Talk:Serranilla Bank

Why did I insert the Clarify tag?

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)

Why did I insert the POV (neutrality/neutral point of view)-tag?

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)

Claims

As far as I know Serranilla bank belongs to Colombia. Its military has presence in the area and patrols them. [1]--F3rn4nd0 ^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 01:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to take the plunge here. I cleaned this article up (somewhat) from the messy state it was in about a month ago. I've read all the sources cited in the article. In respect to these following new sources, which I will cite in the article shortly, it seems that Colombia's de facto sovereignty here (regardless of law), is indisputable.

• The lighthouse (photos of which can be seen here) has been rebuilt some time during the last decade or so.
• The "replacement of the lighthouse structures" (of both Serranilla's and Bajo Nuevo Bank's), costs and everything, is detailed in this report by the Ministerio de Defensa Nacional. Date: 2008.
• And this report, again by the Defence Ministry, talks about replacing the individual lights themselves--again, costs included.

I've now edited the article to reflect plainly Colombia's control over the territory. I'm sure this will rile up some sort of argument, but I fail to see how anybody can argue with photographic evidence. Rennell435 (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It'd be good if we could get this image of the lighthouse uploaded onto the article. I don't know enough about lisensing and copyright to try though. Would anyone be willing to help? Rennell435 (talk) 07:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Note on the treaty

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)

Yes that statement would be accurate and would fit better in the text.XavierGreen (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Rennell435 (talk) 14:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Satellite map

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)

False claim

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)

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)

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)

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)

And the DOI still claims that Serranilla is an Insular Area of the US. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

The reality is that no one knows what the position of the US Government on these islands. They are gathering a few scattered references to invent claims of sovereignty that do not exist today. In the past the United States claimed sovereignty over these islands, but the position of the US government, which does not reject the Colombian government is currently unknown. Must say that in the article, as it is today is sponsoring an attempt to generate a territorial dispute.

La realidad es que no se sabe cuál es la posición del Gobierno de Estados Unidos respecto a estas islas. Se están reuniendo un par de menciones aisladas para inventar reclamaciones de soberanía que hoy no existen. En el pasado Estados Unidos reclamó soberanía sobre esas islas, pero actualmente se desconoce la posición del Gobierno de Estados Unidos, que no rechaza la administración colombiana. Deben decir eso en el artículo, como está hoy se está patrocinando un intento de generar una disputa territorial.--Nerêo (talk) 06:56, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Lighthouse Picture

Can someone add a picture of the lighthouse? my wikipedia skills aren't what they used to be. https://sanandresislas.es.tl/SERRANILLA.htm has some or https://www.ibiblio.org/lighthouse/cosap.htm has one (and links to the other one) (also unsure on copyright of the pictures so...)

Thanks Alex the Nerd (talk) 08:56, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

That looks like its probably copyrighted, but one could refer to it with a section with external links.

FYI, I have a personal pic that's a 2007 photo of a 1937 photo ... http://www.photo-hh.com/Photos-I/Pages/Cayman_Brac_2007.html#97 - but even if I were to volunteer my 2007 image, the original that it is a pic of is technically still under copyright. And it doesn't help is that I don't even know who the original photographer was: I'm simply a friend of the octogenarian who possessed the photo in 2007 that he let me make pics of his photo album ... and I believe the original may have been destroyed in 2008 during Hurricane Paloma? Plus its not what you're looking for, since its a pic of the lighthouse that's gone & since replaced. -hh (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)