This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Glaciers 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.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tajikistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Tajikistan-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.TajikistanWikipedia:WikiProject TajikistanTemplate:WikiProject TajikistanTajikistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
It seems the glaciers you mentioned all lie partially north of the 60th parallel, which the references seem to consider within the "polar region". Thus, it seems like an accurate statement. -
Bantman01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)reply
There are many definitions of polar regions and of the arctic based on latitude, ecology or climate, but these glaciers are well south of whichever definition you choose. The
Arctic Circle — i.e. where the
Midnight sun starts — is 66° 33' 39" north of the Equator. 60° North is about 400 nautical miles or well over 700 kilometres south of the Arctic Circle and 1,660 kilometres south of the pole; it is only two-thirds of the way to the pole from the equator. The land north of these glaciers and the
Kluane Icefields is
boreal forest for hundreds of kilometres, well beyond the Arctic Circle, not arctic
tundra. The climate north of the glaciers is classified as
Subarctic climate, not arctic or
Polar climate, while south of them is maritime subarctic. The
Kluane icefields from which these glaciers stem are often referred to as the largest non-polar icefields in the world, so we can't really have both. I hope I have convinced you. :-)
Luigizanasi02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)reply
You don't really have to convince me; I have no personal knowledge on the subject! :) However, according to the references used for this article, both Britannica and the US Government state that it is the "largest glacier in the world otuside the polar regions." The difference between your position and theirs seems to be the definiion of "polar regions"; they seem to be interpreting that phrase to cover more area than you do. Ideally, we can find a reputable reference that holds the same position you do; then we can lean on that to make the distinction. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to deal with this... perhaps change the phrase to something like "largest glacier in the world lying completely within the
middle latitudes" and adding a parenthetical statement explaining our divergence from our references, like "(although some sources note the Fedchenko Glacier as the largest glacier outside of the
polar regions, glaciers X and Y in fact lie completely south of the Xth parallel)". What do you think? -
Bantman18:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, it won't be the first time Britannica is wrong. And I think Alaskans and the US National Parks Service might have something to say about what the army claims. :-) I just googled "non-polar glacier" and it seems a number of other glaciers also make that claim including
Siachen Glacier[1], in the
Himalayas;
Nabesna Glacier (
US National Parks Service); and even the
Columbia Icefield in the
Canadian Rockies. Probably either best leaving the claim out entirely, or saying "one of the largest non-polar glaciers" until someone compiles a verifiable list of the areas (and possibly) volumes of glaciers across the world.
Luigizanasi19:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)reply
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Glaciers 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.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tajikistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Tajikistan-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.TajikistanWikipedia:WikiProject TajikistanTemplate:WikiProject TajikistanTajikistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
It seems the glaciers you mentioned all lie partially north of the 60th parallel, which the references seem to consider within the "polar region". Thus, it seems like an accurate statement. -
Bantman01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)reply
There are many definitions of polar regions and of the arctic based on latitude, ecology or climate, but these glaciers are well south of whichever definition you choose. The
Arctic Circle — i.e. where the
Midnight sun starts — is 66° 33' 39" north of the Equator. 60° North is about 400 nautical miles or well over 700 kilometres south of the Arctic Circle and 1,660 kilometres south of the pole; it is only two-thirds of the way to the pole from the equator. The land north of these glaciers and the
Kluane Icefields is
boreal forest for hundreds of kilometres, well beyond the Arctic Circle, not arctic
tundra. The climate north of the glaciers is classified as
Subarctic climate, not arctic or
Polar climate, while south of them is maritime subarctic. The
Kluane icefields from which these glaciers stem are often referred to as the largest non-polar icefields in the world, so we can't really have both. I hope I have convinced you. :-)
Luigizanasi02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)reply
You don't really have to convince me; I have no personal knowledge on the subject! :) However, according to the references used for this article, both Britannica and the US Government state that it is the "largest glacier in the world otuside the polar regions." The difference between your position and theirs seems to be the definiion of "polar regions"; they seem to be interpreting that phrase to cover more area than you do. Ideally, we can find a reputable reference that holds the same position you do; then we can lean on that to make the distinction. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to deal with this... perhaps change the phrase to something like "largest glacier in the world lying completely within the
middle latitudes" and adding a parenthetical statement explaining our divergence from our references, like "(although some sources note the Fedchenko Glacier as the largest glacier outside of the
polar regions, glaciers X and Y in fact lie completely south of the Xth parallel)". What do you think? -
Bantman18:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)reply
Well, it won't be the first time Britannica is wrong. And I think Alaskans and the US National Parks Service might have something to say about what the army claims. :-) I just googled "non-polar glacier" and it seems a number of other glaciers also make that claim including
Siachen Glacier[1], in the
Himalayas;
Nabesna Glacier (
US National Parks Service); and even the
Columbia Icefield in the
Canadian Rockies. Probably either best leaving the claim out entirely, or saying "one of the largest non-polar glaciers" until someone compiles a verifiable list of the areas (and possibly) volumes of glaciers across the world.
Luigizanasi19:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)reply