This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Antarctica: Adelie Land / Argentine Antarctica / Australian Antarctic Territory / Brazilian Antarctica / British Antarctic Territory / Antarctic Chilean Territory / Norwegian Antarctica / Ross Dependency High‑importance This article 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is supported by Adelie Land work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Argentine Antarctica work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Australian Antarctic Territory work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Brazilian Antarctica work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by British Antarctic Territory work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Antarctic Chilean Territory work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Norwegian Antarctica work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Ross Dependency work group (assessed as High-importance). International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. New Zealand Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess.

The initial map, which blends together overlapping colors, is quite confusing. The style of the second map, where competing claims are shown as stripes, is much clearer. Jpatokal (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the wikipage it is stated and illustrated that Marie Bird Land is "unclaimed". I find this to be quite misleading however since an individual, Felix Kjellberg, has in fact claimed this piece of land. Moreover, you may argue that his claim is currently unrecognised by nations. But this however should not deduce from the credibility of his claim, as other claims of land in this Antarctica are also not fully recognised. If we were to consider that argument, then the same scrutiny must be applied to other claims too, which will effectively invalidate them also.

--signed Owen. B Owen Brooks (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No individual person can claim this land. Kjellberg even acknowleges this at the specific video where he initially claimed this land. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This "claim" seems to me prima facie to fall below the standard required by WP:NOTABILITY (and plausibly WP:VERIFIABILITY too). I could "claim" based on my own whim that the land that Brazil currently controls is illegitimately occupied by the Brazilian state and actually the Free Republic of Archonistan is the sole legitimate successor state of the Portuguese Empire in South America, but it such trivia are not exactly worthy of recording in WP. To do so is arguably even to violate WP:NPOV as it is giving undue weight to someone's personal eccentricity, by mentioning it in the same context as either de facto or de jure claims over land by at-least-plausible states (which in any case have no legal basis on this continent). Archon 2488 (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

like other continents have, in this same pattern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Africa_(orthographic_projection).svg 177.86.22.177 (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A sourced addition was added today to the lead. After checking,the source came from a Fox news article. Only a handful of other news outlets report it, none mainstream. This claim was made by a military commander who is reported as saying six months ago: "We have property rights in the South Pole. We have plan to raise our flag there and carry out military and scientific work,..." This is not a territorial claim, so the source has been misinterpreted. The sources quickly move on to discuss the $6b of Iranian funds held by the USA and the current Hamas-Israel dispute, which appears to be the point of the articles, not Antarctica. This entire story is typical tabloid news that doesn't deserve to be put in wikipedia so I have removed it. Please remember, even based on this source, Iran does not make a claim to any part of Antarctica. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly more detailed account of what happened has just been added with another source that is the same as the others, low quality. It doesn't help that the English isn't good. "Iran's supposed property rights in the South Pole have been scrutinised by critics. Not only does the potential military base imagery breach the firmly held Antarctic Treaty, but it also raises international security concerns." Other than that it is the same - moving on to the $6bn funds and their use. Please use this talk page and don't add further to the article. This is the Youtube link on the latest Hindustani Times citation. [1] These weak sources are reporting this interview, making the citations primary anyway. See the interview - it's nonsense from a highly questionable govt/military source anyway.Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Ecuador’s claim not regarded with the same status as the seven generally accepted claimant parties? DougSaved625 (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently a legislative action, not taken up by the Ecuadorian government [2]. CMD (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. I believe there may be an edit required to the page in that case however I’ll do some further research to confirm before doing anything. DougSaved625 (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about USA through Scott? 188.113.104.73 (talk) 17:39, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

USA is claiming land of Scott in "honour" of british Scott. 188.113.104.73 (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer your question because I don't know what "USA through Scott" is a reference to. Largoplazo (talk) 18:40, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station, but there is no claim of sovereignty associated with it. CMD (talk) 09:51, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each country has sole authority over its own research stations, which is similar to sovereignty, but that's all. The USA does not claim sovereignty anywhere in Antarctica but reserves the right to do so in the future. It does not recognise any other country's claim either. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has had 714 editors with 252 watchers. The following is a preemption to tagging and possible article reassessment.

This has been assessed as B-class. It is currently in the following categories:

• Articles with unsourced statements from June 2021
• Articles with unsourced statements from June 2023

The B-class criteria #1 states: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which (editor added, "that") is likely to be challenged is cited.

Whether by design or incremental edits, there is a practice of material after a reference. The placement of citations is not set in stone, but the policy on verification states, Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Citing sources (lead): "Each fact or claim in an article must be verifiable. Additionally, four types of information must be accompanied by an inline citation to a reliable source (link editor added) that directly supports the material:

• 1)- direct quotations,
• 2)- material whose verifiability has been challenged,
• 3)- material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged, and
• 4)- contentious material about living and recently deceased persons."

Number 3 can bring in confusion. This is why, as a matter of practice and some requirements (above B-class articles and DYK), a reference is generally presented after the end of a paragraph.

In this article, there are instances of material after a reference, some have "citation needed" tags, and there are unsourced sentences and paragraphs. This is not in agreement with the B-class criteria. Questionable content, or that which is not equivalent to "the sky is blue", such as "Following the passing of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the government of the United Kingdom relinquished all control over the governments of New Zealand and Australia. This, however, had no bearing on the obligations of the governors-general of both countries in their capacity as Governors of the Antarctic territories", in the "British claims" subsection, fits the criteria. "Antarctic Treaty" section: "...and the United States and Russia assert their right to make claims in the future if they so choose. Brazil maintains the Comandante Ferraz (the Brazilian Antarctic Base) and has proposed a theory to delimit territories using meridians, which would give it and other countries a claim. This is not a mundane, inarguable fact, so it should be sourced or removed. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]