Talk:Strait of Juan de Fuca
|WikiProject Canada / British Columbia / Geography||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject United States / Washington||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
The Juan De Fuca was legally owned by the USSR in 1783. Came from the Greek name (froo-dah-heesh) which means....you figure it out!
On 12 March User:188.8.131.52 added the following comment at the bottom of the article: The Strait was not named by John Meares but by British Captain Charles Barkley (also spelled Barclay) in 1787.
This user's only other contribution to date has been to add "He is cool" to the Beethoven article so not necessarily someone to be taken seriously. --Spondoolicks 23:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
- Heh.. the user was right. I'll add a reference for it. And actually, since the USGS GNIS page claims it was Meares in 1788, I added several citations saying it was Barkley in 1787. The USGS is considered a reliable and quite official source, but its GNIS pages are sometimes wrong. I figure it needed more than just the BCGNIS page to counter, so I added three more references, two of which can be read online. Pfly (talk) 15:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I've never quite figured out how best to cite sources in wikipedia. The help pages provide a lot of different example styles.. so much that I am left unsure how best to do it. So for now I'm just commenting here.. on the boundary dispute, I'm guessing the CIA Factbook is a reliable source? https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ca.html -- Canada page, bottom section, "Transnational Issues": "Disputes - international: managed maritime boundary disputes with the US at Dixon Entrance, Beaufort Sea, Strait of Juan de Fuca, and around the disputed Machias Seal Island and North Roc" Pfly 03:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- The best source on the internet that I've been able to find so far is http://www.cwilson.com/pubs/energy/alaska.pdf.
In the Juan de Fuca dispute area near Cape Flattery the Government of British Columbia has rejected the proposed United States - Government of Canada boundary delineation based on equidistance principles. Rather, British Columbia has argued that the southwesterly trending submarine extension of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the Juan de Fuca Canyon, is a "geomorphic and physiogeographic boundary". British Columbia argued the Juan de Fuca Canyon is a "special circumstance" in law as provided in Article 6(2) of the 1958 U.N. Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf. The Province claims that the "natural prolongation" of British Columbia territory is terminated by the submarine canyon.
- Does the article's newer text with the above info and the link to that PDF provide enough information to remove to expand tag? It seems to explain the basic issue and gives a link to more detailed info. The page as a whole is fairly short as it is. The boundary issue section looks good enough to me. Can the tag be removed? Pfly (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Concerning the boundary dispute, the text does not make clear that the heart of the issue is San Juan island. The US Canada boundary was set at the 49th parallel west to the straight separating the US and Canada, but it became known later it was 2 straights, with the straight of haro being west of San Juan island, while the submarine Juan de Fuca canyon is east of San Juan island. This makes San Juan island disputed, hence the disagreement.
I believe a national park service image would make this clearer, and would be covered by the NPS waiver of copyright: http://www.nps.gov/sajh/historyculture/images/areamap_copy_1.jpg http://www.nps.gov/sajh/historyculture/the-pig-war.htm http://www.nps.gov/disclaimer.htm User:Janet Plato —Preceding unsigned comment added by Techgrrl (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- The dispute is not about the San Juans--that one was resolved long ago--it's over where the boundary lies in the Strait of Juan de Fuca itself, a "maritime boundary dispute"--and remains unresolved today. I agree it could be better explained though. Here's a few quick sources. There are probably better ones: GlobalSecurity.org, just a simple mention that it exists; CIA Factbook, also just simple mention; and better, International law, chiefly as interpreted and applied in Canada. This last one, a book, seems to explain it in detail. I don't have time right now though. Perhaps later. Pfly (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, here's a better source: International maritime boundaries, which explains that the dispute is only seaward of the entrance of the strait, out to 200 miles. And that "both countries claim equidistance lines but different basepoint selections create small differences in the lines. Perceived linkages with other Canada-US maritime boundary matters have hindered resolution of what should be a technical issue." The "linkages" thing is about how a decision one way here could influence decisions elsewhere, which other sources mention. Will edit page later. Pfly (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I edited the section. Should be clearer. Also linked to a map showing the submarine Juan de Fuca Canyon, which BC apparently claims as the appropriate maritime boundary. It trends southwest, way south of the strait itself. The map, here, is from a NOAA site, so in theory could be uploaded and used, NOAA being part of the US federal government. It would be better if it showed more of the strait and Vancouver Island though. Oh, and futher info! According to Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary History, NOAA, the marine sanctuary's has "a boundary that follows the international border at the north". There is a low resolution map showing it, but a better map here: Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Boundary Map, NOAA. I assume the northern boundary of the marine sanctuary follows the "equidistant" lines proposed by the US and Canada--which differ only slightly. Interesting to see what the equidistant proposal would look like, compared to the BC government's proposal. Pfly (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)