Talk:World Park Base

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World Park Base article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New Zealand Low‑importance

	New Zealand portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Antarctica

	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 articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph of World Park Base be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in Antarctica may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Research stations in Antarctica#List of research stations|List of Antarctic research stations]] The anchor (#List of research stations) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Is this objective enough?

This article looks pretty biased to me... anyone else think it needs to be objectified a bit? Grutness 12:49, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, there is a definite bias in the article. Most articles involving Greenpeace and other PC organizations are heavily biased. It needs a rewrite. --Bigbrisco (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biased? Yes. Original? no. Found the Original (new at wikipedia. Tried to use refrence tags to point to it.) Also contacting Greenpeace about the site too (who knows maybe they'll send an original already with sources from there pages. still could be biased but at least then it is verifiable. (not another wiki.) World Park base infocop411 (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article isn't objective, but it's hard to understand how much the US and other nations hated having someone watch over their operations. At the time the US burned their trash with JP8 jet fuel and dumped sewage right into the ocean with trash floating out there as well. GP showed up and documented leaking fuel tanks and burning trash and exposed how bad the Navy was running the place. There's a vehicle that still exists at McMurdo named Green Piece. The thing is a busted old truck that belches smoke. I think that vehicle sums up the hatred for GP on the continent, but they did some really great stuff. The US treats its sewage better than most municipalities in the US now, runs on about 1/3 wind power thanks to 3 large wind turbines, and hauls all trash off continent. It's night and day and GP is to thank for a lot of that. They got the ball rolling —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tas50 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on World Park Base. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]