Best,     :::I agree with you, Apcbg, and will change the article back to the wording of the version that includes Ecuador and Uruguay, though I will add  tags and put the whole lot into alphabetical order.  The added wording to the Peruvian one tries to justify the claim where other nations' do not, and this is a problem.  Regarding the fact tags, I've seen the Chilean document and IMO this does still require further verification beyond that. ' '   :::Yes I also believe that those reservations of rights need better sourcing.      I think I should be clear on this, because of this edit  which I have reverted.  We do not make any attempt to explain the justification behind the claims of the US, Russia, Brazil, Ecuador or Uruguay to rights in the Antarctic.  Nor indeed the claims of those that actually claim territory - New Zealand, Australia, France, Norway, the UK, Chile and Argentina.  Per NPOV we should not treat Peru any differently to those twelve other countries. ' '   :Ok, I put the references in the Peruvian case, as shown in the Ãs template, but wanted to emphasize that the references 47 and 48 are given to the cases of Peru, Ecuador and Uruguay, but even so put a single source in peru. greetings     ::I'm afraid we can't accept that reference because on principle blogs aren't reliable sources.  Nonetheless I have moved those two sources so that it is clearer to what they apply.  I still think there ought to be reliable sources for this that aren't related to the Chilean government or military (since as Apcbg says, such a claim is a Big Deal), but I am prepared to accept my current revision for now. '''' '''' 