This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
"this claim is not recognized by other countries, particularly the United States."
Cite please? Also, is the US special in this regard in a way that justifies its particularity? - user:Montrealais
Other than sheer size and nuclear submarines, the US might be relevant because Alaska would give it a similar North Pole claim, if it were so inclined. But I'm just speculating, I have no cites. Vicki Rosenzweig
I've found no references for either Canada extending its territorial claims to the North Pole, or for any dispute. In practice there is no land at the North Pole, so no country can claim it. Nobody seems to dispute ownership of what land there is since Greenland and Canada settled their boundaries. 207.236.234.180 19:34, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Some countries claim large undersea areas based on the continental shelf extending from their territories -- Russia from Siberia to the North Pole and Denmark/Greenland from Greenland to the North Pole. On Denmark's claim, See "Threats to Canadian Arctic Sovereignty" the article http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-arcticviking1.htm
Well, Greenland is not part of the EU, although it is a territory of Denmark which Denmark represents internationally. This may explain the apparent contradiction.212.139.96.10719:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
As a northern Canadian, I am ambivalent about the move as I think there are problems with the article. It doesn't seem to have a focus; it wanders from the Arctic, which can be defined in a number of ways, to the territories, where the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are not really in the arctic. It excludes the central and widely-used concept of Nordicity and Wikipedia doesn't have an article on geographer Louis-Edmond Hamelin who invented the concept. The north is not just the territories, but encompasses most of Canada: see [1] for a map. Some parts of Quebec, Labrador and Manitoba are undoubtedly more "northern" than WhitehorseorYellowknife. Both Canadian Arctic, referring to the region above the tree line or the Arctic circle or a certain isotherm, and Northern Canada probably deserve their separate articles, but I am not sure. Luigizanasi16:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for weighing in. Admittedly, the current article is unfocused – perhaps because of the ambiguity in definitions (are any actually sourced?) – and inadequately treats Canadian territory that is properly in the north but not of the Arctic (q.v.: Western Canada). In fact, the current title promotes confusion and hence the proposed move. I'd also be interested in treatments regarding Nordicity/Hamelin et al., l. While I'm not against two articles, I believe these topics can be dealt with in a refocused, single article currently.
And even though I'm from Hogtown, I somewhat disagree about the prevalence of the current title compared to the proposed one (e.g., online): the current one isn't noted in either Editing Canadian English or the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage and the proposed one prevails online and in the government Atlas of Canada. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Septentrionalis, how about parts of Minnesota being in the Near North? Hamelin's basic idea is that there is no absolute point where we can say the "North" starts, but that there is a continuum of increasing nordicity. Gotta go do some research and fix the nordicity article, which doesn't even mention Hamelin. Luigizanasi07:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
"The population density for Northern Canada is 0.03 inhabitants per square kilometre (0.078 /sq mi) (0.06 /km2 (0.16 /sq mi) for Yukon, 0.03 /km2 (0.078 /sq mi) for the NWT and 0.01 /km2 (0.026 /sq mi) for Nunavut) compared to 3.5 /km2 (9.1 /sq mi) for Canada and 105.09 /km2 (272.2 /sq mi) for Western Europe"
Whoever wrote that should define what he or she considers to be Western Europe and where the numbers for Europe come from. Especially with the extension of the EU in the '00s it isn't really clear what counts as Western, Central, Northern, Eastern etc. Europe. Is Poland a part of Western Europe? And Hungary? Thank you!
Edit: Maybe link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe if that is what was meant, so people know what is being talked about?
If you look at the previous sentence, the first one of the section, Western Europe is linked. In fact it links directly to the "Population of Western Europe" which is "defined by the National Geographic Society." Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 21:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did notice that, it's just that that article is pretty controversial in what it considers to be Western Europe, so I would at least add that the definition used here is that of the National Geographic Society and link to a website where exactly this is stated (together with the area and population of said countries). The way it is now, it just links to another wikipedia page surrounded by controversy and with the citation of the actual source of the data missing...Oh, and please explain why exactly the definition of the National Geographic Society rather than that of the UN (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm#europe), a much more official institution, is being used!
Thanks but that seems unrelated to the caption. The caption, in turn, is useful, but maybe a mild / harmless / useful OR to claim that it defines a "demographic north" North8000 (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent of my knowledge, Wikipedia is not considered a commercial website (it's a non-profit), so actually it can be used and I've seen several other Government of Canada materials used on Wikipedia. Zacharycmango (talk) 22:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not defending it but just noting: not counting the route of fulfilling the fair use procedure with resultant limitations, Wikipedia requires ability to use for commercial use as well. The main rationale is that it allows it's content to also be re-used in commercial venues. North8000 (talk) 22:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yukon is overwhelmingly majority European so I guess what you want is a map of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut showing where Inuit people are the majority instead?Zacharycmango (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
