Talk:Vanch-Yakh Glacier

message: There are larger non-polar glaciers in the Saint Elias Mountains (in Alaska, Yukon, & British Columbia), notably the Malaspina Glacier (3,900 km2), and probably also the Logan Glacier and the Hubbard Glacier. Note that these glaciers are partially south of 60 degrees north, at approximately the same latitude as Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki and Saint Petersburg, which are not really considered polar cities. Luigizanasi 21:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems the glaciers you mentioned all lie partially north of the 60th parallel, which the references seem to consider within the "polar region".  Thus, it seems like an accurate statement. - Bantman 01:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are many definitions of polar regions and of the arctic based on latitude, ecology or climate, but these glaciers are well south of whichever definition you choose. The Arctic Circle — i.e. where the Midnight sun starts — is 66° 33' 39" north of the Equator. 60° North is about 400 nautical miles or well over 700 kilometres south of the Arctic Circle and 1,660 kilometres south of the pole; it is only two-thirds of the way to the pole from the equator. The land north of these glaciers and the Kluane Icefields is boreal forest for hundreds of kilometres, well beyond the Arctic Circle, not arctic tundra. The climate north of the glaciers is classified as Subarctic climate, not arctic or Polar climate, while south of them is maritime subarctic. The Kluane icefields from which these glaciers stem are often referred to as the largest non-polar icefields in the world, so we can't really have both. I hope I have convinced you. :-) Luigizanasi 02:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't really have to convince me; I have no personal knowledge on the subject! :)  However, according to the references used for this article, both Britannica and the US Government state that it is the "largest glacier in the world otuside the polar regions."  The difference between your position and theirs seems to be the definiion of "polar regions"; they seem to be interpreting that phrase to cover more area than you do.  Ideally, we can find a reputable reference that holds the same position you do; then we can lean on that to make the distinction.  Otherwise, I'm not sure how to deal with this... perhaps change the phrase to something like "largest glacier in the world lying completely within the middle latitudes" and adding a parenthetical statement explaining our divergence from our references, like "(although some sources note the Fedchenko Glacier as the largest glacier outside of the polar regions, glaciers X and Y in fact lie completely south of the Xth parallel)".  What do you think? - Bantman 18:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it won't be the first time Britannica is wrong. And I think Alaskans and the US National Parks Service might have something to say about what the army claims. :-) I just googled "non-polar glacier" and it seems a number of other glaciers also make that claim including Siachen Glacier , in the Himalayas; Nabesna Glacier (US National Parks Service); and even the Columbia Icefield in the Canadian Rockies. Probably either best leaving the claim out entirely, or saying "one of the largest non-polar glaciers" until someone compiles a verifiable list of the areas (and possibly) volumes of glaciers across the world. Luigizanasi 19:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good solution to me.  Let's do it. - Bantman 22:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other glaciers