Talk:Ottawa Islands

History section removed

I removed the information in the history section (diff), which contained only two statements. One was that a 1992 map indicated they were in the NWT, which was correct at the time and completely unremarkable. The second indicated that the Columbia Gazetteer listed them in the NWT. While this source is dated 2000, it appears to actually be an NA subset of their 1998 World product[1], which might explain the pre-1999 NWT reference. While it is somewhat surprising that an outfit like Columbia couldn't arrange to have the data updated for the NA release, considering it involved the division of a third of the Canadian landmass, it isn't a notable fact in the history of the Ottawa Islands. - David Oberst 22:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

David, the information you removed was not only correct, but is correct and will always be correct. If a 1992 map indicates that Ottawa Islands is part of the NWT, who are we to ignore such a reputable fact? Ignoring such information, I believe, only leads to an article which will become one POV. It is our duty to report all historical information on the subject. We should state the past, present and future and unfortunately, I myself sometimes, as I believe just happened with you, get carried away with reporting what is "presently correct". A good example to follow and think about before removing information is that good old Chemistry class in Highschool. When the teacher talked about the evolution of the atomic theory, it was important to talk about plum pudding model by J.J Thomson , and all the other ones leading to Einstein. Even though no one ever uses the old theories anymore, they are an evolutionary process which, I believe, are part of history. If I may, I think, you may be having a problem here NPOV and are not quite sure how to handle the situation, hence the removal of the information was your solution. Am I correct to believe there appears to be emphasis placed on this information? Of course, I'm not going to argue against that. A similar problem such as this has been argued in an article concerning the evolution of earth and how there was a theory where we believed it was flat. Essentially, the solution to that problem was to add more information which didn't talk about the "flatness of the earth" and kept the that theory limited to approximatly 1 sentence (in proportion with the text of the entire article at the time). Here's another idea: What if I asked what territory was the Ottawa Islands Part off prior to 1999? Could you find this on Wikipedia... supposedly "the Worlds Encyclopedia"? No, because you just removed this information. Here’s another example, if you are asked to practice according to the best piano methodology, you should then ask... the best methods of 1943? 2000? 2007? We should be able to know how to find this timeline of though, history and information. Furthermore, you have removed historical information which shows the former name of the district (or territory) and which explains a little why it changed names. Personally, I don't know about you, but if anything or anyone was to change names in the course of its lifetime I think that's a pretty serious and historical moment. Furthermore, the usefulness of this information is priceless. This is because, if any less knowledgeable person wished to do further research on this subject, prior to 2000, they will need to know that the Ottawa Islands was part of the NWT. I believe you have failed to prove how such a fact is non-notable and I have place the information back into the article. Perhaps we could work on a better way or place where it could be placed within the article? P.s. sorry for the verbios response but I hope this answers your questions. --CyclePat 03:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I really can't follow the above diversions into atomic theory, etc. However, I've removed the material again on the original grounds. Again, all parts of Nunavut were part of the NWT in 1992, and the fact that a certain map so indicated is wholly unremarkable. So is the fact that a reference source with a nominal date in 2000 was actually culled from a pre-1999 original, and thus reads "NWT". As written the text made it sound as if there were some sort of actual confusion or controversy concerning the jurisdiction of the islands. Nor is there anything specific to the islands in the ad-hoc summary of the creation in Nunavut which I've also removed - the Nunavut series of articles would be the place where any information on the creation of the territory would be found. It does not need to be duplicated in potentially hundreds of articles. - David Oberst 04:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't help the situation. What's the problem? Notability? WP:NOTE? I understand what you want but you’re not clear in explaining how this is pertinent and how Wikipedia’s policies apply. I think the way things are worded may be "tending to prove" that maps where changed? But, in no way do I want to try and prove this. That would be a violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNT. Again, this is not what I want to prove. I simply want to show that NWT was part and is part of the Ottawa Islands. Maybe we can work together on getting rid of this side effect. Again, I to show, as substantiated by proper citations, that the NWT was part Nunavut and this is an integral part of the Ottawa Islands. I think you've stepped over the boundaries by removing some well sourced information. Notability on these issues is pretty obvious, given the fact we have verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. The governments websites, the laws enacted, the news reports of changing the name... Per WP:NOTE "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines." Finally, I would like to point out to you that WP:NOTE#Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content states "Notability guidelines give guidance on whether a topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia as a separate article, but do not specifically regulate the content of articles, which is governed by other guidelines such as those on using reliable sources and on handling trivia. The particular topics and facts within an article are not each required to meet the standards of the notability guidelines." I trust you understand, that removing well sourced information is contrary to WP:V and the principal of trying to build a better article. Again... you are trying to avoid conflict by taking your side of the information... POV. You want to only present the "present" fact and appear to be insulted by the fact that NWT was part and is part of the Ottawa islands according to various sources. Again, you're trying to create your own truth. Per WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." --CyclePat 05:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat, I'm having a bit of difficulty in trying to follow what you are saying in the above discussion. It appears to me that in a few places you are saying that the Ottawa Islands are still part of the NWT or that the NWT is part of the Ottawa Islands, as in "I simply want to show that NWT was part and is part of the Ottawa Islands." I looked at the material that has been removed and I must say I have to agree with the removal. It's too overdone for an article about a small group of islands that are uninhabited. You must agree that "The history of the political, constitutional and territorial evolution of the Ottawa Islands..." is out of place for a group . All that is needed is one sentence, such as

"Prior to the creation of Nunavut on 1 April 1999 the Ottawa Islands formed part of the Baffin Region, Northwest Territories."

However, it appears to me that some of the material could be used in another article. Look at the third removed paragraph, begining, "During the period between 1959 and 1963..." and then compare that with History of Nunavut. That pargraph would fit perfectly in there. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi CambridgeBayWeather,

I hear what you're saying... the problem is that there are no secondary sources that say that. What you have just done is a WP:SYNT of the primary information, which I took great care, not to synthesis. I didn't want to violate WP:OR. Furthermore, I can't find any sources that says, "prior... 1999 the Ottawa Islands formed part of the Baffin Region, NWT." Essentially the only thing we've got is the "discrepancy" of the maps. Unless we find another source which says that, I would recommend keeping what I have typed. --CyclePat 06:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok then the sentence should read "Prior to the creation of Nunavut on 1 April 1999 the Ottawa Islands, like other islands in Hudson Bay that were not part of any province, formed part of the Northwest Territories." Reference.

Now going back to what you wrote and was removed here. The first sentence has no sources and never will as these islands are currently uninhabited. The third paragraph has nothing to do with the islands and is not required to understand what the article is about. And as I already said the second paragraph could be reduced to one sentence.

By the way the "Later History" section looks very odd. It starts by saying that there were four cultural groups of Inuit around Hudson Bay and then only mentions three in Nunanvut. Where are the Quebec Inuit? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at the History section in this version. That's what you want to say in one sentence. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Since this takes things back to the problematic start point, I've rewritten things on the basis that all islands in Hudson Bay were part of the NWT, and are now of course in Nunavut, with no need to bring in the rather odd deus ex machina of the Columbia Gazetteer, or confirm that Geologic Survey was sufficiently competent enough in 1992 to properly locate them on their maps. Concerned folk may sprinkle in references as desired - this one may be useful, and this one provides some interesting color, although eager encyclopedists should take any discussion of the general island question to a more central article, perhaps Hudson Bay. - David Oberst 08:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

rephrasing

Hi Oberst, It's a good attempt. But I really don't like it. Don`t get me wrong, I`m happy we're working on this and that it appears to be heading in a positive direction. :) However, we are presenting 3 ideas in one sentence and some of them don`t have the proper footnotes (WP:V). :|

Idea 1; Location

Idea 2; Historical regionality

Idea 3; Creation of Nunavut (missing footnote)

I think these 3 items... which were previously properly source b.t.w. (and which we should keep within the bibliography, even if we are no longer using the source)... require their own separate sentences. As my history teacher used to say "Une idée pour une phrase." Thank you again--CyclePat 18:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope I don't seem like a complainer. Maybe if I give it some time and think about it! --CyclePat 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Minerals et all, Other sources

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/cmy/content/1996/05.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Uninhabited

Hi everyone, I'm still thinking about the above discussion. But I'm happy. It's seems as though I understand a bit better now. As for another issue: I remember reading something about the Islands having been inhabited in the past. Some ruins where found! Do we have a source that says the Islands are inhabited? Best regards. --CyclePat 18:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at 11.1.4 Inuit Culture (1600-present) (caution it's a 6 mb PDF) there is some indication that the islands were occupied in the past. However, there is currently no permenant inhabitants but does not exclude that there might be oupost camps or other visitors there at some points during the year. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

New reference

Andrews, John T. "Géographie physique et Quaternaire". 1983. Vol. XXXVII, n° 1. p. 119-120. Republished by érudit and the authors A.S. Dyke, L.A. Dredge and J.-S. Vincent. "Comments on “Configuration and Dynamics of the Laurentide Ice Sheet During the Late Wisconsin Maximum." Accessed 20 June 2009.

Note: the Ottawa Islands (in eastern Hudson Bay) in any interpretation of the late glacial history.

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

geo:60,-80

NOT right. Proper cords would be 59.807439, -80.074541

—108.59.68.199 (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've tweaked the coordinates to move them closer to the middle of the group of islands. (The specific coordinates you've suggested are far too precise for someting of this size.) Deor (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)