Talk:Territorial claims in the Arctic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Geography
Geography Portal

This article is supported by the Geography WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage on Geography and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Geography, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
Peer review Territorial claims in the Arctic has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents

[edit] Miles/Kilometres/Nautical Miles

This page and most others dealing with the EEZ confuse miles and nautical miles, and give incorrect metric equivalents. 24.86.206.202 19:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Russian flag

"Russia plants flag on North Pole seabed". An interesting and related article. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is found here Arktika 2007--204.117.78.97 12:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claim vs. own?

Why does the author say the nations do not "own" the territory, but "claim" it? What is the difference? If one has exclusive rights over a territory (aside from navigation), doesn't one effectively "own" it? Needs clarification.--68.44.91.155

Because when someone says they own it, but someone disagrees, then it would be a claim. They can only claim something that no where in documentation officially states is theirs. There is still dispute over who actually owns what, thus countries are making claims that they own it, and most likely the UN will have to sort it out.--204.117.78.97 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why extend territorial claims?

Can someone explain why any of these countries would want to extend their territorial claims? My first thought comes to oil, but shipping routes, or pride, come to mind... --24.86.206.202

Because of Global Warming the ice is receding, leaving more sea open, making it further accessible to drill for oil in the arctic. While this is more of a thing for Canada and Russia, the United States still claims that all the ice/water is international waters so anyone can pass a ship through it.--204.117.78.97 12:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Sovereignty claims in the Arctic

I think that it would be appropriate to merge Sovereignty claims in the Arctic into this article. The latter article was created on August 7, and is only a stub, so merging should be of little work. It would just take some restructuring of the article in terms of the section headings. It would help expand this article as well, as it seems to focus mainly on the North pole and the immediate region around it. Any objections? -- Reaper X 04:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with merging. --A. B. (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reconstruction

Since there is little response and no opposition over the merge, I want to go ahead with the merge. This is going to require some reconstruction, and I will need some input from others on how to arrange to headings.
The Sovereignty claims in the Arctic article is very short, but I want to spend some time to comb through the sources that exist there and expand it. Anyway, the main issues that will be introduced into the article are the Yukon–Alaska dispute (which also has a separate article I suggest we also merge here), Hans Island, and the Northwest Passage. I'm thinking these could have their own sections, and the current body of the article could have its own section. As for the title of the latter section, maybe "The North Pole"? Give me some feedback here. -- Reaper X 05:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Hans Island and the Northwest Passage need their own articles, although we should include some discussion of the disputes here. I agree that Yukon–Alaska dispute should go here. --A. B. (talk) —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC).
I agree that Hans Island and the NWP need their own articles as they exist outside of the disputes but there should be coverage here. The Yukon–Alaska dispute should be merged in here. I think I prefer the seperation of each dispute rather than the "initial claims" as is laid out here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at my personal sandbox, I have an general example of what the article would look like there. The sections for Hans Island and the Passage will be kept short if there are no objections to their inclusion, and the Yukon–Alaska dispute will be the biggest addition. Leave any suggestions/comments/concerns. Cheers. -- Reaper X 04:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks good so far. No problem with mentioning Hans Island and the NWP since they are relevant (I agree they need separate articles as well, particularly the NWP). A couple of points though: we are referencing everything in kilometres as primary units, where I believe nautical miles are more appropriate (not a complaint at you - we're already doing this). The use of nautical miles in the laws of the sea is well established throughout the world, and I think it would be useful to be able to easily compare with these units rather than having to convert to and from kilometres.
The other thing: I don't know if you've been following it, but you may want to check out Talk:Northwest Passage#Most or all other nations?, on the two sides of the dispute when writing that section. I've summarised it (successfully, I believe) at Canadian Internal Waters#Dispute. Pfainuk talk 11:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added the Hans Island and Beaufort Sea sections. Modify as you see fit. I will now put Sovereignty claims in the Arctic and Yukon-Alaska dispute up for deletion. -- Reaper X 17:25, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Rather than have them deleted I changed them to redirects. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Cambridge. I have now re-written the Hans Island section, tinkered with image justifications and sizes, added the Northwest Passage section, and restructures the sectioning under the North Pole heading.
Now for that latter work, do you think it's necessary to have the History heading, or would it be better to eliminate it, like so?
Also, what do you guys think of the order of the NWP, Hans, Beaufort and Pole sections? Is it fine as is? I have a feeling the North Pole section could do better at the bottom of the article, but that's just me. -- Reaper X 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)