Talk:Antarctic Treaty System

message: There is a government forming in Antarctica and it is not the Treaty. There is an indigenous population and large numbers of living persons who were born in the Antarctic Seas, on islands or research stations. These people are forming into a new government that may be named Trinity, Nation of the Sea or The Sovereign Nation of Antarctica, the Antarctic Islands and the Undersea Territories of the Antarctic People, Human and other. 
If this movement is ever published about in media or recognized by any legitimate institution of government, it should be mentioned. As for now until there is something more substantial about it, it should remain left out of the article. I only mention this because it could make merging the treaty system and the government a bad move.
In any case, the statement that there is no native human population has been untrue for a great while now. Scottprovost (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove Old False Information

message: Merge with Government of Antarctica ?  --Ann O'nyme 07:50, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Government of Antarctica should be definitively merged with Antarctic Treaty System because the content between these two articles is already now highly redundant (Government of Antarctica containing most of the information Antarctic Treaty System contains but not vice versa). The title of the arcticle Antarctic Treaty System is better, but the content of the article Government of Antarctica is much better, so we should copy the additional content of Government of Antarctica into the article Antarctic Treaty System and then delete Government of Antarctica. -- Citylover 11:12, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I transferred all information from "Government of Antarctica" into this article here (Antarctic Treaty System) and made a redirect from "Government of Antarctica" to this article here (Antarctic Treaty System). -- Citylover 13:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: Is there an expiration on this thing? - Amgine 00:06, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is claimed in a letter published in New Scientist  that the antarctic treaty expires in 2009. The letter may refer to "the treaty" or one of the other treaties mentioned here, that is concerned with economic exploitation, but it would in any case be of great importance, especially considering the "road" that the US is building towards the south pole. EverGreg 10:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, seems the treaty dosn't expire, it only has a clause saying it may go up for revisions after 50 years. The relevant part is article 25 quoted below. I don't know how dramatic changes could be and still get a 3/4 majority vote. EverGreg 19:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expiration? 

message: There should be a section explaining the Antarctic Treaty of the Mobile Suit Gundam anime. It plays a critical role in the series. User-Name 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I moved it to Antarctic Treaty of Mobile Suit Gundam.  That's where it belongs. Lokifer 03:13, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Anime

message: The land from 90 degrees west to 150 degrees west has been claimed by The Grand Duchy of Westarctica. (see http://www.westarctica.com/index.html) --  Citylover 17:13, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Westarctica is more of a micronation set up by a few individuals over a building or a very small area. Its claims over the 60-degree wide area of the continent is not recognized by international law. Currently, all international claims of any part of Antarctica is suspended, and the Antarctic treaty of 1959 spoke of no nation can claim Antarctica. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 08:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Westarctica 

message: Is Antarctica currently protected from economic exploitation? Is this mentioned in the treaty? Zargulon 12:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic exploitation

message: Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem clear what is meant by countries with "acceding" status on the map (e.g. Canada).  I don't find this anywhere in the article.  Could this be clarified? Ddddan 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acceding? 

message: :Image:Wiki antarctictreaty.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki antarctictreaty.JPG

message: :Image:Wiki antarctictreaty.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki antarctictreaty.JPG

message: Im confused about the reserve the right to claim thing with Russia and the US. Do they have territories down there that allow them to make such a claim? Lemniwinks (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused

message: Just wondering if the table could be organized a little better.  Maybe consolidated to two date columns?  --Lasunncty (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  table 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Flag of New Swabia.svg Nominated for Deletion

message: Is the Treaties of Hungary Template really necessary? --Gimelthedog (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaties of Hungary Template  

message: In the intro paragraph, the article states that the treaty "currently has 48 signatory nations", but in the Members section, it states "Currently, there are 49 treaty member nations"... there are 49 countries listed on the table in that section, so I'm going to go ahead and correct the error in the intro paragraph.
PrintedScholar (talk) 00:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  48 or 49 member nations? 

message: Hello, I've seen some conspiracy theories about the Antarctic Treaty from the Flat Earth movement.
coverage:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/28/why-bad-ideas-refuse-die
does this meet notability?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by CasualStructure (talk • contribs) 15:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy Theories 

message: Edited to include the actual articles of the treaty. Needs review in regards to format and if the original treaty language is too complicated for the article. I apologize in advance for the newbie mistakes. 96.232.204.14 (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles of Treaty 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  -- Tavix (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Special Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Antarctica.CIA.svg (2002) does not include the 2015's clarification of Norway's territorial claim's southern border, and it does not mark quite a number of more recently-opened permanent research stations (e.g., Belarusian Vechernyaya, Turkish ITÜ PolReC, South Korean Jang Bogo, etc.). What is the point? Territorial claims in Antarctica uses the Antarctica,_territorial_claims.svg map, whereas Antarctica_Station_Map.png is a much better map of stations if needed.--Adûnâi (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Antarctica.CIA.svg (2002) is a severely outdated map 

message: The Flags of Antarctica page, used as the redirect for Flag of the Antarctic Treaty found in the infobox of this article, was recently rewritten by completely removing any mention of the flag of the Antarctic Treaty System from it, along with other flags and their descriptions, while giving a lot more space to the various individuals proposals.
Given this flag's historical significance, I tried to recover the deleted section of the article, expanded it with new sources, in particular on the origin of the emblem from documents dating back to 1961, and temporarily moved it to the Antarctic Treaty issue postage stamp article, since the history and importance in the public consciousnesses of said stamp and its connections to the emblem (and flag) designs are well attested in that article, before any of the proposals were made and even before most flags of the territorial claims were created. (I hope this doesn't break the WP:GA status @Chetsford )
Since the editors of that page keep removing    any mention of the Antarctic Treaty System flag, either that page gets moved as something like "proposals for antarctic flags", thereby loosing all the redirects and trans-lingual links, and a new article is made solely for the Antarctic Treaty System flag and the history of its emblem, or the flag gets rightly reintroduced as the de facto most widely recognized, original and officially adopted design for an Antarctic flag, as the old article did and most articles in other language wikis currently do.
Alternatively, the emblem should at least be mentioned visually in that article, or the information about the emblem should remain inside an existing article, like this one or the Antarctic Treaty issue one, as it currently is.
@HapHaxion @Federalwafer
2.38.151.201 (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also mentioning @Chipmunkdavis as editor of this article. 2.38.151.201 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of the Antarctic Treaty System 

message: The expression "As of the year 2048" is not precise language. As the phrase where it is used uses the present tense, it can be understood as "In 2048", "Until 2048" or "From 2048 onwards". The latter is correct according to the references. On both occasions, the same editor argued that the expression I replaced it with, "From the year 2048 onwards", is "tautological" and undid my change. A tautology is a redundant statement or a statement that is always true, but neither is the case. Fernando Trebien (talk) 12:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  As of the year 2048