaking people by both names. "Dronning Maud Land" seems to be somewhat more common though. --Zundark 15:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First time I've heard/read it thus; but in that case, shouldn't "Land" become "Landjorka"? At present the title seems to be a mixture of Norwegian and English, but I'm not sure. Regards, David Kernow 16:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment about "Landjorka", and "Dronning Maud Landjorka" gets zero hits on Google. As far as I know, Dronning Maud Land is the Norwegian name (see the interlanguage links in the article). But that is really beside the point: what is important as far as this vote is concerned that Dronning Maud Land appears to be the most common name in English. I wasn't going to vote, but since you've moved my comment and left your misleading "Known as the latter" unchanged, I have decided to vote after all. --Zundark 16:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; also, I wasn't aware that a proposer's reason for requesting a move needed to be NPOV. I hope my amendment meets with your approval. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Dronning Maud Land is its official name. Dronning Maud Land is at least well known among english-speakers. (To David Kernow: Land is Land in Norwegian, Dronning Maud Land is completely Norwegian. Landjorka sounds Finnish or something, it is definately not Norwegian)Inge 16:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I must admit that Scandinavian languages are not my forte! Anyone else able to confirm and/or shed more light?  Thanks, David Kernow 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Inge is of course correct. "Land" is the same in English and Norwegian (both Germanic languages). "Landjorka" doesn't sound Scandinavian at all. -- Nidator 14:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Support using common English name, per policy. I'm as proud of my Norwegian heritage as anyone, but we write for an English-speaking audience. Jonathunder 00:52, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly support per Jonathunder See wherever WP:UE is these days. Septentrionalis 04:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. From memory, looking at english-language atlases (Britannica atlas comes to mind), I have seen Queen Maud Land numerous times, Dronning never. For what it's worth, atlases in other languages also tend to translate Dronning (and Landjorka) to the local equivalent. e.g. Polish: "Ziemia Królowej Maud". Similarly for various interwiki links to French (Reine) or German (Königin) Deuar 08:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The word "Landjorka" does not exist in Norwegian. Inge 09:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm personally against the move, but I feel uneasy with having the last vote which decides whether it's a 2/3 consensus or not, so I'll abstain and move. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Encyclopædia Britannica lists it as Queen Maud Land, for whatever it's worth to this vote. --Gosub 15:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Support. It makes no sense in retaining the Norwegian names - no matter how alluring they might sound to me - in the English version of Wiki. It is kind of like insisting upon calling the country 'Norge' when the the proper name in English is Norway, and vice versa, insisting upon using "United Kingdom" in Norwegian. --Sparviere 14:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, I'm rather late to this but its Dronning Maud Laud on the maps that BAS use... William M. Connolley 15:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. This decision is political. The naming should be non-anglified similar to Tierra del Fuego, Adélie Land or Framheim. It is equally inconsequential to rename the whole area while maintaining Kyst for Coast and Vidde for Plataeu in the article proper.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Queen Maud Land → Dronning Maud Land — The article was previously at this name. The name is the official name of the area. According to the 1871 International Geographical Congress recognition of territory implies mutual recognition of place names. The UK, France, Australia and New Zealand have all recognised Norway's claim to DML and are thus obligated to use that name. It is also believed that DML is the most commonly used name in English(, or that it at least was before the move.) We should be aware that Wikipedia creates precedent IRL and must be careful to use correct names. In any case it is commonly used in English and is commonly found on English maps of the area. Therefore the previous move was made on a bad foundation and should be reversed. —Inge (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support per my nomination.Inge (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. See WP:NCGN. We don't do official names if there is a widely established English name; compare, for example, Germany, where we use neither Federal Republic of Germany nor Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Dronning Maud Land should be mentioned here, and used as article names in the Norwegian Wikipedia.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Dronning is Norwegian for "queen" so it's not like English speakers have cooked up something totally new.  The current title is the English version placename and it's widely used just like "Norway" is for Norge/Noreg.  And Wikipedia is not obligated to use official names. —   AjaxSmack   23:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Have to disagree with those claiming "Dronning Maud Land" is also common in English.  Doubt that I've ever seen it before, though I would have understood it, but I am familiar with Queen Maud Land.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * strongly support its always been DML; google scholar is 2-1 in favour of DML William M. Connolley (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not my results; you may be getting hits in Norwegian, although there are more than I would have expected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "dronning maud land": 2770; "queen maud land": 1460. No norwegians as far as I can see. Wot were you results, then? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Using Google books (and including "coast") puts it 630-460 in favor of "Queen Maud Land". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dunno why you want to add coast. Just on DML/QML I get 650/780. But scholar ir more... scholarly William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * To compel hits that are actually in English, since Dronning Maud Land is perfectly good Norwegian and may well occur in third languages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is called Queen Maud Land in the Encyclopædia Britannica, the CIA World Factbook and many other references. – Axman (☏) 15:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

Dronning Maud Land is also an established name in English. So when you have two established names do you follow your personal feelings or go with the correct one? This isn't about what you want, its about what's right. Wikipedia is more and more taken as authoritative and with more mirror pages popping up the things we do have effects in real life. So if we decide on a name based on what we would like we are not being truthfull. As one editor pointed out Dronning Maud Land was more common at the time of the previous name change...Inge (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd also take issue with the wording in the intro, giving a false impression that the term "Queen Maud Land" is merely a translation which didn't exist until after it was called "Dronning Maud Land" in Norwegian. I'd just bet my bottom dollar that that is a false and misleading impression.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You are two clicks away from loosing your bottom (dollar). See, page 4 or search the BAS site yourself. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I must assume that Mr. Kielland has misunderstood what Mr. Nygaard doubts. That there exists a summary of the form chronology for the EPICA deep ice core from Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica, over the last 150 000 years in 2007 shows absolutely nothing about which form existed first; it shows scarcely more about what we want: which form is customary in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * In any case which form existed first is not all that relevant. However I find it hard to believe that someone would seriously doubt that Dronning Maud Land was the original form. Did Norway first name it Queen Maud Land and then translate it to Norwegian? Or do you think that this area was somehow named by the British? I must question the motives revealed by such a statement. As to the point here it is clear that it is customary to use the name Dronning Maud Land in English. It is also common to use Queen Maud Land. So we should then decide what is more correct to use. The use of DML is of course more correct based on official usage and resolutions. Another problem rising with using translations of names is that a name will be different in each language and not possible to recognise. It seems the oppose votes are based more on what the voters personally want than the realities here.Inge (talk) 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what language Amundsen's journals were in; English is not impossible for them or his log. In any case, so what? Our article titles and text are not intended to resolve international title; we are not qualified to do so.


 * Inge's arguments and personal attacks are driven by the assumption that everyone concerned is concerned chiefly to dispute the sovereignity of this houseless wilderness. I will concede that he is; but I am not. (I am not even a British subject, and I don't think Ajax or Gene are either.)


 * I am interested in communicating with English-speakers, for whom Queen Maud Land' will be both more familiar and more recognizable than Dronning Mauds land, precisely because it is in English.


 * I note that the Norwegian Wikipedias use no:Det forente kongerike Storbritannia og Nord-Irland and nn:Storbritannia, respectively, presumably for the same reasons; is not using (as opposed to mentioning) Great Britain to be put down to sinister "motives" too? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I see my motives are being interpreted to the wildest proportions here. When you accuse me of nationalism I have to point out that that is a serious accusation. Much more serious than any of my statements could even be misinterpreted to be. I am also accused of personal attacks. Also an accusation of high seriousness. I counter them both as false and despicable. My entries in this debate have been factually backed and to the point. Opponents have largely ignored them and in stead countered with speculations. My motives here are in the interests of creating as correct an encyclopedia as possible. If I had political motives I would have proposed this move a long time ago. I did not. Then I came across documentation stating that Dronning Maud Land is the correct name for the area in English and is recognised as so. I was further motivated by the statement that DML was originally the most common name in English and by finding countless wikipedia mirriors spreading the use of QML. In addition I found that articles of an amateur nature would use QML while scholarly articles in various fields would use DML. A proposal to move was then only natural. The use of DML has been well documented by myself and mr Connolley. And in any case it is beyond dispute that Dronning Maud Land is commonly used in English.

The opposed debators have not been able to come up with any backing documentations except questionable use of googling. That leaves only opinions without substance (minus Axman, but wikipedia naming differs from those examples on several occations). So I am sadenned by the incredibly low level this debate has been conducted. Remember it is supposed to be a debate, not a vote... The low level is further demonstrated when it is suggested that the area was orginally named Queen Maud Land and that Amundsen quite possibly wrote in English. Debators even admitting to having no idea what language Amundsen wrote, but still speculating that it was English. The precise and exact subject here regards naming and language. People with such low knowledge of the subject at hand should have the common sense to keep out of the debate. In any case when debators communicate with such viciousness while displaying weak knowledge of the case it becomes natural to ask the question of motive. So be curteous enough not to resort to accusations of the worst sort. Also an attemt to change the article entries on the subject away from a long standing version to one better suited to that person's personal views without mentioning it in the summary was reverted by me, only to be changed back with accusations of nationalism. Something which is indeed a personal attack.

I have been contributing substantially to wikipedia since 2004 and am worried by increasing agressiveness and tendancies such as this example. I see several merited contributor leaving for good because of it. Is this really the way you want wikipedia to work?Inge (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lead
On another matter, this reversion is most deplorable. I see no reason for our articles to be marked by tendentious edits such as this:


 * '' Queen Maud Land is an English translation of Dronning Maud Land, the official name in use by Norwegian authorities and British Antarctic Survey

The subject of this article is the land, not the phrase; I will cheerfully mark this text as biased, and pursue WP:dispute resolution, as may prove necessary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?
Sorry, I didn'tunderstand the edit comment here. What did you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Try reading the first sentence once more. In essence QML is "the part of Antarctica claimed by Norway". As such the governmental institutions of Norway is relevant to the article even if your personally disagree. Cheers. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The relevant part is "claimed by". But those claims are in abeyance, per the Antarctic Treaty. QML is *not* governed by Norway. Even if you personally disagree (now can we drop that stuff and concentrate on the substance, please?) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, if there is some nationalistic tinge to your criticism, I refer you to William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ok. The discussion is then whether infobox country is relevant to Antarctic claims. Each of the claims articles has now different content in this respect. The present "Government = None" does not reflect current state of affairs. Your edits actually question the definition of a country. Both QML and BAT are political divisions of the Antarctica, in spite of not being recognized. The borders are defined on purely political criteria. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no borders, either on the ground or in political terms. A real country has borders in the sense that it both actually defends them by marking them (border posts, signs, etc) and enforces them, and that those borders are recognised by other states. Borders in Antarctica are not marked or enforced in any way, and the treaty (as I understand it; I haven't read it of course...) officially puts all claims into abeyance. That doesn't mean all borders are fixed at the claimed boundaries; it means that none of them are recognised (how could they be? Several overlap. We were (before I edited the UK article) in the bizarre position of asserting that the govt of the BAT was the UK, and the govt of the Chilean bit a mayor, even though those claims overlap. It isn't possible for the same physical to have two (or more, in the case of the Peninsula) goverments). The answer is, none of them have governments William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your amateur opinions are directed at the wrong articles. You firstly provide an alternative definition of 'country', then fails to see that there is a map attached. It is not only feasible for a territory to have several overlapping claims on government. In human history it is almost a rule. This article is about a claim.  Please revert your disruptive editing. Gabriel Kielland (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Extent of territory
I have a little problem when it comes to the extent (square km/mile) of Queen Maud Land. Sources seem to give rather different figures. I believe I have seen some give the extent of the territory (in millions) as 2.5 sq km, 2.7 sq km, and I have sourced 2.8 sq km (currently in article), and 3.12 sq km (Joyner). Any ideas how to resolve this issue? – Bellatores (t.) 22:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if the latitude is not officially defined then it's probably not right to give a firm number. Statistics department gives 2 700 000 sq km, but I also notice both Norwegian wikipedias put ca. at the front of the figure. I think citing a primary source (the Norwegian government) and then putting ca. in front would solve this issue.  Night w   00:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)