Talk:Northwest Passage/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spanish

From the article: "The Spanish called it the ." This sentence was added in the most recent revision, 05:11, 5 Mar 2004, by Decumanus, but it is incomplete. What did the Spanish call it? Edward 10:38, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Melting Arctic ice risks Canada-US territorial dispute

There was this news report on Yahoo! News today Melting Arctic ice risks Canada-US territorial dispute. It looks like there are a number of items in the article that should be incorporated into the Wikipedia article, but I don't know enough about the Northwest Passage to know what's worth including and what's just trivia. ^BlankVerse 11:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

US Subs

The article as currently written contains the following sentence:

"In late 2005, it was revealed that U.S. nuclear submarines had been traveling the passage without Canadian approval, sparking Canadian outrage."

A Google news search turns up no conclusive 2005 reports of US submarines in waters claimed by Canada. Canadian media did report a U.S. nuclear submarine surfaced near the North Pole in late 2005 on a trip between oceans; these reports claimed it therefore likely transited Canadian waters to get there.

This was then used in later articles to allege US submarines were using the Northwest Passage. Since the Northwest Passage runs east-west, not north-south, it would not be used as a route to the North Pole. A submarine transiting the Passage would go nowhere near the Pole.

I think it's unlikely that U.S. nuclear submarines would use the Northwest Passage as a shortcut between the Altantic and Pacific Oceans. It's more likely that they transit up the east coast of Greenland and then around the top of Greenland before heading across to the Bering Strait. Although this route is approximately 1000 miles longer, it's all in deep water without obstacles until a submarine nears the Bering Strait. That would allow a nuclear submarine to transit the Arctic Ocean at maximum speed. Such a transit would also pass close to the North Pole. At no time would a submarine on this route pass anywhere near waters claimed by Canada.

The Northwest Passage is shallow and contains islands. Because of the inherent uncertainties associated with navigating underwater without external references, standard submarine doctrine requires using slow speeds when moving through shallow confined waters. This becomes even trickier when the submarine has to worry about avoiding ice projections from above. The requirement to travel slowly for 800 to 900 miles through the Passage would more than offset the distance reduction, so it is more likely that American submarines are taking the faster, longer, safer route around Greenland.
References:

• USS Charlotte
• "Not standing on guard in the North"
• "Canada: Don’t Tread on Us"
• "Harper vows to boost western defence"
• Smithsonian's submarine navigation page
• military.com: Submarine grounding discussion

--A. B. 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (originally posted 31 Jan 2006, then later reformatted 8 June)

Not sure about that statement in the article either, I don't recall hearing about a specific incident in 2005. However, in early 2005, some Canadian media suggested that "foreign nuclear Submarines" (they could be American, British, Russian, etc) had been seen in (claimed) internal waters over some of the past several summers by some local Inuit residents. It appeared to be all eye witness reports with no actual hard evidence. In particular, I recall there was a CBC documentary that aired around January-March of 2005 on "Artic Sovereignty "(around the same time as the Hans expedition), it was probably replayed a few times throughout the year. I can't find any web sources that mention it though.Kilrogg 22:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a graphic to illustrate the point: Bathymetric image of the Arctic Ocean. (Warning: this graphic is about 15 MB.) This graphic shows extensive shoaling for any submerged transit of the Northwest Passage; by contrast, note that a submarine transiting to the Pacific from the east side of Greenland has a wide open, straight shot under the North Pole for a very high speed transit. Submariners loathe submerged, near-blind navigation in shallow waters -- especially when they're closely confined on either side by land.

It's impossible to say that there was a submarine in the Passage just prior to the Canadian elections unless someone saw or heard it. An underwater acoustic array such as the U.S.'s old SOSUS system would allow the Canadian military to very cost-effectively monitor any submarine activity in the Northwest Passage.--A. B. 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (originally posted 10 May, 2006, then later reformatted 8 June)

US Subs (further comment, Jan '07)

The article currently still asserts:

"In late 2005, it was alleged that U.S. nuclear submarines had travelled the passage without Canadian approval, sparking Canadian outrage."

even though User:A. B. appears to question it above. This statement should have a reference provided in the article itself, or it should be removed. The only thing that seems obvious is that the U.S. Navy released pictures showing USS Charlotte at the North Pole. In particular, the sentence I quoted contains weasel wording, because it doesn't say who did the alleging. I tried to work my way through the extensive references provided by A. B. here on the Talk page but couldn't find anything to confirm the exact sentence I quote above. (At least one link no longer works). Nobody seems to actually believe that the Charlotte would have bothered to traverse the N.W. Passage to make this trip, so it remains unclear who did the alleging, and why anyone would believe that. Perhaps they are concerned with some other corner of Canadian waters that the ship might have passed through, but there's nowhere near enough detail here to go into that question. EdJohnston 20:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a big hullabaloo in the Canadian press prior to the national elections. Candidates promised to make sure this wouldn't happen on their watch. I don't remember the details, but it seems that "might have" quickly got turned into "did". Even "might have" was absurd in my view.--A. B. ^(talk) 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Our views seem similar, but there is still no citation of the toned-down claim. "It was revealed" became "It was alleged", but alleged by whom? The article doesn't say. Controversial claims require a citation. EdJohnston 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See the article's existing external links. Here's another one as well: "Conservative Leader Harper Asserts Canada’s Arctic Claims", Michel Comte, Agence France-Presse, in DefenseNews.com

I think the allegations should stay since they were part of an election even thought they were ill-founded. I think we should address the issue. I also think it's important to lay out the facts on the other side and let the reader draw his/her own conclusion -- that no submarine CO would want to make a treacherous journey on torturous goat path when a much safer, faster high speed freeway is available right under the pole.

This American submarine intrusion story reappears periodically in the Canadian zeitgeist -- it will come around again unless folks understand it's very unlikely American subs would go there.

Of course U.S defense planners have long been concerned about Canadians' lack of sea and land defenses in the north, especially for ASW. It's a great place to quietly park a ballistic missile submarine for a short-range, short-warning, down-the-throat missile salvo. The U.S. would probably love to see the Canadians invest in an acoustical network in the Arctic. Maybe this is all just the Americans' plot to get the Canadians to beef up their arctic naval presence. (That, or Cheney will subcontract ASW out to the Danish force at Hans Island)

I think a sub or two did go through the passage in the 1950s, but that was for PR purposes: "Navy nuke subs set still another historic record" and unlikely to be repeated. --A. B. ^(talk) 03:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could never find the original source of the allegation. I suspect the press alleged and Ottawa reacted -- rather than vice versa. One day, it was just in a bunch of articles -- probably precipitated by the U.S. press release on the Charlotte's surfacing at the pole. Perhaps the current wording:

• "In late 2005, it was alleged that U.S. nuclear submarines had travelled the passage without Canadian approval, sparking Canadian outrage."

should be changed to something like:

• "In late 2005, Canadian news media carried unattributed allegations that U.S. nuclear submarines had travelled the passage without Canadian approval; these reports sparked Canadian outrage."

--A. B. ^(talk) 03:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find any references in the article that spoke about where the US sub had specifically gone. Your Defence News article is the only thing there currently, and all it says is:

Conservative leader Stephen Harper said Dec. 22 he would assert more strongly Canada’s northern territorial claims following reports that a U.S. submarine recently traveled unannounced through Canadian Arctic waters.

which seems more believable than Wikipedia's current wording, which appears to insist that there were allegations that a US sub went through the NW Passage. I understand that some newspaper might have asserted something stronger, but I don't think we ought to repeat it unless we can find the original. EdJohnston 05:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line is that no Navy other than Canada's, wants the Strait of Lancaster to be considered territorial waters, as there seems to be no exception in the Law of the Sea (article 20), all submarine traffic must travel along the surface while in a territorial sea. Becoming a bit problematic especially in January! Travelling submerged through the Strait also needs to take into account some very nasty tidal currents that can either slow things down or speed things up a little too much for safe passage. But when all is considered, travelling submerged and into the current, offers the ability to manuever more safely than in calm water. Did anyone mention the loss of Stealth value for any sub trying to quickly cross from one ocean to another during a conflict crisis? And why does it seem so important for certain countries with submarine fleets, not to recognize Canada's Arctic Archipelagic sovereignty?99.246.107.202 22:47, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Ed, go for it. I'm a bit Northwest Passaged out. Thanks for your attention to this. --A. B. ^(talk) 06:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

The article as presently written reads:

"Some believe the real purpose of the voyages of discovery was not to patrol the Arctic searching for evidence of German infiltrators, but rather to protect Canadian interests from her American allies. The Americans were proving to be difficult, heavy-handed allies."

This needs some sort of reference, especially since the second sentence is not neutral POV. The reference can just go in the edit summary or the talk page. The second sentence is less POV if it quotes a "notable" source -- something like "Prime Minister John Doe was later quotes ad saying the Americans were proving to be difficult, heavy-handed allies." In that case, a notable figure or publication is expressing an opinion, not Wikipedia.--A. B. 14:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed that until a citation is found... does seem to be quite POVish. I will not oppose its reinstatement if, as A.B. said, a "notable" source for it is found; until then I'd say that it does not belong in an encyclopedia. ikh (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Get it straight

It's a strait, not a straight. Unless it's a straight strait. If this goes on, I'll need a straightjacket. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Clarityfiend 19:22, 26 August 2006 (UTC) yea what ever you are !! ??

It's a straitjacket, actually.Artiste-extraordinaire 08:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Legendary Northwest Passage?

Came to mind while listening to the CBC blather/national bluster on about the Passage and arctic sovereignty on the National briefly tonight, it came to mind to look up the Northwest Passage to see what was here on the legendary history of the Passage, and also the search for it that is the core of the European intrusion upon the Pacific Northwest in the late 18th Century. There's ancillary articles like the fictional-map makers/captains de Fonte and Maldonado and others, who claim to have discovered it; and the combination of De Fuca and Vancouver and Quadra and others who established (to the outside world) that there was a wide straight through the mountains at the latitude the stories alluded to, but it did not lead through the continent. There's a lot of material; for those unfamiliar here's a summary; kind of notes for later for myself too but if someone else cares to condense it or follow up the sources please go ahead, particularly on the maps as neither of my scanners is working.

The lore of the passage, in lore known as the Straits of Anian - and there's also a reference to an inland Great Western Sea open to the ocean, although some believe that may have been a pre-sedimentation Central Valley in California, or a moist-era myth of Great Salt Lake when it was larger and fresh, or even when parts of the Interior of Washington and BC were a post-glacial lake (oral traditions have staying power, remember, as can be shown in Northwest culture-mythology re glacial/coastal/volcanic history and more). But where the Straits of Anian were said to be, and largely where they were placed - between 45 and 60 latitude, ruling out any connection to the other Northwest Passage, the one this article about - which also may have been traversed by captains and others who did not keep logs, as climatic shift history is starting to show us (and as Farley Mowat has maintained in his book West-Viking and others since I think...); both routes led to the Pacific, or one of them in and then out of it, twice no less (north and south of the open waters on one stretch of the Inside Passage. A thorough source this page can draw public-domain materials from (I'm not sure which are copyrighted, as the book is full of hundreds of plates) is Derek Hayes' Historical Atlas of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest Cavendish Books (I think), Vancouver), but I don't have a working scanner so if anyone's interested and it's in the library, it's rich with old maps of the mythical passage, and also some of the other Arctic expeditions despite the focus on mapping of the Northwest Coast in particular, because of their speculative maps showing what they thought, or heard, was to westward; so the two legends became connected, and one was true, provided the climate was warm enough to allow passage, while the other wasn't quite right.

The legends allusion to latitude at that latitude and the vague but familiar descriptions of the lands of Anian and Bergi (Bergi was mountainous and populated and lay beyond the Straits of Anian, which flanked the legendary strait and was a land rich in people and great wealth, furs, pearl (abalone?), gold and jade (!! - I'll have to dig that out but I've seen it in print somewhere). The overall length of today's Inside Passage, from the open sea northwards (not from the southern end of Puget Sound or Elliott Bay, where Seattle is, but along the route from open sea to open sea, Puget Sound being a sidewater essentially.

Through the coastal archipelago from the 47th Parallel or so (Olympia is to the south of Cape Flattery but it's from Port Townsend-Anacortes north that counts as far as the passage goes, variously to Skagway although in strict sense it could simply be the Juan de Fuca-San Juans/Gulf Islands straits-northern Puget Sound/Gulf of Georgia-Johnstone Strait-Queen Charlotte Strait; in a sense the passage from Fitz Hugh Sound north - where the Dean Channel from Bentinck Arm/Bella Coola comes out, just up a bit is Gil Island of the recent Queen of the North sinking - and then up Grenville Channel inside of Princess Royal Island - as mountainous and rugged as Vancouver Island, but not as high, and vast and maze-like in its valleys (I know I've studied the maps for a large project a few years in length for all of BC and the Northwest...).

This was notes and explanation why I'm asking if this should be here, or in a separate article with some kind of related title and mutually linked? This article is specifically geographic and modern-context; is this the right place for the legendary lore and history of the various lies and hoaxes that went along with it? Skookum1 09:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Assuming you have sources you can cite per WP:RS, WP:OR, etc., this looks like great material to add to Wikipedia. As to whether to include it here or in its' own article, I'd say that depends on the volume of the material. My own preference would be to not devote more than a paragraph or two here and link to more elsewhere. That's just my own opinion, however -- others may feel differently. --A. B. 23:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There's potentially a lot of material, partly because of the varying theories and the number of speculative maps and apocryphal explorations to be accounted for - and also the number of actual recorded voyages (once sea captains became literate...) that were ostensibly in search of the Passage, from either side (Cartier on the one side, Cook on the other...; there's also a further legendary/speculative landscape which shows up in the Northwest Passage speculations, but which continues in its own right until the west was fully explored - le grand mer de l'ouest; and certain other features like Bergi and Anian which as you can see I've already redlinked (as a reminder to myself); there's also Cibola, land of the seven cities of gold, which both Spaniards and Americans were in search of in what is now the American West; the Spanish early on penetrating so far overland as to reach the 49th Parallel, or just over it, at Osoyoos BC (or so the theory goes; there are others to account for Spanish armour and weapons in native households in the area). So re the potential content of the article, it's so varied, Jonathan Swift even shows up because he places Brobdingnag to the north of Nova Albion, about where Skagway or Ketchikan is latitudinally...so a separate article seems necessary, but I'm stuck on a suitable title; Theories or Legends/Legendary or what?Skookum1 00:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Name Change

I think with everyone's permissions I'm going to go ahead and change the name of the article from "Northwest Passage" to "Canadian Internal Waters". With regards to citation #4, I'm not quite sure if this is a good Idea so I want some feedback before I go ahead with this ;) (1sttomars 16:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't think we should move it - you were right to ask first, since that's always a good idea if you're not sure :-).

According to WP:NCGN, we use the widely accepted English-language name if there is one, and IMO "Northwest Passage" fits that quite well - most English-language readers will be unaware that the Canadians have changed the name for their purposes and will still search for "Northwest Passage". Check out Google searches (which I know aren't conclusive in general): "Northwest Passage" -wikipedia - about 634,000 hits versus "Canadian Internal Waters" -wikipedia - about 303 hits. Pfainuk 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now "Canadian Internal Waters" is a redirect to here. That's incorrect, as would be moving this article to "Canadian Internal Waters". If you look at this, which is the Canadian Government definition of the term, you can see that it also refers to Juan de Fuca Strait and the Bay of Fundy. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Internal Waters is now a stub with a few links to other bodies of water that are part of "Canadian Internal Waters". CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm really glad that I asked ;) But still I'm very confused to whether or not this an actual geologic name change or if it's just what the Canadians are calling it. Naturally if its just what Canada is calling it, than I dont think I should change the name.

Also does Canada have the right to rename the northwest passage (assuming that it is a geologic name change)? I know there's been a dispute over who owns it for a very long time. I just don't think that anyone of the nations who thinks it's theirs has the right to rename it until this land dispute has been settled. (1sttomars 03:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

From the bits I read it appears to be a political thing and the Northwest Pasage will still be called that. However, if you look at the Canadian Government definition then the NWP is only one part of the Canadian Internal Waters, which includes the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Bay of Fundy. It's a bit hard to believe the ice out there that seperates me from the Canadian mainland (which I can see if I stand on the desk and is about 15-20 miles away) is an international waterway. I wonder how other countries look at the water that lies between the mainlain and offshore island. Think of the Irish Sea between the British mainland and Northern Ireland/Ireland. Anacapa Island and Farallon Islands off the California coast. The Orkney, Outer Hebrides and Shetland in Scotland. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's a map of British territorial waters here, and shows that you can't pass through any of these areas without hitting British territorial waters (except the Californian one obviously). It appears that you can technically pass between Shetland and Orkney, but it involves the nautical equivalent of threading a needle. On a more wiki-related note, thanks for sorting out Canadian Internal Waters - clearly it's a useful distinction to make. Pfainuk 10:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Presently, Canada claims the Northwest Passage as its internal waters. I'm unaware of any other country that recognizes that claim. The U.S. and various European countries dispute that claim. If we rename this article, then we are effectively making a POV decision supporting this claim. I'd say take a look at the Falklands Islands article for a precedent. I think Wikipedia shouldn't have an opinion one way or the other -- just lay out the respective points of view. --A. B. ^(talk) 12:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed - but unlike at Falkland Islands, I believe we're all reading from the same hymn sheet. There's no longer anyone making a case to move this article to "Canadian Internal Waters" - so it'll remain at "Northwest Passage". From your Falkland Islands example, the equivalent of the new Canadian Internal Waters article could be the Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica, and South Atlantic Islands Province article. FWIW my previous remark was intended for interest only.

I have added a little extra to Canadian Internal Waters to attempt to explain that that usage is not universal, though perhaps we should move discussion of that article to that talk page. Pfainuk 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC). Re-edited Pfainuk 14:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I was really thinking of "Malvinas Islands", the Argentine name. --A. B. ^(talk) 16:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the map link. It would appear that the UK government is making the same claim as the Canadian government. There's nothing in the Irish Sea article to indicate that the area is disputed though. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK the british government does not deny that the Irish sea is an international passage despite claiming the entirety as territorial waters along a good stretch of it. This situation is similar to the Strait of Hormuz which likewise is totally covered by territorial water claims but is regarded as an international water way nonetheless.Zebulin (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This article should most definitely NOT be moved or renamed: Canadian Internal Waters also include many adjacent waters on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, not just those of the Northwestern Passages in the Arctic. Crack is cocaine, but the reverse isn't true. :) Corticopia 14:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Plural Usage

I think most or all would agree that the widely used historical namesake 'Northwest Passage', is singular. Of course, according to the article, there was many ways in which this was attempted, but I can find no references corroborating the plural form, in historical context. Doesn't the plural form dilute the fact it was THE trading route (Holy Grail, if you will) sought (mostly) by England during colonial times? Onepointfive2.0 14:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Most or all other nations?

User:63.117.55.131 has strengthened the part about the dispute, stating that all nations other than Canada dispute Canada's assertion that the NWP is part of Canada's internal waters. I reverted these parts, on the grounds that the sources (which say some variation on "most") do not back this up, and was reverted back - so I'm taking this here.

I would be surprised if every nation on Earth (including the landlocked ones) has expressed a definite opinion on the matter. I wouldn't object to being proven wrong, but reassertion is not proof and the sources don't say what this edit says. I also believe the word "unilaterally" is strongly implied in the text and is unnecessary baggage. Of course it was unilateral. Every territorial dispute in the world that I know of is based on a unilateral claim by one or both sides. "All maritime nations polled" is misleading, suggesting that someone went around maritime nations asking - but the source gives no suggestion of such a poll (or indeed any poll on the matter). For these reasons I'm am rereverting to my last edit.

Another question, not entirely related: do other nations consider the NWP to be international waters (with no Canadian juristriction) or Canadian territorial waters (under Canadian juristriction but with the right of innocent passage for foreign ships)? Canada (seems to) consider them internal waters (under Canadian juristriction with no right of innocent passage). The difference is quite significant, IMO, but we seem to state both in different places. Pfainuk talk 22:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Pfainuk, I agree with your reversion. I expect Bhutan, Lesotho and many others lack a strong position on Canada's claims to the Northwest Passage.

As to your question about international waters versus territorial waters with right of innocent passage -- good question. I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International law asking for hep with this. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Having looked through the references given I can't see anything that indicates any country considers them territorial waters. It appears as if "most" say that it's an international waterway. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My reason for wondering is (and this is my understanding and naturally open to correction):

• While Canada says "territorial", it means "internal". Legally foreign nations have the right to pass through Canadian territorial waters (within 12nm of the baseline) "in a manner not prejudicial to its peace, good order, or security" (from innocent passage) - there's no problem with American subs traversing Canadian territorial waters. They do not have the right to pass through Canadian internal waters. So, Canada could not complain about this if when they said "territorial" they meant "territorial".
• This is also suggested suggested by Canada's redesignation of the passage as part of Canadian Internal Waters and not part of Canadian Territorial Waters.
• If the NWP is Canadian territorial waters, Canada has the right to enforce any law up to 12nm from the coast (provided it allows innocent passage), and some laws up to 24nm, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) - which has been ratified by Canada and every EU state but not yet by the USA. If this is international waters, Canada has no rights at all - including economic rights that normally come from the 200nm EEZ or the continental shelf.
• Most of our sources are written for the general public, and may contain errors that would not occur in diplomatic or legal documents. The authors may have been confused by the Canadian government's mixing up terminology, they not understand the distinction, they may not have noticed or they may consider the distinction potentially confusing.
• This is where I get to my POV - which is why I'm asking the question here and not trying to introduce it to the article (in any case I don't have sources that back this up). It seems entirely unreasonable to remove from Canada specifically the rights given to it under UNCLOS without Canada's permission. If these were truly international waters, Canada could not pass any law preventing fishing or oil exploitation in the passage by any foreign power, nor effectively impose environmental restrictions on its own companies operating there (who could fly a flag of convenience). Canada could not prevent smuggling or illegal immigration through its north coast, nor would it have the right to fine foreign ships responsible for oil slicks or whatever. Nor could Canada effectively prevent weapons testing off its northern coast. In fact, Canada's rights over foreign shipping within a few hundred metres of its coast would be restricted to enforcing laws against piracy and slave trade.
• As I understand it, this is not what the US and other nations want. They want the right of passage through the NWP, not the right to test weapons or exploit oil reserves. They want the passage to be Canadian territorial waters, or a transit passage (as defined here), allowing free passage through the NWP to their shipping, rather than Canadian internal waters, allowing no free passage. As I understand it it's not fishing rights or oil exploitation rights that are disputed, it's transit rights. This is reinforced, IMO, by the nature of the Yukon–Alaska dispute - a dispute over where the US-Canadian border is in the Beaufort Sea. If they considered the NWP to be truly international waters, the US would claim that this was a dispute merely over where Alaska's eastern end lay, and that Canada had no legitimate right to be involved. They do not seem to make such a claim.

But, as you say, all our sources say "international waters" or some variant thereof, and we can hardly go against them unless we can verify what I'll admit is at the moment my own OR, which could be quite wrong, or which could be a variation of the facts based on a misunderstanding. In any case, let's see what some of the people from WikiProject International law say. Pfainuk talk 11:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

At this juncture, I will quote an excerpt from an article entitled "Cold rush: the coming fight for the melting north" by McKenzie Funk in the September 2007 issue of Harper's magazine:

• The United States, as it turns out, does not disagree that the Northwest Passage runs through Canadian waters. Its claim is that the passage is an international strait like Malacca, Gibraltar, Bab-el-Mandeb, the Dardanelles, and the Bosporus—a waterway that should be open to container ships and oil tankers from all nations. The European Union shares America's interpretation, and China—another country with much to gain from an open passage—recently signalled its thoughts when its 550-foot icebreaker Snow Dragon appeared in the Arctic and the captain non-chalantly landed passengers at the Canadian settlement of Tuktoyaktuk. "This isn't just to stick it to Canada," [David Biette of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars] said, "this is a global position."

and, later:

• The treaty's language regarding ice-covered areas [as it pertains to the active and innocent passage of vessels through waterways] hurts the U.S. position as much as the language regarding international straits helps it.

Also note that the U.S. is not yet a party to the aforementioned convention.

So, in my opinion, the U.S. position may be wide-spread but it is incorrect to indicate that it is a unanimous one. (In other words, I think I concur with Pfainuk.) I also think the introduction of the article summarises this fairly. Anyhow, I hope this helps. Quizimodo 13:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Quizimodo. A few minor, somewhat tangential points:

• From reading the Wikipedia articles on the subject, it appears the U.S. may well to ratify UNCLOS in the next year or two -- both Democrats and Bush support it.
• I have read a lot about submarines and I reiterate the point I made earlier that the likelihood of submerged U.S. submarines these days in the NWP is between 0% and 0.01%. One publicly made the transit once in the late 1950s or early 1960s in order to set some sort of historical record. The navigation under ice in shallow water without good external navigational references is reportedly very treacherous. If they're not going around the east coast of Greenland, then they're taking an innocent passage through the Nares Strait. Submerged transits through the NWP are analogous to the Canadian Forces driving across the northern Maine wilderness to get from Quebec City to St. John. Compared to sticking with the Autoroutes, this route cuts the distance by a third -- but requires the use of private, gravel logging roads in much of Maine.
• The U.S. military (as opposed to the State Dept.) is probably delighted by the occasional misinformed Canadian domestic furor over alleged transits. They'd love to see Canada beef up its northern defenses. Canadian naval leaders almost certainly know the score (about the NWP's dangers for subs) and, for similar reasons, are playing along.

--A. B. ^(talk) 14:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No real argument. By the way, numerous publications, including Harper's and The Economist, have recently highlighted this debate. Quizimodo 15:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this really about subs? I thought it had more to do with surface ships and the loads that they might be carrying. Anyway, look at this taked from the references section of the article. In particular look at the last sentence in the third paragraph. It's saying that the US claims the NWP is "...an international strait (international waters), which allows the right of transit passage (beyond “innocent passage”).", That would seem to disagree with the Harpers quote above as to how the US views it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Post-cold war, it's only about subs during an election season or some other politics/media brouhaha. (Subs are also important during the Cambridge Bay racing season.)

Other than that, it's all about surface ships. Personally, I don't see why the U.S. is so doctrinaire about this -- it's probably in its enlightened self-interest to have the Canadians controlling the NWP. --A. B. ^(talk) 22:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this issue deals with both subs and surface ships, and particularly in the future when global warming may allow for more/easier ship transit. I know: the information doesn't necessarily reconcile. I'm unsure what to make of it: I mean, the quote from Harper's was (an opinion) made by an expert in Canada-US relations in Washington, DC (which harks that of Pfainuk and me to a degree), while the extract from the Library of Parliament seems to more represent the position of the Canadian government and, thus, may be more authoritative? Perhaps we need to consult an authoritative US/EU government source for a counter-view? Quizimodo 21:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh: I stumbled across an informative summary regarding the US position by the US Office of Naval Research, et al in one of the linked documents in the Library of Parliament document, entitled "Naval Operations in an Ice Free Arctic"; on p. 35 (with original emphasis):

• Canada, in particular, has strong feelings about access to areas it considers its territorial waters and also has concerns for protecting the Arctic waters. In accordance with the provisions of UNLCOS (sic), Canada has claimed sovereignty and jurisdiction over the Arctic Archipelago by drawing straight baselines around the outer edges of the archipelago. Under UNCLOS, all waters inward of the baseline are considered by Canada to be "internal waters". This has the practical effect of not permitting "transit passage" or "innocent passage" and requiring all vessels, aircraft and persons to comply with Canadian domestic law. The U.S. disputes this claim, particularly in regards to the status of the Northwest Passage. The U.S. claims the Northwest Passage is an "international strait" as defined under UNCLOS. This means "transit passage" is permitted and vessels, aircraft and persons do not necessarily have to comply with Canadian domestic law. The differences between Canada and the U.S. on these issues are significant and have a direct impact on the development of national and maritime strategies for naval operations in an ice-free Arctic. These differences must be resolved, probably through bilateral agreement(s).

This corroborates the actual parliamentary document and appears to nullify Biette's opinion of the matter. Ah well. Thoughts? Quizimodo 22:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that this "transit passage" appears - from both sources - to be the actual status as claimed by the US, EU, China and so on. That last quote is equally clear on Canada's position. I went off and found this page, giving the text of UNCLOS and the key features of a transit passage are:

• There is free movement of ships, provided that there's no equally convenient route by high seas or EEZ.
• The passage must be traversed without unreasonable delay
• No threat of force against countries bordering the passage, or other activity not normally involved sailing the ship
• No research or survey without the permission of the bordering state
• Bordering states retain the right to legislate on safety, on pollution risks, on fishing and on smuggling
• No arbitrary closure of the passage at any time (this is different from "innocent passage", where waters may be closed in wartime).

This is more rights than you get under plain innocent passage, but not as much as you get in true international waters, and I suppose it's a grey area between "Canadian waters" and "International waters" - since Canada has the right to legislate.

This is a significant difference between the Canadian position (internal waters, no passage) and the US/Others position (free passage under certain conditions), as reflected in that quote. I will edit the article to reflect this, citing that PDF. Pfainuk talk 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I think it partially backs up the parliamentary document but it doesn't confirm that the US thinks an international strait is the same as international waters. The Law of the Sea Convention 1982 Part III STRAITS USED FOR INTERNATIONAL NAVIGATION Sections 34-39 may be of some help. By the way subs are not a problem for our racing vehicles. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made the edit, and was deliberately ambiguous on that point. The term is defined, but I didn't see that it was at all clear whether an international strait is part of international waters or territorial waters. I suspect that it is somewhere in between, and best not shoehorned into one category or the other. Pfainuk talk 00:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Good.

On a related point, if this document is to be believed, there is no fundamental difference between the US and EU position: look for a section entitled 'The American and European position' almost halfway down. Quizimodo 00:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, to clarify a prior point, the issue of sovereignty in the Northwest Passage apparently concerns only the regulatory regime governing international shipping. Quizimodo 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've removed that section, and added that reference to state the opposite - that the US and EU positions are the same (as our references say). It strikes me that we were describing the same concept from two different directions. I'm having some difficulty coming up with an NPOV formulation of words that does not vaguely OR-ish to succinctly describe Canada's rights under an international straits/transit passage regime. The current text is the best I've hit on, but please check it for NPOV and OR and make revisions if you feel them necessary. Pfainuk talk 09:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've made a similar edit to Canadian Internal Waters, including much of the same material. Pfainuk talk 10:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Spar v Storis

The Spar, not the Storis as the existing entry states, was the first American vessel to circumnavigate North America. The Spar sailed from Bristol, R.I., while the Bramble sailed from Miami. They passed through the Panama Canal and had a rendezvous with the Storis in Seattle on July 1, 1957. The three Coast Guard cutters made a 4,500-mile west-to-east voyage through the Northwest Passage in the summer of 1957. The Spar returned to Bristol on Sept. 24, 1957, the first to make the circumnavigation. The Bramble reached Miami on Oct. 1. The Storis continued through the Panama Canal and returned to Seattle later that fall. The story of this epic voyage was told in great detail in the Coast Guard Magazine in January or February of 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.254.32.165 (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Distance San Francisco - New York through NW passage

Does anybody know the distance? It must be shorter than the way through Panama channel (stated there) but I couldn´t find an exact figure. Any other relation West/East coast with the additional Panama channel figure would also be fine! Thank you. 84.173.213.37 09:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition, larger ships are able to traverse the NWP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.52.32 (talk) 05:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That´s another reason why I´m asking :-) I saw something something at the top of the page about the way Miami - Panama - Seattle and Seattle - NWP - Boston. Could anybody please figure out the exact distance? 84.173.229.27 09:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's longer. A very rough look using Google Earth's path tool shows that via the Canal is 3,000km shorter. (10,750 v 14,200). Even Seattle - New York is longer, (but only by 1,200km) so I doubt any West-East U.S coast distance is shorter through the passage (except, of course, Alaska). Though it does actually cut a couple hundred km off the Syndey-London trip... Iorek 10:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I have assessed this article as B class, as it contains a good deal of referenced detail and organization, and of mid importance, as it is a broad topic that plays a strong role in the understanding of Canada. Cheers, CP 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Only B-class? I should think it ranks much higher than that, at least GA-class. GlassCobra 02:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not GA yet not least since large sections e.g. Strait of Anian, are inadequately referenced. B-class is a fair assessment Dick G 03:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I do not have the time or inclination to fix it at this time, I think parts of this article are poorly written (referring to sentence construction and grammar in particular). PageantUpdater talk • contribs 10:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

True but that does not relegate it to Start class (admittedly not that you had suggested that)! Dick G 10:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The parenthetical statement seems to contradict the main point of the text in this part of the Overview:

This was driven in some part by scientific naiveté, namely an early belief that seawater was incapable of freezing (as late as the mid 18th century, Captain James Cook had expressed surprise for example that Antarctic icebergs had yielded fresh water), and that a route close to the North Pole must therefore exist.

Regardless, it is confusing. krc 03:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That was an edit of mine and was paraphrased from the Collingridge text (referenced in the article). Must admit having re-read it is is confusing - what it is trying to get at is that Cook's discovery that icebergs were fresh water suggested the hypothesis that seawater couldn't freeze was true, even as late as the 18th century. It's the 'surprise' that's confusing. Perhaps easiest to word it as per the latest edit... Dick G 10:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes it much clearer. krc 02:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumpuscat (talk • contribs)

Passenger Ships

The article on the M/S Explorer crashing near Antarctica and being evacuated mentions that this ship was the first passenger ship to cross the NWP as well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7108835.stm (near the bototm) JoshuaSchachter (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Now added. Cheers Dick G (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1