Talk:Brazil Antarctic Geopolitics

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles

Antarctica

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Antarctica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Antarctica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AntarcticaWikipedia:WikiProject AntarcticaTemplate:WikiProject AntarcticaAntarctica articles

Untitled

I note that the article's neutrality has been disputed. I would appreciate knowing the specifics so we can discuss them. Many thanks, Jack Child 09:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Pic

Picture Chi-975 Ant Treaty.jpeg was removed, because it is a stamp from chile

POV

There is no evidence given that Brazil actually claims a zone of interest. This article seems to be original research. Astrotrain 18:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with this assessment.--cj | talk 13:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Isn't the map from the University of Texas proof enough that Brazil claims (or claimed) a zone of interest? I know I've seen a similar map in an encyclopedia (I believe it was collier's or columbia....either way, it was over 5 years ago).208.138.38.88 19:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I believe adding the references throughout the article is the best way to eliminate any concern.

Links related to Brazilian Antarctica

Please refer to the following links for reference -

WorldStatesmen - Antarctica Flags of the World - Antarctica Map showing the Brazilizan Antarctica

-- DD Ting 10:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong sector limits

The western limit of the sector as shown on the infobox picture Image:Brazilian Territories.PNG is misplaced; presently it is shown at 60 degrees west, dissecting the Antarctic Peninsula and trending towards the Falklands, while by definition it should be 53 degrees west, coinciding with the eastern border of the Chilean claim and running east of the Peninsula. Apcbg 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, whoever did that map made it wrong & someone should fix it! That-Vela-Fella 19:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock

I added the peacock tag because of "major geographic disadvantages." Don't tell, show. A.Z. 20:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sources!

Try these, 'bozo's. Here are some proper geopolitical links, biombos.

[[1]]

[[2]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.240.115 (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]