Talk:Shag Rocks (South Georgia)

Untitled

administrators! please note that this text has likely been modified with a false statement, as far as I can see (the edit by 200.127.139.169 in october). The statement about the territory being british has been removed and now it seems like the islands are part of argentina. I unfortunately don't have source around to verify this, so I won't edit it at this stage. --Fraxen 15:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Argentina vs. UK

Argentina lays claim to many islands in the area, and the Falklands War of 1982 was fought by Britain and Argentina not only over the territories of the Falkland Islands, but also over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Shag Rocks is on the route from the Falklands to South Georgia, on the same sea mount, the Scotia Ridge, and is considered part of the territory by Britain, which won the war. Argentina also lays claim to territories in the Antarctic Treaty zone.

Britain won the 1982 war, and in 1985 formed its overseas territory of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, which includes Shag Rocks. It now assumes responsibility for preservation and defense of the area. Argentina, which claims the islands in its constitution and briefly occupied the islands by force in 1982, agreed in 1995 to no longer seek settlement by force. --Jack-z 01:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Jack-z

I am sorry to disturb your anglocentric point of view, but Argentina was the only contry to held a stable population in the South Sandwich Islands from 1955 to 1982 so you can't say "briefly occupied the islands". The war wasn't a legitimate war as the country was under a dictatorship (in order with the Operation Condor held by the US in the Southern Cone) so you can't just say the lost the war, so it's not any more their territory. Kwishibo (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Good to see an opposing view, but please keep your additions to the main page here and elsewhere strictly to the rules. Reliable secondary sources! That is a nice angle to take -"the 1982 invasion was not really by Argentina because the government then was a military one". I am not sure that carries much weight. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see you are very nice and now feel that I was being too hostile. It is very difficult for me to find you sources in english without them being biased (the same happens with the spanish ones with I'm trying to find you but they are all in spanish). So, do what you consider better for Wikipedia, I really don't want a never ending edit war. But I can tell you, quoting the "Falklands War" Wikipedia page (the "()" are my explanation for you): "the Galtieri government (the dictator in Argentina at that moment) hoped to mobilise the long-standing patriotic feelings of Argentines towards the islands, and thus divert public attention from the country's chronic economic problems and the regime's ongoing human rights violations of the Dirty War (the dictatorship).[17] Such action would also bolster its dwindling legitimacy." (The [17] quote is in spanish too, I mean, it's logical that the spanish sources and british sources greatly differ in their points of view, but by just saying "Britain won the war" I think it's just being very reductionist and limiting the conflinct to a dispute between a decaying dictatorship and a prime minister who wanted to be reelected, that's why I changed to give a more neutral point of view.Kwishibo (talk) 04:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(I assume we agree that Shag Rocks and South Georgia go together, so who owns one owns the other). The problem with adding too much detail about the sovereignty dispute is that it treats both the UK and Argentine claims as equal when they are not. There is a principle in international law that to have sovereignty over land a country must back up a claim with actions that show it uses and has effective control over that land. A country cannot just say: "That piece of land is mine", and then sit back and do nothing with that land. Britain has demonstrated effective control over SG/SRs for well over 100 years in different ways. Argentina has not. In fact, it only claimed SG/SR as late as 1927, well after the UK had established effective control (and 160 years after Captain Cook claimed SG for Britain). All Argentina has done is say that SR is part of Argentina, that is all. That makes the claim without merit.[1] Putting it in the Argentine constitution is really the same - it means nothing without something to show effective control, either now or in the past. This means that sovereignty is with the UK (sovereignty, not just control over or administered by) and that all Argentina is doing is saying it wants to have sovereignty. I agree the Argentine claim should be mentioned, but only briefly because it does not warrant much more that. This is not the same as, say, the dispute over the West Bank where both sides have strong claims.

You say that Argentina was the only country to have a steady population on the South Sandwich Islands from 1956 to 1982. Where did you get that idea from? There was a short occupation in the mid-'50s, which ended, and another occupation from 1976 to 1982 of a base on Thule. That is not continuous; neither does it count as occupation in the sense of settlement of people living normal lives there. Where is your source for this information? It sounds like mis-information being given to the Argentine population. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

"Canclini, Arnoldo (2009). Islas Sandwich del Sur: La Argentina en el Atlántico Sur (PDF). Museo Marítimo de Ushuaia. ISBN 9789871468102." Here you have the information you wanted about the Sandwich islands, Argentina even had a scientific station in the islands in 1974. I think that the british people only know one side of the story. Here you have the link with pictures with years, so if you don't understand, at least you can see the images: https://www.museomaritimo.com/libros/Sandwich.pdf . I am happy to see that you accepted that the sovereignty claim should be mentioned. But i'm sorry to tell you that "putting it in the constitution means nothing" isn't really a very strong argument. I am really sorry that you defend a colonialist country whom only desire was to expand its territory but you should read the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2065 where it is recognized that the case of the Falklands is framed in a colonial situation (and only Argentina and the UK should sit to negotiate, not any more parts). Even 130 countries urged UK to stop ignoring argentinian claims and sit down to negotiate (https://www.islamtimes.org/en/news/155799/130-countries-urge-uk-to-negotiate-over-malvinas). It's simple, it's imperialism in the year 2020. Ten of the 16 territories in the UN Decolonization Committee are under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and that, is something to mention. The Aurora Islands don't go toghether with the South Georgia for Argentina, in fact, for the claim Argentina considers that they are potentially habitable so they are included in their maritime space, while the UK doesn't. So it depends for which country they go together or not, so we don't agree in that. I really don't know which more actions that all the UN resolutions you want to see to accept that the claim is equal. You say "Argentina should do something with that land", what else do you want it to do if the UK is ignoring all the resolutions and abstaining to vote them? (As well as the other Commonwealth countries, which is not something to surprise us that they abstain all together). And I'm sorry but they are shag rocks, they don't have any control not even people can descend on them because of their shape... (And the Captain Cook did not claim the Auroras)Kwishibo (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, I accept that Argentina treats SG and SRs separately (but I do not agree that that view is correct). If we look only at SRs, not SG, the issues issues are different from SG or from SG+SRs. SRs are not islands, they are oceanic rocks. Look at this definitions of the difference. [2] SRs can not support human occupation. They are far too small. The reason countries claim or dispute sovereignty over small ocean islets and rocks is for the exclusive use of the sea around them. I will try to look at your sources. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

DI personnel

What are "DI personnel"??? De-Ionized Water? Defense Intelligence? Democracy International? -Quicksilver^{T @} 23:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

DI = Discovery Investigations. Jan1naD ^{(talk • contrib)} 13:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

File:SGI-2016-South Georgia–Shag Rocks 01.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:SGI-2016-South Georgia–Shag Rocks 01.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for July 15, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-07-15. Any improvements or maintenance to this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The Shag Rocks are a group of six small islets in the southern Atlantic Ocean, 240 km (150 mi) west of the island of South Georgia and 1,000 km (620 mi) southeast of the Falkland Islands. The islets, the tallest of which reaches 75 m (246 ft), are administered by the United Kingdom as part of the overseas territory of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Largely devoid of vegetation, the bare rock is covered by a layer of guano deposited by the large numbers of South Georgia shags that nest there. The shags are the only breeding bird on the islets, but the relatively shallow waters surrounding the rocks, part of the continental shelf, are feeding grounds for many other species of seabird. In this photograph of the islets, an iceberg can be seen in the distance at left.

Photograph credit: Andrew Shiva

Recently featured:

• Alphonse Bertillon
• Parthenos sylvia
• Arii Matamoe