Talk:Arctic Cordillera

Innuitian Mountains

There is a stub article called Innuitian Mountains. Are the Innuitians the principal part of the Arctic Cordillera or not? Do these terms overlap?

There is also a physiographic region or province called (I think) the Innuitian Region. This has no wikipedia article. Should it? What are the layers of distinction here?

BeeTea 01:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears that the Innuitian Mountains and the Arctic Cordillera overlap, Innuitian map and Arctic Cordillera map Black Tusk 05:41, 06 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this as a Start Class, as it treats some areas of the topic sufficiently, but does not discuss others (such as discovery, naming, exploration history etc.) I have assessed this as low importance, as I do not feel that many readers would be familiar with the topic of the article. Cheers, CP 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Reassessed to Mid class. Cheers, CP 23:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Metres to feet.

Perhaps a minor point, but I suggest changing the order of the altitudes in the article from "feet (metres)" to "metres (feet)". I remember it being mentioned in other articles that the methods of calcuation as used by the nation in question should be shown first. Canada uses metres, not feet. --Bentonia School 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. However, the infobox uses feet. Black Tusk 05:23, 02 November 2007 (UTC)

Map

I made and added the map. I am uncertain if it is perfect, and am happy to adjust it based on feedback. Matt (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fake -__-"

 The map that currently sits in the article is incorrect, since it does not include the Torngats, which, according to the text, are included in the cordillera. They extend into Quebec, as well as Labrador and Newfoundland.

Grandma Roses (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

puffery

I'm not entirely comfortable with our claim that the Arctic Cordillera is "one of Canada's two major mountain systems, the other being the Rocky Mountains of Western Canada." The Coast Mountains are much higher than the Arctic Cordillera (indeed, they have Canada's highest mountain) and their length is comparable to tthat of the Arctic Cordillera. It's true that they lie close enough to the Rockies that many Easterners assume they're part of the same range, but they're generally considered a distinct mountain system.

I also think we probably can't claim that the Arctic Cordillera contains "Some of Canada's highest but least known peaks"--in ordinary English that construction would imply that it contains peaks that are BOTH among Canada's highest AND among Canada's least known. Little-known the Arctic peaks may be, but they're not really among the highest in the country. Barbeau Peak is the only Arctic peak among Canada's 100 highest, and it comes in at #87 on that list. (The list was generated using a stringent 500-meter prominence criterion; if it had been less stingent even more peaks in the Rockies and the Coast Mountains would have been included, bumping Barbeau off the list entirely.)

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the sloppy geographic perspective found in the East, and abroad, that the Canadian Cordillera/Western Cordillera/Pacific Cordillera is ALL "Rocky Mountains"; there is a misconception that the Selwyn Mountains and Mackenzie Mountains and also the [[Columbia Mountains are part of the Rockies, which they're not, even when people are aware of the distinction re the Coast Mountains. I find this is common in various academic fields as well, be it history or in ecology/bioscience - even in geology. Whatever that source is from can be discounted as a "bad source". The relevant article re the combined Rockies/Coast/Selwyns etc mountain ranges btw is now Western Cordillera (North America) which please note is not a range but a mountain system (actually a grouping of four systems); the title was necessary to avoid CanPOV and to reflect US naming realities where of course the term "Canadian Cordillera" is irrelevant.Skookum1 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that I changed the Selwyns in the parag above frmo "Range" to "Mountains", as I had been misled by the existence of a bluelink for the former; I just made the Selwyn Mountains article, which was a glaring hole in the country's geography (being one of the larger mountain ranges overall, if among hte least known); similarly the Mackenzie Mountains article currently confuses the Selwyns and Mackenzies as if part of a "Mackenzie Ranges", which bivouac uses/coined but which also seems to occur in geological/ecoloigcal literature irrespective of proper official toponymy, as is also the case with the use of "Selwyn Range" for the range in the Yukon vs the one in the Rockies....Skookum1 (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

So I take it you'd be OK with our changing the "Rocky Mountains" here to "Western Cordillera (North America)"? It's a less familiar terminology, but more accurate. 65.213.77.129 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not, because the Rocky Mountains are not all of the Western Cordillera, only part of it. And terrain systems and ecozones are two different concepts/objects. Don't compare apples and oranges.Skookum1 (talk) 17:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. A cordillera is a mountain system, no? The Arctic Cordillera is a mountain system. The Western Cordillera of North America is a mountain system. I'm not particularly interested in ecozones, as far as this article is concerned. I'm troubled by the claim that the Arctic Cordillera is "one of Canada's two major mountain systems, the other being the Rocky Mountains of Western Canada," because that wording seems (to me at least) to be using "Rocky Mountains" in its sloppy, inaccurate sense of "every mountain west of Calgary." Here's my position: If there are just two major mountain systems in Canada, and if one of them is the Arctic Cordilerra, then we have to call the other one the Western Cordillera, not the "Rocky Mountains" as we do now. If we say that there are three or more major mountain systems in Canada, then we shouldn't call the Arctic Cordillera one of "the two major mountain systems," because it's less "major" in most respects than the Coast Mountains. Can you try explaining your position on the matter again? 65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the article uses "Rocky Mountains" in a very sloppy sense, but I was keeping off doing too much editing here until I or someone could have the time to split the ecozone material off. Mountain systems may have mountain systems within them; Canadian and American definitions/labels differ, but the Rocky Mountains are part of the Eastern System of the Western Cordillera/Canadian Cordillera. The Interior Mountains (incl. the Stikine Plateau) and the Interior Plateau etc are part of the Interior System (called the Intermontane Plateaus in the US system, which simply uses "Rocky Mountains" for the equivalent of the Eastern System), while the Cascade Mountains and Coast Mountains are the Western System; the Insular Mountains and the Coastal Trough are part of ..... I'm not sure, the Insular System maybe, I'd have to look at Holland again (Landforms of British Columbia). "Rocky Mountains" is often used by people from the great frozen wastes beyond to include all of the Western Cordillera, including the Coast Mountains that overlook Vancouver, which is just plain wrong (but repeated in some academic works, of all places that should know better). there are no articles yet for Western System, Interior System, Eastern System yet, maybe I should finally get to it (the Eastern System includes the Selwyns/Mackenzies and Brooks Ranges...).Skookum1 (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Then change Rocky Mountains to Western Cordillera. It's not that hard. Black Tusk (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Arctic Cordillera Ecozone (CEC) need splitting off

This article confuses teh mountain system with the similarly-named Ecozone as defined by Envirnoment Canada and the two components should be clearly separated; the Arctic Cordillera is a landform, the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone is an ecozone, and they are categorized differently. Environment Canada itself does not call the Ecozone just plain-jane Arctic Cordillera (except on abbreviated-names on maps which are ecozone-based). All Ecozone articles should state ecozone in their titles. Combination of definitions and parallel terms as if they were the same thing, or attempts to integrate defintions and descriptions from different fields/systems is ORIGINAL RESEARCH and WP:Synthesis. The Arctic Cordillera is a landform and that's waht this article shoudl be about; geology information should be in either Geology of the Arctic Cordillera or Geography of the Arctic Archipelago ("of Canada", properly, or "Canadian Arctic Archipelago" as there are/may be otehr uses for that term). I don't have time to do this split right now, but if someone active on this page sees the point, please do the split, or I'll be back at some point to do it. I'm changing all possible titles in Category:Ecozones of Canada to conform to the neceaasry naming convention. Geography, ecology and geolozy are different disciplines; any attempt to integrate them is outside the purview of Wikipedia's responsibilities.....and contrary to Wikipedia guidelinesSkookum1 (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you realize that cordilleras are more than geography? All major mountain system articles on Wikipedia have more than geography (e.g. Cascade Range, Appalachian Mountains, Himalaya). I find it useless to create a separate article about the ecozone becuase it covers a large portion of the cordillera. If this is how it's going to work I'm better off quitting Wikipedia. Black Tusk (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a compromise: the main article for a mountain range can have some geology and ecology ginformation (cf Sierra Nevada (U.S.), Rocky Mountains), with the main article for the sub-topic being, e.g. Geology of the Rocky Mountains or Ecology of the Sierra Nevada. Otherwise, as Black Tusk says, we would be making the article too specialized for general readers.

My suggestion is to keep this article largely intact, perhaps named Arctic Cordillera (Canada) if there are truly other arctic cordilleras (are there really?), and if more specific information needs to be added, create Geology of the Arctic Cordillera, etc. I found this article particularly interesting: I didn't know anything about this range before.

This discussion really belongs at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mountains, because the precedent affects so many mountain ranges.

hike395 (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not aware of other cordilleras named Arctic Cordillera. If there are others this is probably the best known out of them. I forgot the Rockies, Appalachians etc have their own geology pages, but I'm unsure the Arctic Cordillera has lots of known geology to create a geology article because of it's remote location. If the ecozone really needs to be separated then I guess it's appropiate to make that a separate article. Black Tusk (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But the Arctic Cordillera mountain range and Arctic Cordillera Ecozone have different boundaries, and the latter is in a hierarchy that includes the Arctic Maritime Ecozone which includes turf in the mountain range etc, and also is in a hierarchy that includes non-mountain range titles that seem to be mountain ranges - "Boreal Cordillera", which is actually a mix of Interior Mountains and far Northern Rockies. It's because of the different hierarchies that hte Ecozone splits are necessary, as well as dabbed titles. If "Yukon Basin" meant in geography what it meant in ecology, that would be fine, but it doesn't. It also happens that there are more than one hierarchy for ecozones, but there's only one for mountain ranges. Also bear in mind that in addition to the ecozone/ecoregion system ther'es the biogeographic zones of the BC government and other systems which fall outside the purview of Envirnoment Canada's OR the WWF's ecological-zoning system. Material from the different series of articles can be shopped back and forth in summary form, but because of the different definitions and differing hierarchies/terms which don't match ("Taiga Shield" is only part of the Canadian Shield, "Hudson Plains" or wahtever it is in CEC's wording happens to be - but not quite - the Hudson Bay Lowlands - and so on. Obvioulsly the Arctic Cordillera mountain range shoudl have some ecological description in it, but the Ecozone as defined by Enviornment Canada, again, isn't quite the same thing...mabye it would have been best, in the history academia, if ecology hadn't created itself as a separate field from geography, but it did and it also came up with its own divisions for North America and for other parts of the world; it's impossible to mix them all together, and similarly-named items are still different in definition; the Ecozone article can have considerably more ecological content, also, than there woudl be room for in a mountain range article, which has a wide range of mateiral to cover. for comparison see the discussions on Talk:Columbia River and Talk:Columbia Basin and Talk:Columbia Plateau....(and not that some would jumble the term "Plateau" with "Basin" there despite there being yet other definitins for each of those terms in that same context.....Skookum1 (talk) 11:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also stand-alone ecological-driven articles like Great Bear Rainforest (where the title itself is part of a POV agenda...) which covers two regions, the Central Cosst and North Coast, and also is inherently a different thing than North Coast Archipelago.....they can't all be the same article, ditto Sacred Headwaters vs. Klappan Range or Nass Ranges/Skeena Mountains....Skookum1 (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That's why I said If the ecozone really needs to be separated then I guess it's appropiate to make that a separate article. I know the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone and the Arctic Cordillera mountain range have different boundaries, but the ecozone covers a large portion of the mountain range comparing with the current mountain range map and the ecozone map here. Black Tusk (talk) 14:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I missed that, it was the middle of the night, I'd gotten up because I couldn't sleep....as I recall also the Torngats are part of this system, i.e. the mountain range. Confusion of terms between disciplines abounds; Fraser Basin in Holland means the lowland area flanking the Fraser/Nechako/Stuart (see that map), whereas to hydrographers and some planners it means the whole watershed, to ecologists it's the "Fraser Plateau and Basin complex", a term which they used to include teh Nechako Plateau as well as the Fraser, and so on. And again, even ecozone/ecorange terminologies differ between organizations; another editor has opined on the difficulties posed by this, and it was he who started adding "CEC" as a dab, and I followed suit with Columbia Plateau (WWF ecoregion) and others. The same concept applies to historical places in the same milieu as modern cities i.e. Spokane vs Spokane House vs Fort Spokane (all different...). Buddy's on his way, just wanted to comment about the concept of a cordillera-as-a-mountain-system vs cordillera-as-a=term-borrowed-as-descriptive-for-other-systems. In the case of hte Arctic Cordillera the geology/orology is likely the same categorization; unless there's another temr for, perhasp, the "Arctic Belt" or "Ungava-Baffin belt or wahtever it may be; all articles can refer to each other, but for purposes of clarity and categorization it's best to keep them in separate hierarchies and have name conventions to deal with the issue; e.g. Interior Plains is a topographic system, Great Plains and Canadian Prairies are cultural/political/geographic regions/terminologies. I also have similar paradigm-issues with the use of regional districts as if they were geographic regional systems, as you know, and intend on writing a Poiltical geographic subudivisions of British Columbia to deal with accounting for all the mining, courts, frorestry, envirnoment, health etc regions side-by-side with the traditional regions and the RDs....Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Another example - Columbia District vs. Oregon Country, and there's even a subtle distinction between Columbia Department and Columbia District, though the former is a redirect to the latter for expediency's sake and can be handled by a descriptive intro/parag.Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The Arctic Cordillera Ecozone map I linked above seems to be out of date - It says Northwest Territories insted of Nunavut. I added two pictures of the Torngat Mountains because they are part of the same mountain system. Black Tusk (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But not, I believe, part of the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone, but I'll go check the EC map and come back to recant if I'm wrong....Skookum1 (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this map and another on the Parks Canada Ecozone page are quite different from the other maps I've found, also from Environment Canada; and in the case of Montane Cordillera they show the Southern/Central Interior as part of that Ecozone, which consiering the terrain adn ecology of the Fraser and Thompson Plateaus seems decidedly odd (and isn't on the other federal ecozone map....); and they call that region "the Southern Rockies" on the info page. There appaers to be a blue blob in the area of the Torngats on the map, but not equivalent to the whole northern spur of Labrador shown n thre mountain range map. ...... this is one of those cases where the ecologists and parks people don't even have consistency within their own definitions, nor name-accuracy (e.g. the Itcha-Ilgachuz and Clear Range definitely aren't "Southern Rockies") and don't even jibe with other maps of their own, and least of all with the mountain-range systems.....Side-by-side map comparisons I'll come up with later; I've been killing time waiting for a delivery (which still isn't here)....but boggled at the lack of consistency even within the Environment Canada site......how reliable can a source be if it's not even consistent with itself????Skookum1 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we need an Arctic Cordillera mountain range map or someone that knows lots about the Arctic Cordillera because I'm not sure the current mountain range map is correct. Does the Arctic Cordillera include more islands? There's other mountain ranges in the Arctic not highlighted on the current map (e.g. Shaler Mountains, Barrow Range, Coppermine Mountains). Black Tusk (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

wording in lede

Kinda got a problem with this:

system, running along the northeastern shore of North America

I know that "North America" can be taken even to include Greenland and the other offshore islands, but that's not the usual sense of it, especilaly when the word "shore". The only part of North America as such that's involved is northern Labrador...not sure how else to reword that....and it's only one of this article's various issues; just struck me on a glance tonight when placing the fact template on "Arctic Rockies".Skookum1 (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I just reworded that paragraph and other parts of the introduction. Black Tusk (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Arctic �Rockies?"

Fine and dandy for Environment Canada's Ecozone department webpage writers to coin a term, with quotation marks indicating it's a fabriactino, it's another thing to say "sometimes calle" as if it were a fairly commohn usage. These are teh same folks who worte up pages on the "Boreal Cordillera" and the "Taiga Cordillera' without mentining a signel ordinary geographic toponym in the process (except the Rockies maybe); re-coining the landscape is not "sometimes known as". This is rebranding, like "Kootenay Rockies". Does that EC page has a cite for hwere they got it from? Maybe, maybe, but I doubt it. It's like putting "Canada's Himalayas" on a brochure about the Coast Mountains or "the Quebec Alps" in the Laurentians. Using a famous/famliar catch-name to gussy up something is not the same as "sometimes known as ".Skookum1 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Environment CAnada is increasingly failing into the category Unreliabces, alongside bivouac.com and various others....Skookum1 (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

That's the same as saying the Canadian government is not a reliable source, which is not true. Black Tusk (talk) 18:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it's like saying hte Ecozones website of Environment Canada is not a reliable source, that's different. That that webpage put the phrase in quotation marks indicates it's not official in any way, it's a "tag"; and it's one instance on a largely promotional webpage (bureaucrats being in the profession of justifying their own existence by such measures - believe me, I know, I was one...). Having "Arctic Rockies" on this page is no more valid than having "Kootenay Rockies" on the Selkirks or Purcells page, just because the BC Ministry of Tourism and its underling-websites have been trying to popularize a term which they've invented. Nobody else uses it (i.e. "Arctic Rockies"), other than sites mirroring or aping the Ecozone Dept. I have to go out, later I'll dig out the email I got from Natural Resources Canada/Canada GeoNaames concerning problems they have getting other departments to recognize and use the official toponymy. Once again, this term is no more useful or "reliable" than re-dubbing the Muskwa Ranges the "Boreal Cordillera" (anotehr EcoZone=ism).Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

the City of Chilliwack, or maybe Fraser-Cheam RD, uses "Ranibow Country" as its marketing slogan; does that belong, then, on the Fraser Valley page? Environment Canada is by no means authoritative, though it would like to be....Skookum1 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Arctic Rockies is still a proper name IMO. I myself like and use the term. Black Tusk (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

A nickname is not a proper name; and in this case it's more of a slogan, a re-branding, and it has other uses (notably, also in Canada, the Mackenzie Mountains). It's certainly not an official name in any way:

• "Arctic Rockies" search at Atlas of Canada
• Similarly "0 results" came from a search at Canada GeoNames.
• Not even bivouac has it - search for "Arctic Rockies" in Canadian Mountain Encyclopedia.

At most I can see it as a disambiguation page; there are two main usages, both are slogans only except in the case of the Mackenzies this term is used by those who consider the Rocky Mountains to extend past the Liard. I believe it's also been used in reference to at least one range in Alaska, but I don't think it's the Brooks that's meant. The article can say that Environment Canada's Ecozones program webpage uses it, in quotes, as a secondary nickname ,but that the term also/usually means other mountains elsewhere. But it's not important enough, or in use enough, to warrant being in the lede, or in the infobox; that it's also coming from people who on the one hand confuse the names of ecozones with landforms (as here, or with Fraser Basin and Plateau or Boreal Cordillera) on the one hand, and with forests on another (British Columbia Mainland Coastal Forests ecozone, as I've redubbed that page to avoid confusion with an article on an actual forest). Playing loosey-goosey with names and defintions may be all in the vogue; but pretending it's official when it's not I don't think is right. this tends me back towards the delayed intent to split this page into Arctic Cordillera and Arctic Cordillera Ecozone (CEC)....since the two definitions are very distinct as subjects, and the one is more of an agenda than a geography....Skookum1 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Aiyuittuq I've also seen as the 'Arctic Alps". Again as a touristic/preservation brand-nickname, as a "referencing". and again, something in the mountains of Alaska also gets called "the Northern Alps", and there's a phrase that gets tossed around also, without being an actual definition/proper name.Skookum1 (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no official name for this cordillera. Arctic Cordillera does not show up on bivouac, GeoNames, or Atlas of Canada either. The same thing goes for the Western Cordillera. In fact, when I created this page I coined it from the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone. Black Tusk (talk) 02:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

[unindent]I've asked User:CambridgeBayWeather to drop by; he actually lives "up that way" (though CB's nowhere near Baffin or Ellesmere) and usually knows about northern data resources. I still maintain an ecozone is not a mountain range and vice versa, no more than an ecozone is a forest; it's categorization here that counts, and not confusing one kind of content with another. There's some toponymic term, proper term, for up there; if Arctic Cordillera's not it, then it's only an ecozone article; but there's quite likely a mountain-range name for this idnependently of the Ecozone system; otehrwise this is just as made-up-a-name as Boreal Cordillera or Taiga Cordillera (aka Northern Rockies/Cassiar Mountains and Mackenzie Mountains/Selwyn Mountains). I don't believe in mixing mud puddles....it's not encyclopedic. Maybe this Arctic Cordillera thing is derived form Bivouac; I didn't work on that part of the map, makes me wonder what the National Geographic Atlas uses though....(that and certain other digital map resources were used as "archival" there)Skookum1 (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's also the issue about the boundaries of this cordillera; where does it begin? Where does it end? Does it include all mountain ranges in the Arctic? The current map in the geobox is not an oficial map of the cordillera. It was made by user User:Lanma726. Black Tusk (talk) 03:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The truth is I don't know what they are called. If the mountains are mentioned in either of the territorial newspapers it is the name of the mountain or the range and only when someone falls off. I notice that the map seems to have been adapted from this but that's the ecozone and not a mountain range. I looked at Parks Canada and I found 12 hits for Arctic Cordillera but none for Arctic Rockies, http://www.pc.gc.ca/rech-srch/rslts_E.asp, and again that seems to be related to the ecozone. Most hits I got for Arctic Cordillera seemed to include the word "ecozone". Also Arctic Rockies seems to be somthing used to refer to part of the Rocky Mountains, http://geography.howstuffworks.com/united-states/the-rocky-mountains.htm/printable, and in particular the Selwyn Mountains, see http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Arctic+Rockies+britannica&btnG=Search&meta= (third listing, it's a paid listing so I couldn't see the full article). Sorry can't help better than that. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

More false claims

I just took this phrase out of Adam Range and Precipitous Mountains:

which is the only major mountain system in Canada east of the Rocky Mountains.

Which is clearly bunk, given the existence of the Appalachian Mountains, the Ozarks, the Adirondacks...in the case of the Adam Range, this appeared to use the Canadian Biodiveristy Centre's McGill page/link but I didn't bother to read that page to see if that's where this claim from. But it appears to be eco-boilerplate pasted across a number of these articles and needs to be removed. if it's in the biodiversity.ca webpage then that's yet another eco-zoid website with bad geography that shouldn't be considered a "reiiable source" (even if it IS hosted by a university).Skookum1 (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I went through all the ranges on the template, it was in about half of them, and the Canadian Biodiversity website was the citation in each case; many of those pages need proper citation. Eco-sites do not warrant proper sources for geographic-item pages, especially when they make false claims of this kind. The same claim may occur on some of hte mountain peak pages, I can't be bothered to look through them now.....Skookum1 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They probably made that statement because the Arctic Cordillera is the largest cordillera in eastern North America and contains the highest mountains in eastern North America. The Appalachians, etc are more or less a "hill range" and they arn't snow-capped year around, nor do they contain glaciers as far as I'm aware of. The size of those mountain ranges is the only thing I would consider "major". Black Tusk (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

But that's because we come from heavy mountain country, sort of "mountain chauvinism"...for people who live in Appalachia or the Adirondacks, they are "major" mountains; especially if you've ever gotten lost in them; more rugged than you know, let me assure you, especially the Adirondacks. And Mt Washington VT has some of the most deadly weather on the continent and people who get lost on it regularly die, and a lot more than you'd think is wilderness, even down in Arkansas and Kentucky. Granted, not much higher than Burnaby Mtn and not much at all as high as Sumas Mtn, but still, in the views of those who live there "major" mountains. Same as in North Wales and Scotland; height and glziers alone do not define "major"....Skookum1 (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's quite a leap from "is the largest cordillera in eastern North America and contains the highest mountains in eastern North America" t to "the only major mountain range east of the Rockies", which is an OR-type synthesis/extrapolation. Just because a website makes its own OR claims doesn't mean we have to repeat them without question.Skookum1 (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Something about cliche comparisons/references to the Rocky Mountains always twig me too.....a flatlander's frame of reference, underscored by this coming from Montreal (where Mount Royal is considered a "major" mountain by many of its inhabitants).Skookum1 (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, "is the largest cordillera in eastern North America and contains the highest mountains in eastern North America" is not all that accurate either. There's higher mountains in Greenland, including Mont Forel, 3,383 m, while Barbeau Peak is 2,616 m. And I'm not from heavy mountain country. I live and come from a similar rugged landscape called Ontario where most "mountains" are usually about 300-200 m in elevation. Black Tusk (talk) 21:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The references stating Barbeau Peak as the highest mountain east of the Rocky Mountains are likely talking about Barbeau's prominence rather than elevation. Barbeau's prominence is 2,616 m whereas Mont Forel has a prominence of 1,581 m, unless the prominence/elevation is wrong on one or both articles. Black Tusk (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Basis for split....gonna do it

...once I can stomach the amount of work needed, and wading through the eco-bumpf this article is full of. In fixing some today I noticed this paragraph:

While the Arctic Cordillera mountain system includes most of the Arctic islands and regions such as Bathurst Island, Cornwall Island, Amund Ringnes, Ellef Ringnes, Ellesmere Island, Baffin Island, Bylot Island and Labrador, the Arctic Cordillera ecozone only covers Ellesmere Island, Baffin Island, Axel Heiberg Island, Bylot Island and Labrador.

Which is clear enough proof that we're talking about two different entities here, the Arctic Cordillera mountain range and the Arctic Cordillera Ecozone. This should no more be one article than Cascade Range and Cascades (ecoregion) should the same article. It's a lot of work to split it all up, as it's so interwoven in this case.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Climate Change

Is it really appropriate or relevant for the article to include speculation that the biodiversity of the region could increase as a result of global climate change? Even if this is true it is not a fact pertinent to the region as it exists. And the same could also be said of nearly any other high-latitude zone on the planet. However, no corroborating facts are included (such as a loss of glaciers, a rise in average temperatures, or the emergence of other flora or fauna in the region) to make this worthy of inclusion. This section does a disservice to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.116.32 (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Very well said. I'm deleting it. Purefury182 (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arctic Cordillera. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050515130059/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003941 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040615061006/http://www.ec.gc.ca:80/soer-ree/English/vignettes/Terrestrial/ac/default.cfm to http://www.ec.gc.ca/soer-ree/English/vignettes/Terrestrial/ac/default.cfm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.oceandots.com/arctic/canada/ellesmere.php

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arctic Cordillera. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090416021920/http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/baffin4d/proj/p21_e.php to http://gsc.nrcan.gc.ca/baffin4d/proj/p21_e.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080217182242/http://www.parkwardens.com/zone1/1.html to http://www.parkwardens.com/zone1/1.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Content also used in Pond Inlet article

Some of th content in this article has been incorporated into the Pond Inlet article which is currently under construction. The content will be revised as more precise RS are found.Oceanflynn (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)