Talk:Serranilla Bank

message: Too much is left unclear:
"Online sources are unclear"
"it is unclear if Serranilla Bank"
"According to some online sources ... According to other online sources"
"and possibly Rosalind Bank"
"The Serranilla Bank is possibly"
etc.JKeene 04:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did I insert the Clarify tag? 

message: Why did I insert the POV (neutrality/neutral point of view)-tag?I inserted the POV (neutrality/neutral point of view)-tag into this article here because I have the impression that while the article itself may reflect a neutral point of view, the topic itself is either unclear or disputed. -- Citylover 14:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did I insert the POV (neutrality/neutral point of view)-tag? 

message: I see what was listed in the notes regarding the U.S. position on Quitasueno. Apologies; I hadn't noticed that before. But can we just list a generic statement to fit all three? Such as: Most claims made by the U.S. over the guano islands in this region were officially renounced in a treaty with Colombia, dated September 1972. ...or something similar, and get rid of technicalities regarding non-subject matter. Rennell435 (talk) 06:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that statement would be accurate and would fit better in the text.XavierGreen (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Done. Rennell435 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on the treaty 

message: It's perfectly fine to have both a cartography map and a satellite image showing the location. For some people, it is easier to visualize the location using a photo than when using a drawn map (and the opposite is true, too). This is common practice here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satellite map 

message: The phrase "The U.S. considers the reef to be an unorganized, unincorporated United States territory" is an invention of Wikipedia. Please see: U.S. Department of the Interior • Office of Insular Affairs. FORMERLY DISPUTED ISLANDS: REMAINING U.S. CLAIMS None.--Nerêo (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The web page you cite refers to Serrana Bank, which is different from Serranilla Bank even though the names are confusingly similar. -- Beland (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not mean Serrana Bank, the title of the web page of Office of Insular Affairs is: Formerly Disputed Islands. Footnotes concludes: REMAINING U.S. CLAIMS: None.--Nerêo (talk) 13:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I seen from this FCC document that the United States formally gave up ownership of the Serranilla Bank. However, the DOI website only lists the Serrana Bank that was given to the Colombians by this 1971 treaty. The treaty never discussed Serranilla at all. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And the DOI still claims that Serranilla is an Insular Area of the US. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And this 2004 document claims it is still US territory. It is confusing for sure. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Yeah some documents do make the claim others don't. There was a big discussion about that and related issues at Talk:United States Minor Outlying Islands (taking up most of the page). Rennell435 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  False claim