From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Arctic:
  • Effects of Global warming - new section

text removed[edit]

The text was removed because it was not appropriate for the topic (please see the Wikipedia help: What Wikipedia is not). While I did not disagree with what the text said I felt it belonged in a topic dealing with the cold war such as NORAD. I also felt it was not NPOV as it presented only one side of the affair, however this was not the main reason for removing it. If you feel that information on the Artic requires a information on its uses for Nuclear Weapons please include all sides of the issue, mainly that multiple countries around the world use artic waters to deploy nuclear submarines aswell as air defense. However, a See Also reference to NORAD would be more appropriate.

Removed text (shown here with some context that was left in place):

  • From end of intro secn
    Extermal link: Arctic Theme Page - Everything from the North Pole to Northern Lights, to animals, and much more.
  • From External links secn
    Providing information on the present state of Arctic ecosystems and climate in historical context.

Sounds like some kind of NOAA groupie's work, since NOAA isn't looking for customers. I left two NOAA lks in the Ext lks; perhaps the removed text has a role in the article, even tho whoever put it there has not idea what would be appropriate.
--Jerzy·t 04:25, 2005 July 27 (UTC) Hmm. Actually it's not just NOAA: more from ext lks secn:

Teems with life[edit]

Does the Arctic teem with life in any meaningful sense? That is, what regions on Earth don't teem with life if the Arctic does? Srnec 04:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Scientific exploration?[edit]

Was the Arctic just a place for the "military research"??? How about scientific one? I've created corresponding section, which desperately needs to be expanded. Cmapm 01:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


The article for Ptarmigan says that they're sub-arctic—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

To be fair, the article says "across arctic and subarctic Eurasia and North America (including Greenland)". What's more, the reference used in that article[1] says "Circumpolar. Arctic and alpine tundra of North America and northern Eurasia. Most of the arctic coast and islands are inhabited by the species; it retreats from the northernmost arctic regions during winter". – zzuuzz (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Natural Resources 2[edit]

Looking to expand this section, will be creating a new page called Arctic Petroleum Play unless some one would liek to suggest other wise Philbentley 02:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The main otherwise that I suggest is a sensible title to the article! – RHaworth 02:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


The section on animals begins:

Arctic animals find it slightly easier to survive, though the winds are very strong and their habitat is freezing.

Easier than what? Ordinary Person 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Arctic Monkeys[edit]

The link to Arctic Monkeys placed in the animals section redirects to a band's page. Thus, it's been removed. If you re-create the link, make sure it points to a legitimate animal's page. Thank you. Bullzeye 05:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Arctic Vegetation[edit]

I am a new editor. I would like to improve the content of the "Arctic" page by providing information about arctic vegetation (my specialty). I have already included a small paragraph in the Arctic/Nature section, and would like to create a separate page with lots more information and links. Any advice/suggestions appreciated. Mraynolds 17:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

no arctic ice by 2020[edit]

i added the global warming effect. it is even available at wiki news but this user "The way, the truth, and the light" what a double speak name btw always edits the article. could the admins plz come here and settle this out manchurian candidate 11:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The effects of global warming are covered in other articles. These results are not uncontrovesial and to put them here without any context would make it biased. The way, the truth, and the light 11:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

what biased cuz it shows the bleak future,i disagree,even wiki news has an article about it. manchurian candidate

i am getting annoyed with your bull.Go and check antartica article.they need "effects of global warming" in article.Check their talk page. I have reported you to an admin. manchurian candidate 10:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

need to protect this page[edit]

====ARTICLE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)====) this user is always editing my work.plz protect this page.Whats wrong in adding global warming effect in the article. manchurian candidate 08:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It would probably be better to discuss the changes you propose rather than getting in edit wars over them. The latter can get you in trouble. (P.S. Please remember to sign your comments by writing out four tildes (~~~~).) ~ UBeR 18:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Continent Suggestion[edit]

This is just a suggestion, but how about putting a sentence in about the Arctic not being a continent? I know anyone vaguely educated knows that the Arctic isn't a continent, but I find this is a fairly common mistake and it would probably merit inclusion in the article somewhere. Any objections? blankfrackis 16:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the Arctic consists of ocean, why would it be a continent? Just seems redundant to point that out. Though there does seem to be some confusion in the article as to the definition of the word "Arctic". Despite a treeless ice mass on the ocean, the Arctic pictures show trees, mountains, grass, shrubs, dirt, etc. Presidentbalut (talk) 18:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The portion of the region that is ocean is, of course, ocean (largely covered with ice; no trees, mountains, etc.). However, the article makes clear that this is only part of the region: " The Arctic consists of the Arctic Ocean and parts of Canada, Russia, the United States (Alaska), Denmark (Greenland), Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland." Those "parts of" various countries have trees, mountains, grass, shrubs, etc. Are there any sections of the text that you feel don't make this clear? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


The Arctic Circle passes well above Iceland.

Exactly since when does the Arctic contain parts of Iceland? According to this image, Iceland has no land north of the Arctic Circle. It comes very close but does not quite cross it. I always thought there were only seven countries in the world to have land in the Arctic: Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Canada, the United States, and Russia. JIP | Talk 19:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The arctic circle passes through the island Grímsey, which (politically) is part of Iceland. Another consideration is that the arctic circle is not the only boundary used to define the arctic: using the 10°C July isotherm for example, a larger area of Iceland is covered. Rhyolite (talk) 02:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nunavik (northern Quebec) is mentioned as being an Arctic territory but its northern point is quite a long way south of the Arctic circle. Much of its climate could be described as Arctic though, as with Iceland. Should the Arctic territory list be clarified in some way? Should the territories be within the circle or have an Arctic climate? (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's this. The 10 C isotherm for the warmest month is almost certainly based on the E (polar) category in the Koeppen climate classification. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

arctic to melt by this summer[edit]

The head Norwegian International Polar Year Secretariat has said that the arctic could be completely ice free by summer 2008!!.This is very alarming.current estimates have gone from 2100-2050-2020-2013 and now this 2008.!here is the link. i have added in the article manchurian candidate 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I changed the artic melt to defacto 2008.These are 3 reliable sources and its confirmed that for the first time in the history there would be no ice on arctic by end of 2008,so all other ipcc predictions have been removed,they were too liberal going from 2100 to 2040.However in the climate change tab the nasa article on melt has been left untouched. manchurian candidate

As of February 8, 2011, ice exists in the arctic. Rumors of its 2008 demise appear to have been exaggerated. (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Derivation of "Arctic"[edit]

A citation is requested for the claim that the Arctic gets its name from the Great Bear constellation. This is given as the derivation of Arctic in my copy of the Concise Oxford Dictionary, and probably other dictionaries as well. Robin Scagell (talk) 18:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't it derivate from the cartogropher's "arc", defining the furthest northern reach of the sun at a direct angle to the surface of the earth seasonally? BTW, for what it's worth, the pronunciation in English of this term with a silent c, "Artic" is just as correct as the hard "Arktic", the former being the common spoken convention in Alaska. (See Webster's New World College Dictionary, 3d Ed. 1996) Tom Cod (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The word comes from Ursa Major, as described in the article. cf: Presidentbalut (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Arctic Portal and WikiProject?[edit]

Would anyone here be interested in helping me start Portal:Arctic and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic? Drop a note on my talk page if you are interested, or if there are any objections. Please also let me know if I've missed any existing projects. I'm notifying (some of) the WikiProjects listed at this talk page (and have also notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Antarctica). Please let me know if you know of any other WikiProjects centred on Arctic or polar areas. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Ice Free NP in 1959 photo[edit]

I removed this photo, added here [2] because there is no reference for the statement in the caption that the sub surfaced at an ice-free North Pole in 1959. The photo does not show enough of the area to see how much ice was around. It is quite possible the sub simply broke up some ice and moved around to clear an opening so it could fully surface, or that it was in a small lead. The photographer may well have been standing on an ice floe. Unless there is a ref stating that they surfaced at the North Pole with large areas of open water (not in a small lead, which are common), then the caption may be very misleading. StephenHudson (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I concur, absent a source which states that, it seems like original research. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps for continents - proposal[edit]

Currently a number of different styles of maps are used for continents (and for the poles), for example:

I'd like to try and standardise maps across the following articles: Americas, North America, South America, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania (and also, ideally, Arctic and Antarctica. My preference is for the orthographic projection currently used at Europe because:

  • It's an SVG instead of a PNG, so can be scaled easily.
  • New maps can be relatively created from existing SVGs (i.e. Europe's map - or the other SVG maps visible at File:Europe (orthographic projection).svg - can be recycled).
  • As an orthographic projection it allows the maps to be centred on the relevant continent or territory.

Assuming there's consensus for this, I'll post a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop (unless, of course, anyone volunteers beforehand!) However, before doing that I do want to check that there is consensus for this at each article affected. Additionally, I'm posting this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography to increase the exposure - I'd rather find out if this is a stupid idea before I start requesting new images ;-)

Personally I think it would be good if the Arctic and Antarctic maps were consistent with the continent maps. I realise that the poles may have different requirements, however.

This proposal is quite a radical proposal, affecting many articles, and deals with areas I don't normally edit in. I'm therefore prepared to be slapped down if I'm stepping on toes!

Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Requests submitted. I'd like to reiterate that I have no intention of enforcing these new maps on articles - if there is any objection I'll understand. My intent here is to make uniformity possible, not to enforce it. I'm slightly concerned that the requested map deviates significantly from the current Arctic map - I've tried to anticipate concerns (e.g. marking the 10 degree isotherm region, and differentiating between land and ocean either side of the 10 degree line) but I won't be offended if I've missed something and you decide to revert to the older map. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 11:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Indigenous population[edit]

There is no citation for the Indigenous population section of the article. The inuits are covered in their own article, but Tuniit have no references anywhere. I would particularly like to see citation for the claims about genetics ... if it was studied, there must be a paper on it somewhere.Ell5462 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The Tuniit have their own article as well. It does have references but no inline sources. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I've given the section a bit of an edit and added some references. The section is missing info, at least a mention, of other circumpolar north indigenous people; I'll take a look at adding that unless someone beats me to it. --Rosiestep (talk) 06:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I hadn't noticed that it's missing the others as is List of indigenous peoples#Circumpolar North. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
A map should be made, either the map from GRIDA can be used or

the IPY map We can obtain the map with a request for permission (OTRS). (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


I feel the auroras deserve a mention in the article, with a picture perhaps. Thanks. - Niri M / ನಿರಿ 04:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Political use of term[edit]

I'm not an expert, but I've noticed that in political circles, anything north of the 60th parallel is called "arctic". For example, Iceland is considered an "arctic" state, and the Canadian government sometimes uses the term "arctic" interchangably with the Yukon/NWT/Nunavut territories (e.g. the claim that 40% of Canada is "arctic" in this document: ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Royal Canadian Geographical Society uses the term "Arctic" to encompass tundra, northern taiga, and Hudson Plains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
And here's another example of Canada using the term "arctic" broadly, from the University of Guelph: (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Maybe the Canadian government's use of the term "the Canadian Arctic" coincides with the meteorological definition that this article already gives in its lede:
Alternatively, [the Arctic] can be defined as the region where the average temperature for the warmest month (July) is below 10 °C (50 °F); the northernmost tree line roughly follows the isotherm at the boundary of this region.[1][2]
Duoduoduo (talk) 17:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"Location of the Arctic" image[edit]

According to the article "The Arctic consists of the Arctic Ocean and parts of Canada, Russia, Denmark (Greenland), Norway, the United States (Alaska), Sweden, Finland, and Iceland". In the image only the Arctic Ocean is green. Can someone competent please correct the image? FonsScientiae (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Arctic IS an ocean, if you read the article...Presidentbalut (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The Arctic Ocean is the ocean in the Arctic, which is a region, generally defined as being everything north of 66° 33'N. Similarly, the Antarctic includes the Antacrtic Ocean, Antarctica, etc. The article tries to make this clear. Are there sections that you feel could make this clearer? - SummerPhD (talk) 13:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

unexplained deletion?[edit] (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Why was effects of global warming removed?[edit] (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

So you link to another article in the title of your post, included an unexplained question in the title, and then have zero content in your post except for an external link. Time for communication 101. If you have some type of a coherent question regarding this article, it's time to actually communicate it. North8000 (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Better in Climate change in the Arctic? (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, if nobody can even write a complete specific thought about what the purported problem is, we should consider this thread closed. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Need more info on this as a lot is happening here. Heres a recent one: [3](Lihaas (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)).

Pictures show trees, mountains, plants, etc.[edit]

If the arctic is simply frozen water that is treeless, why do the pictures in the article show trees, mountains, shrubs, grass, etc.? Presidentbalut (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your question has an incorrect premise ("the arctic is simply frozen water that is treeless") Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that even though my "premise is incorrect", someone went and changed the whole premise of the article to correct the point I was trying to make. The article no longer claims the Arctic is simply frozen ocean. That's what I love about wikipedia. The facts change every day! lol Presidentbalut (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. Your post at the beginning of this thread was on March 12th; the article has not been changed since February 26th. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
The OP is sort of right. The third to fifth sentences read "The Arctic region consists of a vast, ice-covered ocean, surrounded by treeless permafrost. The area can be defined as north of the Arctic Circle (66° 33'N), the approximate limit of the midnight sun and the polar night. Alternatively, it can be defined as the region where the average temperature for the warmest month (July) is below 10 °C (50 °F); the northernmost tree line roughly follows the isotherm at the boundary of this region." If the Arctic is the area above the Arctic Circle then there will be trees. If the Arctic is the area above the tree line then there are no trees. However, that gives a large amount of land that most people would not consider the Arctic, see the red line at File:Arctic circle.svg. That would mean that Norway, Finland and Sweden don't have much land in the Arctic. In Canada, Inuvik is below the tree line but well above the Arctic Circle and it dips down well into the southern parts of the country. Of course neither definition stops there being mountains, shrubs and grasses. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Arctic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

YesY Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Pointless country map[edit]

Why is there a map with countries that have regions in the arctic highlighted? This seems like a politically-oriented redundancy. For example, almost all of the US is not at all arctic country lol. They might like to be included, but only Alaska should be highlighted there. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)