Talk:Antarctica

Species of Lichen

According to the article, "There are more than 200 species of lichens" in Antarctica. But lichens are composed of two species, on plant and one fungus. SO I'm not sure what is meant here. Please advise. 98.185.236.199 (talk) 05:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lichens are composite organisms consisting of a fungus and often a plant such as green algae. There are over 200 of these types of composite organisms living in Antarctica. AerobicFox (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Antarctic Micronational Union edit request

http://www.columbusmagazine.nl/special/2685/10_the_grand_duchy_of_westarctica_west-antarctica.html

According to this article there is a micronational union of Antarctic nations. I think it could be worth putting a note about them in the politics section or under claims

their microwikipedia page is http://www.microwiki.org.uk/index.php?title=AMU

Vitcash (talk) 19:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Micronations are not relevant or important enough to include in this article, even in the politics or territorial claims article. They hold absolutely no relevance in the real world running of most areas, an issue that is probably particularly appropriate to antarctica. Perhaps on the List of micronations page (which currently only has one) a mention could be made. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Surely it is the user community that decides what is relevant and what is not, how can you say that this is an unimportant viewpoint of a minority? there are literally thousands of these people around the globe involved in this, and you choose to write large articles about small groups with only dozens of members? Respectfully, what you define as 'important enough' is clearly a biased viewpoint, this is a large society of people creating certain wonders, to deny them even a paragraph is denying their right to be regarded as good people. It's not like they asked you to write a whole article on the topic, which has been done several times on this site on similar micronational substances. Dont tell me that this is not important, because if i chose to reject everything that i found 'unimportant', wikipedia would be a very small site. Reconsider your viewpoint, because people will be interested in this subject and visit your site to learn about them. --BritannianVanguard (talk) 18:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

None of this makes micronations relevant here as per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. See WP:UNDUE. If people want to know about micronations, they are perfectly welcome to go to the articles micronation or List of micronations. Pfainuk talk 20:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe if you didn't delete the pages that micronations create then we would create pages as you suggest we do. But until that happens it is pretty pointless for us to do work only to have it deleted. 94.7.209.243 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to see coverage in a Wiki format of subjects that do not meet Wikipedia's standards of notability, neutrality or verifiability, I suggest you try Wikia. Indeed, I notice that such a Wiki already exists there. Pfainuk talk 22:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

shoudent the microwiki be on here. its useful to learn more stuff and it would help alot with more learning about it. i agree with adding the micro wiki. from plahunter101 3:17 PM

Terrestrial vertebrates

The "Fauna" section says "Few terrestrial vertebrates live in Antarctica", implying that some do, but these are never identified. In fact, it's unclear exactly what "terrestrial" and "purely terrestrial" (a term used later apparently in contrast) are supposed to mean, especially as regards birds. The website to which the opening statement is sourced says:

"Few terrestrial vertebrates are resident in Antarctica and those which do occur are limited to sub-Antarctic islands. These include a single endemic insectivorous passerine (the South Georgia Pipit (Anthus antarcticus)) and freshwater ducks on South Georgia and/or Kerguelen."

This seems to be extending the scope of "Antarctica" to include places like South Georgia, whereas one gets the distinct impression that this article is describing the fauna of continental Antarctica.

So, in summary, several things need doing here:

• Define "terrestrial" and "purely terrestrial"
• Define "Antarctica"
• Enumerate the terrestrial vertebrates, if any.

86.160.208.20 (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 77.188.67.244, 3 April 2011

1. CURRENT text version:

Mesozoic era (250–65 Ma) [...] In Eastern Antarctica, the seed fern became established, and large amounts of sandstone and shale were laid down at this time. [...]

2. NEW text version:

Mesozoic era (250–65 Ma) [...] In Eastern Antarctica, the seed ferns of the Glossopteris flora became established, and large amounts of sandstone and shale were laid down at this time. [...]

SOURCE: See e.g. the Wikipedia lemma on Glossopteris.

Regards

77.188.67.244 (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. (Please see WP:RS; Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources.) If you do so, please re-open this request. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 22:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Neogene forests

Hi. The paragraph on forests occurring within a short distance of the South Pole roughly 3 million years ago is backed up by three citations. However, there are a few problems in citing this claim:

• The first reference is from 1986, and highlights some uncertainty in the radiometric dating of the fossil forest, saying that it could be older than a few million years. It also mentions another process, that open water could have carried other fossil traces to mountains that are now buried under ice. The significance was not known, so it needs to be backed up by later sources that either directly mention this initial study or directly refer to the Neogene period.
• The second citation from Discovery News discusses the Permian period. I could not find any reference to the Neogene or the Webb discovery, and one major fossil location is on the coastline of the Ross Sea.
• The third one shows information on a wide selection of fossils, but the only mention of plant fossils refers to either the Antarctic Peninsula or fossils laid down during the Mesozoic on West Antarctica. There is still no mention of more recent forests near the South Pole.

I'm not suggesting this information be removed, just so that it is corrected and placed into other time periods listed in the article on the geologic history if needed. It would help to cite more scientific journals or science news websites following up on the Neogene forest discoveries. I also suggest clarifying what the fossils actually are. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Not coldest place on Earth

That title belongs to the mesopause. Antarctica is the coldest place on the surface of the earth. Robopologist (talk) 21:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

A technically correct but unhelpful statement. In common usage by most people "coldest place" means on the surface. If we applied your kind of definition, we could say that the hottest place in my country is 3,000km below the surface. I don't think we need to move away from common usage on this one. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Note on facts used and References not working

1. The average thickness of ice in Antarctica including ice shelves is 1958m. (Please Cut at least 1.6 km thick) Source: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/teacher_resources/resources/factsheets/index.php

2. The Exact Area is not 14 Million but 13,829,430km2 Danny shimel

For reference in size: Around 58 times the size of the UK, or 1.4 times the size of the USA, or area of India and China combined.(Source: as above)

3. The reference for the amount of precipitation (number 6) is not correct.

4. To date 48 countries have signed the treaty, this includes 28 countries which have set up their research stations in Antarctica and are members of the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs(COMNAP) and 20 others. Source: http://www.ats.aq/devAS/ats_parties.aspx?lang=e

5. In two short words the main aim of the treaty is to promote Peace and Science without damaging the environment.

6. For number of scientists please mention “around 5000 during the summer and around 1000 during the winter"

7. In the " Geography" section it says " Antarctica occupies more than 14 Million...." False, as reported area is less than that. See point 2.

Nathanian Palmer (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Date Amundsen and Scott reached the South Pole

I've seen both December 14 and 15, 1911 for Amundsen and January 17/18, 1912 for Scott.

Is the difference based on the time it would have been in their actual homelands of Norway and Great Britain, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zz pot (talk • contribs) 01:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The sign at the pole commemorating these events have Dec 14, and January 17. I'm not sure about the other dates. The south pole doesn't really have a time zone. The base now follows NZ time mostly because its convenient for logistics, but when you are standing at the south pole you are technically in all time zones, depending, I suppose where you put your feet. Warsky (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Antarctic Circumpolar Current

There's an interesting research on the impact of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (ACC) on Antarctic glaciation published in Science on May 27. Here's the abstract. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The first-human-born rubbish

This desinformational trivia is reoccurring in diverse articles:

first child born in the southern polar region [here and Antarctic there] was Norwegian girl Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen, born

She was born in Grytviken, South Georgia, part of South America. This factoid is just annoying trivia, presenting a record holder that is not a record holder. Not encyclopedic! Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

well then was, if its annoying trivia, then can you say who's the real first person? plahunter101 3:22 pm

Work needed

Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of the cleanup listing for featured articles, with several cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that some work has been done in cleaning up the article since my post above. However, there are still several tags and other issues that need attention - is anyone willing to work on these outside the remit of FAR? Besides the citation needed and dubious/discuss tags, as well as three dead link tags, I see several areas where statistics (populations, snowfall, etc.) are given without references, plus references missing information (correct titles, publishers, etc), and an extensive see also section that should probably be trimmed and have as many links as possible incorporated into the article text. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Eastern/Western Antartica

In the Climate section, the text refers to Eastern and Western Antarctica. Referring to the East and the West of Antarctica should be used to clarify location, but what Eastern and Western Antarctica are is unclear. Could someone who knows what this means clarify. Thanks, pluma Ø 02:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC).

The best place to find that sort of thing out is by looking at the Geography section. Do you find anything unclear about the 2nd paragraph there? Franamax (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Photo of south pole not actual south pole

The photo presented under the "Population" section claiming to be the South Pole, is actually only the ceremonial South Pole, used largely for photo-ops. The actual south pole is a several hundred feet away and moves about 30' per year (well, the pole doesn't move, the ice sheet does). There is a separate marker, set out each year (and different each year), with the current position of the South Pole. I would be glad to provide photos from early 2000's of these markers, however, as a new user I cannot modify this semi-protected article.

Warsky (talk) 03:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, South Pole describes it better than this article. I amended the caption. Feel free to suggest further improvement. You'll need 4 days and 10 edits after registration to edit semiprotected articles. Materialscientist (talk) 03:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 4 November 2011

In the first sentence of the history section, the article describes the "northern lands of Europe, Asia and North Africa." "North Africa" should instead be "North America".

66.116.20.134 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, no time to think, and just a quick comment - was America known at the time relevant to that sentence? Materialscientist (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done, per Materialscientist. Europe, Asia and North Africa were the entire "known" world at the time - though the sentence is a little Eurocentric. Franamax (talk) 04:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Antarctica in popular media

I hope there is a section or a page about Antarctica in popular media and summerize how fictions, adventure stories, science fictions, movies and documentary see Antarctica.111.251.230.222 (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Suggest adding text about National Research Council report

Hi, I'd like to add some text about a 2011 National Research Council report that identifies key research directions for Antarctica and the Southern Ocean over the next two decades.

A 2011 report from the United States National Research Council identifies key questions that will drive scientific research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean over the next 10 to 20 years. The report presents opportunities to be leveraged to sustain and improve the U.S. Antarctic Program of the National Science Foundation (NSF), which holds the primary responsibility for supporting U.S. research in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. The report's authoring committee identified key scientific questions that fall within two broad themes: those related to global change, and those related to fundamental discoveries. In addition, the Committee identified several opportunities to broadly advance Antarctic and Southern Ocean research in the process of answering these questions. The development of a large-scale observing network and a new generation of models has the potential to expand scientific understanding and ensure the continuing success of research in the Antarctic region, the report found.

Any feedback would be appreciated! Earlgrey101 (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Population numbers

There are a number of contradictory population claims made in various articles about Antarctica:

• The article Chilean Antarctic Territory claims a population of 130, including a permanent civilian settlement, Villa Las Estrellas, population 114. Esperanza Base claims to be the only other civilian settlement in Antarctica.
• The article Continent lists Villa Las Estrellas as the largest settlement in Antarctica, but lists a population of 0 for the continent.
• Demographics of Antarctica says there are no indigenous inhabitants, but lists McMurdo Station as the largest settlement (summer population 1200).
• Colonization of Antarctica claims that no families live permanently on the continent.
• Research stations in Antarctica has unreferenced population numbers that don't match Demographics of Antarctica.

-- Beland (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Only cold-adapted organisms survive there,

"Only cold-adapted organisms survive there..." why does't this include humans? Humans survive there too. 203.99.208.4 (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Humans do not survive there without lots of specialized equipment and housing. I don't think that counts. Shoe (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Even more importantly, what's the point of that statement of the bleeding obvious at all? It's like saying that only organisms adapted to desert environments survive in the Sahara. We should be above than that sort of writing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

UK Antarctic survey vessel

I'm new to this, but I wish to point out that HMS Endurance (with pic and link from main article as of today, 1st Sep 2012), went out of service in 2008, following a flooding incident. Replacement is HMS Protector (source - http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/The-Fleet/Ships/Patrol-and-Minehunters/Ice-Patrol-and-Survey-Ships/HMS-Protector)

File:Antarctica Without Ice Sheet.png

should be added to Article, but the article on protection Strannik27 (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like the copyright you asserted when you uploaded the file to Commons is not compatible with the copyright on the original image. It's a tricky question, though -- that's a very unusual copyright. Looie496 (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

• http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet_png - "Academic and Non-commercial Use. This image may be used freely in any academic work where the author(s) do not receive a fee for their efforts and/or in any non-commercial work, provided that in either case these conditions are met: * You acknowledge the author of this image and Global Warming Art alongside the image. The recommended format is "Image created by Robert A. Rohde / Global Warming Art", but this may be varied to conform with a publication's style. * If and where practical, you also include a link and/or reference to this specific description page: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:Antarctica_Without_Ice_Sheet_png. Such references may appear either alongside the image, or in a separate section where other source material is acknowledged. Qualified academic and non-commercial projects may also be eligible to receive higher resolution and/or vector graphics forms of this image upon request.", "Free Content Use (GFDL / CC-BY-SA). This image (or modified versions of it) may be used in any work where the publication as a whole is released under one of the following free content, copyleft licenses: * The GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 or Later.* The Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License Version 2.5 or Later.Where applicable, these rights include some forms of commercial use; however, the provisions on redistribution are such that these licenses not intended for most commercial projects." Strannik27 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

If a person wants to make their own map of an ice free Antarctica, the instructions and a link to the data for doing it with ArcGIS can be found in Spatial Analysis -An Antarctic Example (for ArcGIS 9.x) by Department of Geological Sciences, Jackson School of Geosciences, The University of Texas at Austin.Paul H. (talk) 19:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 January 2013

Under the heading "Research", please make a minor grammatical adjustment to the following sentence:

In September 2006, NASA satellite data showed that the Antarctic ozone hole was the largest on record, covering 27.5 million km2 (10.6 million sq mi).[88]

Please change to:

In September 2006, NASA satellite data revealed that the Antarctic ozone hole was larger than at any other time on record, covering 27.5 million km2 (10.6 million sq mi).[88]

The first sentence is confusing as it gives the impression that the data is measuring more than one ozone hole, rather than subsequent measurements of the same hole.

The suggested word change earlier in the main clause - changing "showed" to "revealed" - is simply stylistic.

Pgo12 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC) Pgo12 (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Done. Apcbg (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 February 2013

Under the heading of History of Exploration is the statement "The first documented landing on mainland Antarctica was by the American sealer John Davis in West Antarctica on 7 February 1821, although some historians dispute this claim[citation needed].". This statement has stood 'citation needed' for quite a long time, and personally, I think without some sort of citation or at least elaboration on "some historians dispute this claim", the phrase has no merit and should be taken out, rendering the sentence "The first documented landing on mainland Antarctica was by the American sealer John Davis in West Antarctica on 7 February 1821."

I have a problem with "Some X think Y" sentences in general, as I feel they're generally (though I'm not saying this is true in this case) added by fringe wikipedians as a way to give merit to their personal beliefs. I also think, due to the fact that there are billions of people on this earth, the very form of "some X think Y" is a statement that provides no actual information because it is likely to always be true.

To explain, "some historians think the world is flat" is technically a correct statement, in that some people who consider themselves historians stick to this demonstrably false theory (and has its own article, to boot!) but it is hardly relevant to any article that isn't expressly about flat earth theorists, and possibly one about the shape of the earth.

Anyway, yeah, unless someone can find some sort of citation for that phrase I'd like it to be taken out to preserve the factual accuracy and more importantly relevancy of the article.

Insidious611 (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Your reasoning sounds compelling, yet it appears there is genuine dispute about this outside Wikipedia. See, for example, this Google Books shot from a book published in 1992. The current wording is poor, however, and could use amendment and a reference. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The phrase in question is less than justified in my opinion, too. The quoted source does not question the landing event but rather argues that Davis might have been unaware of the actual significance of that event. But then neither Columbus nor Bellingshausen realized what exactly they had encountered. Apcbg (talk)

Article edit lock?

This article is locked, but there is no explanation on the talk page. Is this just an artifact that should be removed or has there been some vandalism that warrents this edit lock? — SkyLined