Jump to content

Talk:Antarctica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 05:12, 29 November 2023 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Antarctica/Archive 3) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleAntarctica is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 9, 2006, and on December 22, 2023.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
February 26, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
July 4, 2006Featured article reviewKept
June 25, 2022Featured article reviewKept
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 27, 2019, January 27, 2020, January 27, 2022, and January 27, 2023.
Current status: Featured article

Template:Vital article

British explorer Ernest Shackleton was the first to reach the magnetic South Pole in 1907, and the geographic south pole was first reached in 1911 by Norwegian explorers.

The claim that Ernest Shackleton was the first to reach the magnetic South Pole is not correct. As can be seen in the Wikipedia article "Magnetic South Pole" the three people who were the 'first' were members of Shackleton's Nimrod Expedition (the 'Northern Party'). Also the date is wrong. The party reached their estimated position of the magnetic pole on 16 January 1909 (easy to find this by various articles online). While the Nimrod expedition is usually referred to as 1907-1909 (likely choice of 1907 date) the ship left the UK in 1907 and did not leave New Zealand for the Antarctic until January 1908. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antipodenz (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct the body of the article with a good cite and the lead if you can do so succinctly. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Antipodenz. You're absolutely right, an embarrasing mistake from my side. I tried to summarise the body, but didn't read in enough detail. Femke (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Shackleton was not British. He was born in Co. Kildare, Ireland and spent the first 10 years of his life there. He is reported to have said many times: "I am an Irishman". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.43.50.34 (talk) 13:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated, despite an existing WP link to "South Pole" in the article's second sentence, I also linked this sentence's "geographic south pole" simply for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gprobins (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shakleton was Anglo-Irish, making him British. It is common to assign an expedition's success to the leader of the expedition, irrespective of whether he was actually the 'first' to do something (eg Magellen). It isn't always the case though, (eg Hilary). Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Content copied from History of Antarctica

Janitoalevic (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2022

change "The British naval officer John Clark Ross failed to realise" to "The British naval officer James Clark Ross failed to realise" Arctonauts (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Goldsztajn (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flat Earth and the "Great Ice Wall"

Hi This is the first time I've done this so I hope I'm doing it right.... My primary reason to read this topic was to read a bit about how the idea of a flat earth fits in with all the other info regarding the physical properties of Antarctica as stated. Has anyone thought of including some of this? I'm not a proponent of a flat earth myself. Cheers! Homerx007x (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Such info would be irrelevant here, but might fit in an article about the Modern flat Earth beliefs or Myth of the flat Earth.--Vsmith (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vsmith ok that does make sense. Thank you Homerx007x (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Antarctica without ice

We have satellite maps of Antarctica without ice. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet seems to be collapsing into huge ice blocks perhaps as much as 50 km "inland" (but there is no land at all) from Pine Island Bay. Relatively warm seawater is underrunning this area of ice. Perhaps we need to publish this new government mapping of sea-level Antarctica without ice, with all of its vast fjords and islands, so that readers can understand all of the places that such seawater underrunning, subsequent ice sheet collapse and changing geography might be taking place today or within 20 years. Paul Klinkman (talk) 18:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023

Demonyms Antarctic, Antarctican 122.62.231.49 (talk) 08:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: There isn't much of a population for a demonym to apply to. CMD (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel de Castilla discovered Antarctica in 1603, arriving at parallel 64º South Latitude.

"Gabriel de Castilla descubrió la Antártida en 1603, llegando al paralelo 64º Latitud Sur." https://leyendanegracontraespana.quora.com/Gabriel-de-Castilla-descubri%C3%B3-la-Ant%C3%A1rtida-en-1603-llegando-al-paralelo-64%C2%BA-Latitud-Sur-Hasta-d%C3%B3nde-lleg%C3%B3-con-una-nav — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.116.128 (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When i was researching and writing a presentation about Antarctica i started noticing inconsistencies in the linking to other articles. i did notice that in the 5th paragraph in the geography section that Vinson Massif is linked but Mount Erebus is not linked. Would be better to be more consistent with linking. Relaxingskull (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1569 map of Antárctica

This is a fringe claim, than per WP:ONEWAY, does not need to be mentioned in this article. No reliable sources have been present either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obviously people had been to Antarctica WAY earlier, look at this map from 1569

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercator_projection 189.216.182.216 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Diego Gutierrez map of 1562 clearly shows the continent as well. In a place it should not be according to modern geology. There was barely enough room to sail under Patagoonia/Chile. The map also shows southern Florida under water and the foot of Louisiana missing, which is consistent with sea levels being higher as there would have been less ice on the continent at that position.https://www.theguardian.com/culture/picture/2010/may/10/british-library-map-diego-gutierrez. The Tierra Florida on the map is not modern Florida, but rather the Tennessee River valley where is crosses northern Georgia and Alabama and dumps into what is now Muscle Shoals, Alabama. 2600:1700:B9C1:20C0:75F6:1AC8:2283:5E1D (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)David[reply]
Back then people thought terra australis existed so what is wrong with putting it on a map? You are assuming that to be added to a map a place has to have been seen first. That assumption is original research. You are also assuming that back then people thought the same way we do today, that to be on a place should first have been seen. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed assuming that a detailed map of a continent represents places actually visited and recorded by actual observers. The land mass in almost direct contact with the southern tip of Chile isn't labelled terra australis on the map. It has Magallanes name there. Australia is nowhwere near there and is not bigger than south America. It is obvious to anyone not willfully blind that the map shows a place that was actually observed and mapped. The Falkland Islands where they are supposed to be. The gulf of Mexico is correctly mapped but labelled gulf of new Spain. Everything else on that map is recognizeable and exactly where you would expect to find it. The people who compiled and engraved the map were acting on royal authority and were well respected for their work. https://www.loc.gov/collections/discovery-and-exploration/articles-and-essays/the-1562-map-of-america/ The map of Florida has a port of Saint Joseph. That place and name are still here. Port St. Joe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_St._Joe%2C_Florida. But the place I was born (Tampa) and now live (Broward County) are both under water. Ocean levels less than 20 feet higher would submerge the Tampa Bay area and both sides of south Florida. That is exactly what Florida would look like. There is no way someone just made that up. 2600:1700:B9C1:20C0:E468:1D71:EC9A:B72B (talk) 01:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)David[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Australian English instead of British

Australia's Antarctic territory is the largest one. Britain's Antarctic territory is around 3rd largest. (2nd largest is New Zealand)

Source:

IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 21:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Antarctica&oldid=1187429826"