Talk:Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen

Compromise

Would the phrasing "in Antarctica" work? -Fsotrain09 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica

There's a problem with the statment that this was the first person to be born in Antarctica. Grytviken, her birthplace, is not located in the Antarctica. The Falkland Islands and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands might be part of the British Antarctic Territory, but that doesn't make it in the Antarctica. being north of the paralel 60º, they are not considered part of Antarctica (see:Antarctic Treaty System). Grytviken is located at coordinates 54° 18′ 06″ S 36° 30′ 50″ W.

What's more, Emilio Palma is officially considered (ok, by the Guinness records at least) to be the first known person to be born on the continent of Antarctica.

The article should be rephrased if a matter of national pride is in dispute, but shouldn't stay as it is. Mariano(t/c) 06:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to make any necessary changes--I was unaware of these issues when I created the stub. Fsotrain09 03:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the above reasoning. First, there is no contradiction with Emilio Palma being the first person born on the Antarctic Constinent as obviously South Georgia is not part of the mainland.

Second, the Antarctic Treaty area is a political region not geographical. The Southern Ocean has several definitions (those of CCAMLR and countries like Australia or New Zealand differ from that of IHO); its natural border is undoubtedly the Antarctic Convergence. Regarding the classification of various southern islands as Antarctic, Subantarctic or otherwise, here follows a brief comment based on my extensive record of Antarctic research -- both academic and field work -- together with the reference to an authoritative source.

(1) All the islands south of 60 degrees south latitude (not the Antarctic Circle!) are generally regarded as Antarctic rather than Subantarctic. (This includes in particular the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, and numerous other islands in the Antarctic Peninsula area as well as few islands off Eastern Antarctica north of the Antarctic Circle.)

(2) The Subantarctic islands.

(a) In a narrower sense these include the islands situated on or south of the Antarctic Convergence but north of 60 degrees south latitude:

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (Britain); Bouvet Island / Bouvetøya (Norway); Heard and McDonald Islands (Australia); and Kerguelen (France).

(b) In a wider sense the Subantarctic islands include also (see the reference source below) the following islands situated north of the Antarctic Convergence (and thus not belonging to the world geographical region of Antarctica):

Prince Edward Islands (South Africa); Îles Crozet (France); Île Amsterdam & Île St.-Paul (France); Macquarie Island (Australia); Tristan da Cunha Islands (Britain); Gough Island (Britain); Campbell Island (New Zealand); Auckland Islands (New Zealand); Bounty Islands (New Zealand); Antipodes Islands (New Zealand); Snares Islands (New Zealand); Diego Ramirez Archipelago (Chile).

The Falkland Islands are out of the question; same for other southern islands such as Hoste, Navarino, Horn, Estados etc. located next south or east of Tierra del Fuego -- never mind that some of them are more southerly than South Georgia or Boivet; from Drake Passage the Convergence runs in a northeast direction between the Falklands and South Georgia to reach 50 degrees south latitude, then turns eastwards. If you visit say Isla Navarino and compare its nature (vegetation and wildlife) with that of South Georgia, the South Shetlands or the Antarctic Peninsula, you would have little doubt what is and what is not Antarctica.

Reference:

P.R. Dingwall, Ed. (1995), Progress in Conservation of the Subantarctic Islands, IUCN, Gland and Cambridge, xvi+225pp. Apcbg 21:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, being in the mainland or not has nothing to do here Isla Martín García is not in the main land, but nobody would dubt to include them within the South American continent.

Secondly, the georgias are considered Sub Antarctic; does that make them in Antarctica or not? The article as now perfectly states that the islands might be or not considered part of the Antarctica, which I consider the most general and less biased solution. Mariano(t/c) 07:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

First, you have failed to respond to the points made in my comment.

Second, it was you who quoted the Guinness book phrasing "... on the continent of Antarctica", which certainly does not include clearly detached archipelagos or islands like South Georgia or Bouvet or Peter I; your example with Martin Garcia is inappropriate as islands in the territorial waters could be considered part of the continent and that island is even a river island, i.e. within the internal waters of a particular country.

And third, you wrote: "The article as now perfectly states that the islands might be or not considered part of the Antarctica, which I consider the most general and less biased solution." No that is not what the article itself says! Its present form is unacceptable, saying: "... not considered part of the Antarctic, such as the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands". Yes the Subantarctic islands (including South Georgia) are part of Antarctica. The internal division between Antarctic and Subantarctic waters and territories is subject to various definitions ranging from no Subantarctic at all to a widest definition includin the northern part of the Antarctic peninsula (which doesn't differ much from South Georgia). The definite, unmistakable external border of Antarctica is the Antarctic Convergence. Apcbg 10:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You completely lost me. What are the points i failed to respond? Your presumption that the Sub-antarctic islands are indeed part of Antarctica is not necessarily true. If you're going to quote, do it with the complete context I didn't just write "... not considered part of the Antarctic,". but " ... is usually not considered part of Antarctica.". List of antarctic and sub-antarctic islands states that "sub-antarctic islands are islands in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica north of the Antarctic Circle (66° 33' 38"). Antarctic islands are the islands in the Southern Ocean or in the seas around Antarctica south of the Antarctic Circle." So the limit seams to be at Parallel 66º, further south of the Antarctic Treaty's 60º, and of course south of the Georgias islands. Then Antarctica says to be a Continent, which as you claim doesn't include islands. Then I'm afraid I'm not understanding your point. Since its a matter of interpretation whether the islands are or not in the Antarctic (whatever you want to understand from that word), then I don't see any other option than explaining both positions. Perhaps I could better understand you if you said what is it that you would change, and in which way. Mariano(t/c) 11:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Please read what you write; you wrote "not considered" twice and the second time withour "usually". Wikipedia articles are not reliable reference sources; sorry, some articles are disseminating disinformation, and most efficiently as Wiki articles are mirrored by many websites; the piece about the Antarctic Circle (66° 33' 38") is an example. 'Antarctica' in English has double meaning: the continent itself; and the wider geographical region. In certain languages they have distinct words for the two, like 'Antarktida' vs. 'Antarktika'. Solveig was the first human born in 'Antarktika', the Argentine guy was the first born on 'Antarktida'. Maybe I'll try with some editing, unfortunately right now I am leaving for some trip and will have little time during the next several days. Apcbg 11:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well this is an English encyclopedia, so the definitions of Antarktida and Antarktika do not apply here. They might apply in whatever language that is, but no here, much in the same way that "America" refers to a single continent (North and South America) in Spanish, but not in English. To give you another example Australia is NOT a continent in Spanish (so you won't find an article in a respectable Spanish encyclopedia saying that Australia is a continent, but that it is part of Oceania, regardless of the definitions in other languages). Moreover, it is the political definitions of Antartctica that should matter. If a baby is born in the Falkland Islands, is he Argentine or British? British, if you consider the political definition; and common sense ditcates he should be considered British. Moreover, even the "wider geographical region" refered to as the "second meaning" (sic) of Antartctica, this second definition (in English) still does not include South Georgia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.119.25.62 (talk • contribs)

Surely babies born in the Falkland Islands are British, and so are the babies born in the British overseas territories geographically affiliated to Africa, North America, South America, Asia, Antarctica and Oceania. So what? Britain is a political entity not continent.

No continent has its borders defined politically. Indeed, the border Europe/Asia is saddled by political entities (Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey); same for Africa/Asia (Egypt) and North/South America (Panama or Columbia).

The Antarctic Treaty defines one political entity related to the geographical region of Antarctica; the Antarctic CCAMLR Convention defines another Antarctic political entity different from that defined by the Antarctic Treaty.

That the English language uses one and the same name for geographical entities for which other languages have distinct names (s.a. Antarktika/Antarktis in both German and Norwegian; Antártida/Región Antártica in Spanish) does not mean that the definition of Antarctica varies from language to language. It’s the same definition in English: the SCAR book I quoted is in English. SCAR is the authoritative scientific body as far as Antarctica is concerned. The border of the geographical region of Antarctica is the Antarctic Convergence, and South Georgia lies within that border. Apcbg 22:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If, as you say, the Antarctic Convergence indeed defines the Antarctic Region (or whatever you want to call it), then why are the antarctic and sub-antarctic islands are separated by the Antarctic Circle? All I'm saying is that there is not one single definition of the Antartic region, and that is stated in the article. Mariano(t/c) 10:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The Antarctic circle separates nothing. Should you believe it does, please provide sources (your Wikipedia reference is no source). Apcbg 12:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

SO your reference means more than mine? The antarctic cilcle is defined by the tilt of the planet respect to its angle with the sun. You say this means nothing, an a water current does. Please, you continue saying this is the correct way when there is not such thing. There are different ways of defining Antactica, and I understand why you are in favour of the Convergence, but it is just not universally accepted. Here you have a bunch of references that contradict your versions: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and so on. I'm not telling you the definition of Antarctica should be this or that, just that the Antarctic Convergence is far from being universally accepted at its limit. Mariano(t/c) 13:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You wrote: "SO your reference means more than mine?" The difference between my reference and yours was that yours did not exist: it was links to Wikipedia articles.

None of your new references supports your assertion about the Antarctic Circle, which surely exists but delimits no geographical regions.

Moreover, your new reference #1 says about South Georgia: "This was the first claim to possession in any part of the Antarctic ..." Apcbg 14:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia articles ARE references, or at least I consider them to be if they are from consensuated articles. I didn't say these references affirmed the Antarctic circle as its limit, I said they said something different fom what you implied. I don't know how you read things such as Antarctic islands are located south of 60°S, but if you are going pedantry ignore everything I say, I see little point in having this conversation. Mariano(t/c) 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A statement in a Wikipedia article unsupported by any reference is original research which is not permitted. You endorsed one such statement when you wrote: "then why are the antarctic and sub-antarctic islands are separated by the Antarctic Circle?", and when invited to provide references you failed to do so.

You wrote about your new references: "I said they said something different fom what you implied." Once again, your claim proves false:

Your reference #1 says about South Georgia: "This was the first claim to possession in any part of the Antarctic ..." which is exactly what I say;

Most of your other references simply define the Antarctic continent as "A continent lying chiefly within the Antarctic Circle and asymmetrically centered on the South Pole" -- nothing here supports any statement of yours, nor does it say anything in disagreement with anything I wrote; and

As for "Antarctic islands are located south of 60°S", go to my very first posting near the top of this talk page and you will see this same statement in the detailed description of the Antarctic region and sub-regions adduced there. Apcbg 19:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You are saying that sub-antarctic is also antarctic? I don't see why. Can you state that Antarctica as a region is never defined with the Antarctic Circle, the 60º parallel, or the continental shelf? Can you assure that Antarctic is never defined also politically as things such as Europe, South America and Oceania? what makes the flexible Antarctic Convergence undoubtedly its natural border, if it embrases islands temporally? Do those islands that are intermittently inside the area Antarctic or not? Can you, for a moment, admit that people use different definitions for Antarctica, and that however logical to you to use a cold current as a limit, that doesn't make it popularly accepted? Mariano(t/c) 05:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently you are moving in circles, so it might help if you start reading this talk page from the beginning.

I have presented above a clear and consistent classification that is duly sourced with references to authoritative source.

Should you maintain some alternative classification please provide adequate references as this discussion cannot be based on original research which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Apcbg 07:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The hole problem is the definition of Antarctica. I say it's a continent and nothing else, and you insist that the 'proper' definition is by the Convergence. The current version of the article doesn't state that she's considered by some people to be the first person to be born in the Antarctica, with the necessary comment of the ambiguity of the term.

Now, the reach of Antarctica as a continent is also ambiguous; the continental shelf might be used, or the proximity, or the current, etc. Mainland an continent are not synonymous: Manhattan Island, is part of the continent, but not of the mainland, Haiti is not part of any continent. Mariano(t/c) 10:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to discuss let's try to do it in an orderly manner. You say "it's a continent and nothing else". This is unclear, gives no concrete borders, and is supported by no concrete references; I repeat, this discussion cannot be based on original research which is not permitted in Wikipedia. Apcbg 11:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, first tell me what does Antarctica means? I believe that Antarctica is generally considered to be a continent (if you want sources, say CIA) Now, there are several definition of continent (I know you don't like Wikipedia articles, but the different definitions are listed there). What's more, the typical definition of Antarctica of "continent mostly south of the Antarctic Circle" is ambiguous.

I'm not sure how is it that you deduce that the Antarctic Convergence, a maritime current that somehow separates weather conditions and sea life, becomes the limit of the continent (you named your sources but did not quote them). This doesn't sound obvious to me at all; if weather conditions where used to separate continents, I believe we would have a lot more than just 5, 6 or 7. Generally a continent is defined by its continental shelf. The Times calls the Convergence the "region’s biological boundary", and legally defines the Antarctica as per the Antarctic treaty. Encarta defines the Antarctic region as "the entire area south of the Antarctic Convergence", making a distinction with the continent. Finally, CIA says "ice-free coastal areas include parts of southern Victoria Land, Wilkes Land, the Antarctic Peninsula area, and parts of Ross Island on McMurdo Sound" naming only Antarctic Islands and no Subantarctic (but is also ambiguous, saying including); it seams they carefully avoided mesing with the ambiguity, as most definitions do. All in all, I thikn we either make a distinction between Antarctic Region and Antarctic Continent (which I'm not sure to be real, or an original research), or simply comment the ambiguity and let the reader decide. Mariano(t/c) 12:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Living?

I categorised this article with 'possibly living people'... if she were alive today, she'd be 93. It's not incredibly unlikely that she's still alive.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

South of / inside

The article claims Solveig to be the "first person born south of the Antarctic Convergence", but it doesn't specify where was she born, but I deduce it was in Grytviken. Now, Grytviken is at coords -54.28150° -36.50800°. That's a little bit northen of Ushuaia. Now, the Antarctic Convergence's article says that the size and location of the Convergence is not really fixed, but it doesn't vary more than half a degree.

Considering that continental America is sourthern to Grytviken, and that people inhabited that area before the arrival of the Europeans, how can we claim this person to be born 'south of the Convergence? The map of the Convergence's map shows Tierra del Fuego outside the Convergence, but Grytviken inside it.

In short, I think we should rephrase the opening paragraph to was the first person born inside the instead of south of. It is more accurate (since the Convergence limit is not a parallel). --Mariano(t/c) 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

11,000 "south of" vs. 17 "inside" Google hits. "South of" has an unambiguous, precise meaning: Your location is south of the Convergence if, moving straight northwards, you cross it. So I don't think the suggested rewording is a good idea. Apcbg 19:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but move straight westwards from Grytviken, and you will also cross the Converge. Perhaps is not as unambiguous as you think. --Mariano(t/c) 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No its not ambiguous because you cannot get inside the Convergence by moving northwards. Apcbg 21:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

But you can moving northeast. Given the fact that the limit of the Convergence is not set by any parallel, using North/South with it doesn't seam like the best choice of words.--Mariano(t/c) 22:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The issue here is not in which direction one can move -- you can move also to the space or to the ocean bottom -- but the issue is to check whether you are inside or outside that closed curve, the Convergence, and moving in north-south direction does it unambiguously. That's that. As for the choice of words, the Google search demonstrates that English speakers (including native English speakers which both of us are not, I guess) prefer "south of" to "inside", in a 11,000:17 ratio. If you feel in a position to teach English the Englishmen and the Americans, I don't. Apcbg 06:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Have it your way. I though it would be wise to make it clearer for the reader who might get the wrong impression that the Convergence is a flat line (I know I got that impression too). --Mariano(t/c) 13:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

If one doesn't know what the Convergence is, then "inside" and "south of" are equally clear, or unclear. This article is not the place to educate people what the Convergence is, but the text has an internal Wiki link to the article Antarctic Convergence where the shape of the Convergence is well explained (varying latitudes etc.). Apcbg 15:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)