Talk:South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute

Comments
Users may be interested in the talk page from when this was a work page, which is located at User talk:Pfainuk/Sovereignty of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Pfainuk talk 14:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS. That page also lists the maps that I think would be useful here Pfainuk talk 10:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Population
This article should reflect that unlike the Falkland Islands, there is no democratic mandate, nor indeed permanent population to be consulted.--MacRusgail (talk) 23:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

1908 Letters Patent
It's simply not possible to interpret the 1908 Letters Patent as covering parts of Chile and Argentina (unless a person had serious reading comprehension problems) because it specifically names the territories it refers to. The preamble of the Letters Patent reads:

''Westminster, July 21st 1908. EDWARD the Seventh, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominons beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India: To all to whom these presents shall come, Greeting. Whereas the group of islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and the Sandwich Islands, and the territory known as Graham’s Land, situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th Parallel of South latitude, and lying betweeen the 20th and 80th degrees of West longitude, are part of our Dominions, and it is expedient that provision should be made for their government as Dependencies of our Colony of the Falklands: Now WE do hereby declare that from and after the publication of these our Letters Patent in the Government ‘Gazette’ of our Colony of the Falkland Islands the said group of islands known as South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands and the Sandwich Islands, and the said territory of Graham’s Land shall become Dependencies of our said Colony of the Falkland Islands…''

It's true that part of south of Argentina and Chile is situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th Parallel of South latitude, and lying between the 20th and 80th degrees of West longitude but so are the Falklands. To interpret it as covering all the territories within the area would have made the Falklands one of its own dependencies. Dab14763 (talk) 20:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably correct but wikipedia has this policy of verifiability not truth. Argentina didn't object at the time and contrived an argument later but that isn't what we report.  We don't do original research.  Justin talk 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case I've added a 'by whom' tag. If anyone has any evidence of someone between 1908 and 1917 noticing a problem with the wording of the 1908 Letters Patent and that this was the reason for the change in wording in the 1917 Letters Patent, could they please provide a source. Dab14763 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe it's already in the source provided. I quote reference 5, page 19:


 * "The British claim, as announced in 1908, was to the 'South Orkney, South Georgia and South Shetland islands, and Graham Land situated in the South Atlantic Ocean to the south of the 50th Parallel of South latitude, and lying betweeen the 20th and 80th degrees of West longitude'. Clarifying letters patent were issued on March 28, 1917, defining the claim more precisely to exclude anything north of the 58th parallel and west of 50°W., since it had been observed that a literal interpretation of the original claim would have taken in a part of the South American mainland and Tierra del Fuego."


 * This rather strongly implies that it was the British, not the Argentines, who noticed a potential problem. If it had been the Argentines, then one would have thought that a book entitled National Interests and Claims in the Antarctic would have said so.


 * That said, I notice that the quote from the book is different from your quote, and I can't explain the difference. I agree that it is difficult to infer the South American Mainland and Tierra del Fuego from the text you quote, but as it's a primary source I don't think we can assume anything. Pfainuk talk 19:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Add: could it be that this book is quoting somewhere in the middle of the letters patent and you're quoting the preamble? Not sure.  In any case, I'm not sure it's that important - as I say, the original is a primary source, and per WP:PSTS we can't interpret primary sources. Pfainuk talk 19:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

since it had been observed that a literal interpretation of the original claim would have taken in a part of the South American mainland and Tierra del Fuego. Observed by whom? the pdf provides no more evidence that this was the motivation for the change in wording than this article does. Any evidence would have to be from the period 1908 - 1917.

Re the Letters Patent, I'm not sure if preamble is the right term. I got the text from the getting it right pdf note 1 on page 35. The differences between the two are that the pdf changes the order of South Georgia and South Orkneys and omits the 's' of Orkneys, and omits the 'territory known as' and the 's of Graham. It's difficult if not impossible to interpret either wording as covering the southern part of South America. Dab14763 (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could remember where I read it but I recall reading that it was an Argentine protest delivered later that asserted the Letters Patent claimed part of Patagonia. Apcbg is probably a good person to ask the question where it came from. Justin talk 21:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

partialism
when the uk ddecided to take the matter unilaterally Argentina DECIDED TO COOPERATE? isnt this kind of partial, to say the least? were speaking about a sovereigny dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.223.229 (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)