![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Territorial claims in the Arctic received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
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)
" Russia plants flag on North Pole seabed". An interesting and related article. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The planting of Russian flag on the seabed merely marked that the Russian Federation has been there and did not in any way indicate that the Russian Federation was claiming the location. This statement clearly made by the Russian Foreign Minister. Moryak ( talk) 15:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
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
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
To the original post: No country can extend its "territorial claim" to the arctic when all the territory in the North is claimed, the issue is maritime access. However you are right, under UNLCOS if a nation can prove that its continental shelf spans past the normal 200 mile limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone, it can have rights to the resource in that expanded area. Oil and gas are central, with the Arctic believed to contain 25% of the world's untapped oil, with most falling on the Russian side. And yes, pride is at stake. Canadian identity routinely includes references to the northern arctic, such as our national anthem that proclaims Canada to be the "True North, Strong and Free". Any perceived challenges to the Canadian north often invoke responses based upon nationalism, somewhat intriguing when most Canadians do not know the extent of CDN sovereignty over the Arctic.
To the second poster, you are confusing two issues. The delimitation of continental shelves has nothing to do with international shipping. These are two separate issues, and to some scholars Canada will not see and increase of shipping due to climate change (see Franklyn Griffith and "Shipping News," although I disagree, I do believe Griffiths argument has merit and should be included in any article that debates the ownership of the NWP). However, you are right that Climate Change serves to agitate unresolved sovereignty matters in the Arctic. Ultimately, no one knows for sure what is going to happen, and that uncertainty demands that nations like Canada, whose sovereignty over the water remains uncertain, must act to enforce its claim in order to prepare for actions that may challenge its claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 ( talk) 06:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
From CBC: [1]
- 64.180.77.158 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The information about Sector Theory is wrong and misleading. First, Canada initially proclaimed Sector Theory in 1907 when Sector Pascal Poirier stated it before the Canadian Senate.
See Killaby, pg 34. block quote, bottom left corner
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo6/no4/doc/north-nord-01-eng.pdf
Also Canada abandoned sector theory in 1986 and currenlty uses straight baselines around the archipelago. (this is the same problem I've discussed on the Canada wikipage for posting an incorrect map based on sector theory)
Although not very detailed, for simplicity see: Killaby, end of 35-36.
Canada does not claim ownership of the North Pole, and Minister McKay's comments reflect a general representation that most Canadians simply do not know the extent of our sovereignty in the North.
If you any help or sources, let me know and I'll be glad to assist.
Yikes, the section on "National Sectors" needs a serious rewrite as it is extremely outdated. Canada has not relied upon sector theory since adopting straight baselines around the archipelago in 1984-5. If fact, this whole page needs a thorough rewrite and is in bad need of a subject expert as it demonstrates a poor grasp of the issues and is factually incorrect or extremely vague in several places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 ( talk) 17:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If the title of the Page is territorial claims in the Arctic it should not discuss MARITIME matters like the NWP and the Beaufort sea. Maybe another page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.94.14.128 ( talk) 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
And, Canada does not claim the "Arctic Seas" as internal as stated in the first paragraph. Canada only considers the waters within the archipelago as internal as the page later states, these aren't seas, but passages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 ( talk) 06:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
AND, Canada does not rely upon UNCLOS for the internalization for the NWP. Canada relies upon the International Court of Justice's ruling in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case of 1951 for straight baselines. How could Canada rely upon UNCLOS when it internalized the NWP officially in 1986 but did not ratify UNCLOS until 2003?
AND Canada argues ownership over the archipelago waters due to HISTORIC USAGE, not due to clauses in UNCLOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 ( talk) 06:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to lable this article 'controversial' or 'dispute'? You think it would be. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.216.9.55 (
talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Source material from this article was used in the article Canadian sovereignty. I'm in the process right now of giving all appropriate editors due credit. Bsimmons666 ( talk) Friend? 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
As I understand, the North pole could declare itself as a sovereign country. This as it houses several indiginous peoples, see http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/faq.html#8 , http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Your-Own-Country , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Start_Your_Own_Country_(TV_series) This would eliminate the claiming of land by colonist nations.
81.243.185.133 ( talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The Beaufort Sea section is kinda sloppy. For example: "No settlement has been reached to date, because the US has signed but has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"
In fact this dispute has little to do about LOS and is related to an 1825 Treaty between Russia and Britain over their borders. The treaty says the border should carry along the 141 meridian "as far as the frozen ocean". Canada argues the boundary should continue along the 141 meridian, whereas the US says it should be equal distance at the coastline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.4 ( talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The premise of this page is extremely confusing. As another poster commented, there are no territorial disputes or claims in the Arctic, they are all maritime. Look at the way this article is written, it talks about all these Arctic maritime issues under the interpretation of the Law of the Sea, then it has a sub-heading that lists all the territory in the Arctic, none of which is disputed. There's a serious connection/congruency issue here!
A major rewrite is needed here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 ( talk) 17:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason for confusion nor do I see a reason for a major rewrite. Федоров ( talk) 10:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I googled a few definitions:
1 - Territory: An area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state 2 - Land: The part of the Earth's surface not covered by water, as opposed to the sea or air 3 - Continental Shelf: The area of seabed around a large landmass where the sea is relatively shallow compared to the open ocean
The continental shelf is only "territory" by the fact that it is a part of the Earth's crust. There is a fundamental difference
In the case of Hans Island, the dispute exists because there is no agreed upon maritime baseline.
At the very least the page should be retitled something along the lines of "Disputed Sovereignty Claims in the Arctic," since the previous poster agreed that there are both maritime and supposed territorial issues. It's not simply "Territorial claims in the Arctic"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 ( talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
An interesting minor edit difference recently took place over a quote by Stephen Harper:
On September 25, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "President Putin assured me that he meant no offense..."
Source:
This poses a fascinating, yet very minor, difference between Canada and the United States. The quote comes from the New York based Council on Foreign Relations. For them to spell "defense" with an 's' is correct for them. If Harper spoke these words rather than published them in print, it is perfectly understandable why the quote uses the American "s" rather than the Canadian "c". If Harper had published his defence of Putin as a news release then it would be an editorial issue the New York based group would have to face. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 02:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
These few sources spell defence with a "c" even though the source of the report comes out of New York:
The Toronto Star uses the "c" spelling. The rule of not changing the spelling in a quote makes sense to me but it doesn't seem to be a rule of journalism. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is an example of a journal advocating the keeping of original spelling:
The Australasian Journal of Philosophy (AJP)
With the exceptions noted later, language should be set to English (UK) and Americanized spelling should be eliminated, as in the following examples:
- ‘our’ rather than ‘or’ (colour, behaviour);
- ‘re’ rather than ‘er’ (theatre, centre);
- single ‘l’ to double ‘l’ (fulfilled, modelled);
- ‘assertible’, not ‘assertable’;
- ‘centre’ not ‘center’;
- ‘analyse’, not ‘analyze’.
Exceptions to spelling rules:
- quotations,
- formal titles (e.g. Rockefeller Center),
- proper nouns,
- titles of articles, books and journals, etc.,
retain their original spelling and punctuation.
Source:
http://ajp.aap.org.au/A4_PDF/General_Rules_and_Conventions-A4.pdf
The Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOSQUOTE weighs in on this issue with a simple rule:
Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation.
DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 03:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Here are sources with the Canadian spelling...
"President Putin assured me that he meant no offence" ( from the book Arctic Front: Defending Canada in the Far North)
"President Putin assured me that he meant no offence" ( from an article in the Toronto Star)
-- Ckatz chat spy 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
A map showing the national sectors of EEZ (200nm) and maximum possible extend of continental shelfs (350nm). Anybody found such a free map? Japinderum ( talk) 21:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Territorial claims in the Arctic. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Territorial claims in the Arctic. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | Territorial claims in the Arctic received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
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)
" Russia plants flag on North Pole seabed". An interesting and related article. violet/riga (t) 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The planting of Russian flag on the seabed merely marked that the Russian Federation has been there and did not in any way indicate that the Russian Federation was claiming the location. This statement clearly made by the Russian Foreign Minister. Moryak ( talk) 15:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
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
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
To the original post: No country can extend its "territorial claim" to the arctic when all the territory in the North is claimed, the issue is maritime access. However you are right, under UNLCOS if a nation can prove that its continental shelf spans past the normal 200 mile limit of the Exclusive Economic Zone, it can have rights to the resource in that expanded area. Oil and gas are central, with the Arctic believed to contain 25% of the world's untapped oil, with most falling on the Russian side. And yes, pride is at stake. Canadian identity routinely includes references to the northern arctic, such as our national anthem that proclaims Canada to be the "True North, Strong and Free". Any perceived challenges to the Canadian north often invoke responses based upon nationalism, somewhat intriguing when most Canadians do not know the extent of CDN sovereignty over the Arctic.
To the second poster, you are confusing two issues. The delimitation of continental shelves has nothing to do with international shipping. These are two separate issues, and to some scholars Canada will not see and increase of shipping due to climate change (see Franklyn Griffith and "Shipping News," although I disagree, I do believe Griffiths argument has merit and should be included in any article that debates the ownership of the NWP). However, you are right that Climate Change serves to agitate unresolved sovereignty matters in the Arctic. Ultimately, no one knows for sure what is going to happen, and that uncertainty demands that nations like Canada, whose sovereignty over the water remains uncertain, must act to enforce its claim in order to prepare for actions that may challenge its claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 ( talk) 06:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
From CBC: [1]
- 64.180.77.158 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The information about Sector Theory is wrong and misleading. First, Canada initially proclaimed Sector Theory in 1907 when Sector Pascal Poirier stated it before the Canadian Senate.
See Killaby, pg 34. block quote, bottom left corner
http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo6/no4/doc/north-nord-01-eng.pdf
Also Canada abandoned sector theory in 1986 and currenlty uses straight baselines around the archipelago. (this is the same problem I've discussed on the Canada wikipage for posting an incorrect map based on sector theory)
Although not very detailed, for simplicity see: Killaby, end of 35-36.
Canada does not claim ownership of the North Pole, and Minister McKay's comments reflect a general representation that most Canadians simply do not know the extent of our sovereignty in the North.
If you any help or sources, let me know and I'll be glad to assist.
Yikes, the section on "National Sectors" needs a serious rewrite as it is extremely outdated. Canada has not relied upon sector theory since adopting straight baselines around the archipelago in 1984-5. If fact, this whole page needs a thorough rewrite and is in bad need of a subject expert as it demonstrates a poor grasp of the issues and is factually incorrect or extremely vague in several places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 ( talk) 17:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If the title of the Page is territorial claims in the Arctic it should not discuss MARITIME matters like the NWP and the Beaufort sea. Maybe another page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.94.14.128 ( talk) 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
And, Canada does not claim the "Arctic Seas" as internal as stated in the first paragraph. Canada only considers the waters within the archipelago as internal as the page later states, these aren't seas, but passages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 ( talk) 06:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
AND, Canada does not rely upon UNCLOS for the internalization for the NWP. Canada relies upon the International Court of Justice's ruling in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case of 1951 for straight baselines. How could Canada rely upon UNCLOS when it internalized the NWP officially in 1986 but did not ratify UNCLOS until 2003?
AND Canada argues ownership over the archipelago waters due to HISTORIC USAGE, not due to clauses in UNCLOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.134.119 ( talk) 06:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make sense to lable this article 'controversial' or 'dispute'? You think it would be. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
74.216.9.55 (
talk) 02:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
NOTE: Source material from this article was used in the article Canadian sovereignty. I'm in the process right now of giving all appropriate editors due credit. Bsimmons666 ( talk) Friend? 16:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
As I understand, the North pole could declare itself as a sovereign country. This as it houses several indiginous peoples, see http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/faq.html#8 , http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Your-Own-Country , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Start_Your_Own_Country_(TV_series) This would eliminate the claiming of land by colonist nations.
81.243.185.133 ( talk) 17:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The Beaufort Sea section is kinda sloppy. For example: "No settlement has been reached to date, because the US has signed but has not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea"
In fact this dispute has little to do about LOS and is related to an 1825 Treaty between Russia and Britain over their borders. The treaty says the border should carry along the 141 meridian "as far as the frozen ocean". Canada argues the boundary should continue along the 141 meridian, whereas the US says it should be equal distance at the coastline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.72.4 ( talk) 19:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The premise of this page is extremely confusing. As another poster commented, there are no territorial disputes or claims in the Arctic, they are all maritime. Look at the way this article is written, it talks about all these Arctic maritime issues under the interpretation of the Law of the Sea, then it has a sub-heading that lists all the territory in the Arctic, none of which is disputed. There's a serious connection/congruency issue here!
A major rewrite is needed here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 ( talk) 17:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason for confusion nor do I see a reason for a major rewrite. Федоров ( talk) 10:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I googled a few definitions:
1 - Territory: An area of land under the jurisdiction of a ruler or state 2 - Land: The part of the Earth's surface not covered by water, as opposed to the sea or air 3 - Continental Shelf: The area of seabed around a large landmass where the sea is relatively shallow compared to the open ocean
The continental shelf is only "territory" by the fact that it is a part of the Earth's crust. There is a fundamental difference
In the case of Hans Island, the dispute exists because there is no agreed upon maritime baseline.
At the very least the page should be retitled something along the lines of "Disputed Sovereignty Claims in the Arctic," since the previous poster agreed that there are both maritime and supposed territorial issues. It's not simply "Territorial claims in the Arctic"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.15.198 ( talk) 05:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
An interesting minor edit difference recently took place over a quote by Stephen Harper:
On September 25, 2007, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said, "President Putin assured me that he meant no offense..."
Source:
This poses a fascinating, yet very minor, difference between Canada and the United States. The quote comes from the New York based Council on Foreign Relations. For them to spell "defense" with an 's' is correct for them. If Harper spoke these words rather than published them in print, it is perfectly understandable why the quote uses the American "s" rather than the Canadian "c". If Harper had published his defence of Putin as a news release then it would be an editorial issue the New York based group would have to face. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 02:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
These few sources spell defence with a "c" even though the source of the report comes out of New York:
The Toronto Star uses the "c" spelling. The rule of not changing the spelling in a quote makes sense to me but it doesn't seem to be a rule of journalism. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 02:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Here is an example of a journal advocating the keeping of original spelling:
The Australasian Journal of Philosophy (AJP)
With the exceptions noted later, language should be set to English (UK) and Americanized spelling should be eliminated, as in the following examples:
- ‘our’ rather than ‘or’ (colour, behaviour);
- ‘re’ rather than ‘er’ (theatre, centre);
- single ‘l’ to double ‘l’ (fulfilled, modelled);
- ‘assertible’, not ‘assertable’;
- ‘centre’ not ‘center’;
- ‘analyse’, not ‘analyze’.
Exceptions to spelling rules:
- quotations,
- formal titles (e.g. Rockefeller Center),
- proper nouns,
- titles of articles, books and journals, etc.,
retain their original spelling and punctuation.
Source:
http://ajp.aap.org.au/A4_PDF/General_Rules_and_Conventions-A4.pdf
The Wikipedia Manual of Style WP:MOSQUOTE weighs in on this issue with a simple rule:
Preserve the original text, spelling, and punctuation.
DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 03:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Here are sources with the Canadian spelling...
"President Putin assured me that he meant no offence" ( from the book Arctic Front: Defending Canada in the Far North)
"President Putin assured me that he meant no offence" ( from an article in the Toronto Star)
-- Ckatz chat spy 08:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
A map showing the national sectors of EEZ (200nm) and maximum possible extend of continental shelfs (350nm). Anybody found such a free map? Japinderum ( talk) 21:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:16, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Territorial claims in the Arctic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Territorial claims in the Arctic. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Territorial claims in the Arctic. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)