Talk:Fjord/Archive 1

Big confusion solved by etymology
Stog discussing what a fjord is in it self. The etymology is simple: a mass of water which you pass to reach a certain and named place. Thus you pass Oslofjorden to reach Oslo. The normal usage is thus (place on land) + ("fjord") = name of a water area. Geology has taken the word fjord and made a defintion without support in etymology. It is basically a problem for geologists, not for us living in scandinavia. We know what fjords are. We do not care how water flows, if there is a threshold etc. A fjord is to us a mass of water which our ancesters have chosen to call fjord to Oslo, fjord to Hardanger etc.

So please please please stop thinking within a paradigm used in natural sciences. This is etymology and thus we look at the roots of the word. Neither more nor less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.106.175 (talk) 13:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

There is the etymology of the word for a long narrow bay, and there is a geological definition. In both, Swedish and German languages, the etymological path has devided in two: The Swedes decide fjord and fjärd, the Germans Fjord and Förde. The English situation with fjord and firth is similar. So nowadays internationally the term "fjord" is a geological one, though in Norway itself as well as in Denmark, any bay can be called a fjord, and in Norway even several lakes are named "…-Fjord".--Ulamm (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Old discussion
The article said that: "Fjord in the English sense is taken from a type of fjord found in Norway and in parts of Sweden." Which parts of Sweden are referred to? To my knowledge, Höga Kusten in the Bay of Bothnia is the only stretch of Swedish coast that looks fjordish in the Norwegian sense (not sure about the glacial origins, though). Kosebamse 04:43, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Have you ever heard of Gullmarsfjorden on the west coast?--Wiglaf 19:33, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, afraid not. Can you tell us some more about it? Kosebamse 20:56, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just google it (www.google.com).--Wiglaf 21:29, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I did that and found a few relevant links, such as, , . There are text passages indicating that Gullmarsfjorden hydrographically resembles the Norwegian fjords, but the scenery on the pictures looks similar to other parts of the Swedish west coast. I guess we should try to define what makes a fjord "Norwegian" - glacial origin? hydrographic features? depth? mountainous surroundings? Kosebamse 11:14, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Why should we define what is a "Norwegian fjord"? The article is called "fjord" and not "Norwegian fjord". Moreover, bodies of water don't come convienently packaged into neat categories. If you're looking for a geological definition of "fjord" you could have a look into book on geology.--Wiglaf 18:59, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, the question is not a geological but a linguistic one. See article -there is some stuff about the use of "fjord" in the English language, and it is my impression that in English, "fjord" is indeed understood to mean something that looks like a Norwegian fjord, but not like Limfjord for example. So, the question is specifically, how narrow is the meaning of "fjord" as used in English. Kosebamse 15:21, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If a Fjord is by the definition of the article filled with salt water, then the last image in the article should be replaced. Western Brook Pond on Newfoundland was once filled with sea water but is now a salt-free lake not connected at all to the sea.

[Olaf Stetzer, 2 Dec 2005]


 * Hopefully moving the picture to the false fjords section, and listing the lake there, is an improvement. - Avenue 12:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What is the southernmost fjord in the Northern Hemisphere?
The answer may depend on the resolution of the above discussion of the exact definition of "fjord". As a resident of New York City, I had heard that the Hudson River is the southernmost fjord in the world, a view supported here, except that the source restricts the claim to "southernmost fjord in the Northern Hemisphere". (It might be meaningful to ask about the fjord closest to the Equator.) Even as to North America, however, it's argued that the southernmost fjord is the Indian Arm in British Columbia ; Howe Sound, also in British Columbia ; or the Rivière Saguenay in Quebec. Outside North America, there is at least one other candidate: Kotor Bay in Montenegro, a claim that our article formerly alluded to, but now rejects as a result of this June 15 edit.

Are the partisans of each of these bodies of water using different definitions of "fjord"? If so, are there different definitions in use, which should be described in the article? JamesMLane 17:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The fjords along the southcoast of Newfoundland (e.g. GRey River, Francois, Facheux Bay, La Hune Bay and Bay De Vieux) (~47 degrees latitude) are more southerly than either Indian Arm and Howe sound in BC, and the Rivière Saguenay in Quebec. I am not sure if they are the southernmost fjords in North America, but they are for sure the southermost fjords in Canada. Jcmurphy 18:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

The Hood Canal in Washington, where the Bangor Submarine Base is, is a fjord and its southern terminus is c. 47 degrees 20 minutes; the head of Puget Sound, which is a complex of fjords, is at the city of Olympia WA 47 degrees 02 minutes.

Skookum1 01:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to cover the situation down under: the entrance to New Zealand's Milford Sound is at 44 degrees 36 minutes south, while the head of the Reloncaví Fjord in Chile is c. 41 degrees 30 minutes south. - Avenue 14:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Longest Fjord"
I held back on adding a few of the long fjords of the BC/Alaska coast here. One issue is that they change names partway along their course, e.g. Douglas Channel becomes the Gardner Canal becomes Fitz Hugh Sound, and there are sidefjords which form mazes of similar length as, in this case, the Douglas Channel's Kitimat Arm. Total length of the main channel, notwithstanding name changes, is about 150km; if measured from the head of the Kitimat Arm of the Gardner Canal, the distance to the same point (facing the open ocean) is 200km. Portland Canal, on the BC-Alaska boundary, is c.165km but again there are name-change issues. They're not like Sogneford or Hardangerfjord which are all one name throughout. ..

Skookum1 01:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Is the Saguenay inlet a fjord?
I think there is no controversy about the Saguenay valley's excavation by glaciers. The issue is the nature of the water in it. Here are a few references indicating that much of the lower Saguenay inlet is filled with salt water.
 * Distinctive features of the Saguenay fjord;
 * Page 13 of Parcs Quebec magazine;
 * Characteristics of the Saguenay Fjord, from my previous edit summary;
 * Diving the great Saguenay Fjord;
 * and a map for interest.

So the Saguenay inlet seems to clearly qualify as a fjord. Admittedly there is a surface layer of fresh or brackish water, because the Saguenay has a strong inflow of fresh water, but many fjords have such a layer. For example, our article refers to "a surface layer of dark fresh water" allowing deep water corals to grow near the surface of New Zealand fiords. This tutorial on fjords from Fisheries and Oceans Canada discusses how diverse the interactions between the fresh and salt water layers can be.

Anyway, it seems to me that there are plenty of reputable sources saying that the Saguenay meets the definition of a fjord given in our article. I will therefore put it back in the list of Canadian fjord locations. Before anyone removes it again, would they please provide reputable sources saying that it does not meet our definition? - Avenue 12:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that only part of the Saguenay river (from Saint-Fulgence to the Saint-Lawrence) constitutes a fjord.--132.206.150.33 17:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me, especially if we mention that this part of the river stretches for roughly 100 km (see map). -- Avenue 05:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Germany, on the coast of the Baltic Sea
Is this true? I thought that it was rather flat along that coast for any fjords in the English sense of the word.--JBellis 21:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A quick google search identified a few inlets that some call fjords: Flensburg Fjord, Kiel Fjord, and Schlei Fjord. And our article on Schleswig-Holstein claims that its eastern coast is "marked by bays, fjords and cliff lines." But the photos of Flensburg Fjord seem to show that it does not have steep sides and would therefore be better described (in English) as a firth. -- Avenue 03:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Since all the German "fjords" I mentioned wouldn't usually be described as fjords in English, and no one has mentioned any others, I'll delete Germany from the list of locations. -- Avenue 11:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Defining fjord (in English)
Recently the definition of fjord (as used in English) given in our preamble was changed. We currently say that a fjord is "a narrow inlet of the sea between cliffs or steep slopes", typically in a glacially overdeepened valley. Perhaps this is a small point, but to me this implies that glaciation is optional, and I disagree with this. Any thoughts? -- Avenue 11:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Some external evidence: a Google definition search on define:fjord gives a range of definitions. Excluding the one from Wikipedia, I count 7 that require that the valley is glacially formed, 1 where it is optional, and 2 that do not mention glacation at all. -- Avenue 11:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

In a correct geographical sense, a fjord have to be carved by glaciers to be a fjord (giving very deep fjords, but with a much more shallow threshold at the mouth of the fjord). Using this definition, the southernmost fjord in Norway is Lysefjord and the northenmost in Norway is Balsfjord, the fjord that passes by Tromsø. Orcaborealis 11:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did indeed revert it to the ‘standard definition’ one finds in most dictionaries, rather than using the prior definition. In doing this, I recognized that a discussion was likely. This was done because:
 * The old definition felt Wikified. Wikification is the process in which we collectively avoid being offensive on the Wikipedia by accepting words or phrases that aren’t academically crisp, but they were contributed by one that we consider a friend, so they’re “good enough.”
 * The former Wiki-definition appeared to me to be over-specified. If you compare definitons on Google ([see for instance]) you see rather a broad range. The Wiki definition (A fjord (sometimes written fiord, notably in New Zealand English) is a glacially overdeepened valley, usually narrow and steep-sided, extending below sea level and filled with salt water) appears toward one end of the spectrum.
 * But I’m not all that fond of Google (or the web if you prefer) as a source, since it is not peer reviewed (except for the Wikipedia – I believe this type of Wikipedia discussion is an important emerging form of peer review). And I know how flawed the web is; I have several web sites myself upon which I routinely catch errors.
 * Further, I’ve observed that web content is very heavily influenced by the Wikipedia. In many of the more obscure areas you’ll find the Wiki material has diffused so that it dominates the published material on the web. It is important that Wikipedia get it right.
 * None-the-less I do considered glacial formation as a logical criterion for the English usage of fjord (even though the Scandinavian usage was not so specific). But which glacial features are critical determiners?
 * Must it be an ‘overdeepened valley’? Perhaps, but I have no clear idea what an ‘overdeepened valley’ might be. A more standard phrase might be a u-shaped glacial valley.
 * Is it a sea-filled u-shaped glacial valleys? Many of the southern Norwegian sea-filled valleys, formed as the confluence of multiple glaciers, are clearly fjords, but are certainly not u-shaped. The northern Norwegian fjords were certainly glacially formed, but they do not have u-shaped valleys since the glacier was so deep it covered both the valley and the surrounding ridge top.
 * Must it have a sill? Terminal or end moraines (i.e., those formed at the foot of a glacier) are indeed often common, but when the glacier discharges directly into the sea, if the ice sheet is not too thick the ice floats off, leaving a debris pile broadly distributed at lower depths, rather than a sill. So although many Norwegian fjords have abrupt sills, not all do.
 * Must it be narrow? Perhaps, but if so, how narrow is narrow? Must it be 10 times longer than it is wide? Perhaps it can be no more than 1 km wide?
 * So my preference is to go back to published references as the tie-breaker. When I look in published work such as  Scandinavia: An Introductory Geography, by Brian Fullerton and Alan F. Williams, Praeger Publishers, 1972  or The Geography of Norden, edited by Axel Sømme, Den Norske nasjonalkommittee for geographi, 1961, I find no reference to glaciation as a necessary step for fjord formation.
 * I’ll readily concede that my references, although published in English, are heavily influenced by older Scandinavian views, and the older Scandinavian convention for use of fjord is in no sense as narrow as the English.
 * So I’d readily accept any reputable published English language peer-reviewed journal, university textbook, encyclopedia, or some other peer reviewed publication as an alternative tie breaker for inclusion of glaciation as a mandatory part of the definition. (Or modern Norwegian text that provides a glacial formation criterion for fjord)
 * But I do think we need something to reference so that we are not off creating an independent concept for fjord, as Wikipedia has done for some other topics.
 * Compelling arguments are equally acceptable.
 * As always, if I’ve said things egregiously stupid or offensive, please accept my apology. I’m mostly interested in helping to try to make the Wikipedia articles universally recognized as the world’s premier source of accurate, well researched information.
 * Williamborg 15:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Overdeepened is probably mentioned because of the movement of the ice carving the valley deeper. This is also the reason why the mouth of the fjord is much shallower - the ice is much thinner near the sea, and not able to carve deep or keep pushing sand, rock andy longer
 * There are several U-shaped valleys in Nord-Norge where the lower part of the valley is filled by the sea (like Ranafjorden), in other words a fjord.
 * The ice cap was not thicker in northern Norway! The center of the giant ice cap was in Sweden or the Gulf of Bothnia, approximately between Stockholm and Luleå (source: prof Arne Gjærevoll: Plantegeografi). Thickness of the ice depends in large parts on precipitation, and the southern part were closer to the temperate sea, thus receiving more precipitation - more snow. Actually, science has shown that parts of Andøya was free of ice 20,000 years ago (source: A.Moen: Vegetasjon. Nasjonalatlas for Norge, page 38). The continental shelf, and thus the deep ocean, is also closer in this part of Norway. The thickness of the ice can be deduced from glacial rebound: Near Oslo (Aker), which were close to the center of the ice cap, the glacial rebound has been as much as 221 m, Jæren only 20 m, Stadt only 5 m (!), Trondheim 180 m, Tromsø 50 m, Nordkapp less than 50 m (!). Oslofjord is indeed a fjord, although the U-shape isn't very visible. The dry climate in Finnmark gave a thinner ice cap, thus the coast was early free of ice, and indeed, some of the earliest remains of humans has been discovered in Finnmark (Komsa), they probably came from the east.
 * If been carved by ice is not the criteria, what criteria have we? Is San Francisco Bay a fjord, or perhaps Sydney Harbour? What about the Baltic sea (which were covered by glaciers, but with little movement and thus little carving, for a long time following the ice age this was a big lake)?
 * I believe that having been carved by ice is the correct criteria, this has been teached in geography for many decades (at least I learned that : ) Feel free to point to all my mistakes. Orcaborealis 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You make a compelling case (and include good sources). Let me try adding some words to incorporate your thoughts. Then you can correct them. Williamborg 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On overdeepening: my understanding is that overdeepening occurs when the glacier digs out a hollow, with the valley floor dipping then rising as you go downstream. In their 2003 Nature article, Stabilizing feedbacks in glacier-bed erosion, Alley et al say:
 * "Rapid subglacial erosion produces overdeepenings, with the glacier bed rising in the direction of ice flow. Overdeepenings may form in cirques near glacier heads or anywhere along the length of a glacier, but are prominent in downglacier reaches, probably owing to the downglacier increase in surface meltwater reaching the bed and its critical role in erosion."
 * I believe an overdeepened floor is not necessary for an inlet to be a fjord, but it is very common. -- Avenue 07:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nature is certainly a solid enough reference for me - and the explanation makes sense. I've restored overdeepening. Take a look at it and see if my cut makes sense. Williamborg 07:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a definition written by a professional, and with lots of data about Sognefjord: What is a fjord. Sorry if this has been posted before. Orcaborealis 16:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well written - an interesting read - thanks for flagging it. I couldn't help noting that the first paragraph references www.wikipedia.com . Sort of confirms the need to be very thoughtful about what we write. :) Williamborg 18:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The definition in their first paragraph agrees word for word with an earlier version of our article, specifically the first paragraph in our section on Characteristics from 11 Feb 2006 . So this has been posted before, in a sense. I agree the info on Sognefjord is interesting. -- Avenue 02:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If Vestfjord is not a fjord, how was it formed?
Vestfjord is a Norwegian fjord, which would be described in English as a firth or an open bight of sea between the Lofoten archipelago and mainland Norway, northwest of Bodø. Since Andøy was free of ice 20,000 years ago, it makes sense that Vestfjord probably was not formed by glacial activity. If Vestfjord is not a fjord, would anyone here know (or venture to guess on) how it was formed? Williamborg 08:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe it was not formed at all! The Lofoten archipelago of mountainous islands (hard mountains, and the ice were very thin out here in the sea, thus they islands were not much carved) make it look like there is a fjord between the islands and the mainland. Therefore, Vestfjord is just the open sea - with the islands of Lofoten to the northwest. Orcaborealis 09:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It looked like block faulting to me, but it took me a while to track down a source confirming this. From S.C. Sherlock, Two-stage erosion and deposition in a continental margin setting: an 40Ar/39Ar laserprobe study of offshore detrital white micas in the Norwegian Sea, Journal of the Geological Society; September 2001; v. 158; no. 5; p. 793-799:
 * "The Lofoten Ridge is flanked by the Vestfjord and Ribban Basins to the SE and NW, respectively, which formed as half-grabens as early as the mid-Jurassic, though the Vestfjord Basin was a region of major pre-Jurassic sedimentation and subsidence."
 * For background info, see graben. -- Avenue 13:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The english definiton is pure crap
We certainly don't need any english definition of fjords are. According to the "false fjord" logic, the Oslofjord is also not a fjord. So what is it? It sound like you'll have to define a new term for us; in norwegian please. There exists no other word for Oslofjord, but a fjord, so it's a fjord, whether it complies with some english definition/understanding or not. People who live along the fjords have more than anyone else the definition power of deciding what is a fjord and what is something else. Even only the fact that the word "fjord" is scandinavian says it all. If engslish speaking people want to know what fjords are, they'll have to visit areas named ...fjord, but exclude those very few exceptions mentioned. Else they will always have the wrong idea of what fjords look like. Easy as that.

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.208.129.39 (talk &bull; contribs). Avenue 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you are talking to me, but the definition I am referring to is a Norwegian one. There are many bays and inlets in the world that are not fjords, or would you consider that the Baja California is a fjord? Or Sydney Harbor? Or perhaps the Danish Limfjorden or the inlets in Greece? Here are definitions in Norwegian: Geographical translation and definitions.

BTW, has anyone claimed that Olsofjord is not a fjord? Not me, at least. Orcaborealis 14:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * According to our article, there is a difference in the usage of the Scandinavian word fjord and the word fjord in the English language. I can understand that some Scandinavians might find the English use of the word jarring, or the restrictions on its use. (I have felt this way about English loan words in Japanese, for instance.) But since this article is part of the English Wikipedia, our primary focus here should be on the English usage of the word fjord.
 * I understand that the Oslofjord is located in a graben that was glaciated during the ice ages. One edge seems to follow a fault line in this map. The photo in the Oslofjord article suggests it is also in an area of low relief. My impression is that it would therefore probably not be described as a fjord in English if you didn't already know it was called Oslofjord. (It might instead be called a bay, a harbour, a firth, a sound, etc.) But I also suspect many English speakers would defer to local Scandinavian custom, if they were aware of it, and call it a fjord. It seems like the polite thing to do. -- Avenue 15:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Confusion over Canada/Pacific Northwest
Avenue, I suppose there was a mixup regarding Canada / Pacific Northwest as the locale of those fjords. Where the misunderstanding originated was in the wording of the sentence; although you are correct that Hood Canal (and Puget Sound as well) is in the Pacific Northwest, the way it originally read implied it was Burrard Inlet in the Pacific Northwest, whereas in actuality Burrard Inlet is in Canada. I will reword the sentence to reflect this fact. --Gregorof 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the misunderstanding is not about the location of the fjords, but the meaning of the term Pacific Northwest. Have you looked at our article on it? The term often includes parts of Canada, including Burrard Inlet. Your current version reads strangely to me, in much the same way as would "Hood Canal and Puget Sound in North America, and Burrard Inlet in Canada". -- Avenue 08:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Pacific Northwest.  I am originally from British Columbia and disagree wholeheartedly that the 'Pacific Northwest' includes parts of Canada.  The name, 'northwest' implies a US-centric worldview - that region is not 'northwest' when you put yourself in the Canadian geographical context but instead 'southwest'.  While there are cultural similartities and consistencies among Oregon, Washington and B.C. societies (and other shared traits which transcend both the U.S. and Canada) - which justifies an article on the region - the name 'northwest' is non-sensical when considering the borders of Canada; it is not in northern Canada it is in southern Canada.  As such, the statement "Hood Canal and Puget Sound in North America, and Burrard Inlet in Canada" is not analagous to the current statement.  Nonetheless, because our article states otherwise, I will take my disagreement up on that page and revert/reword to read that Burrard Inlet is in the Pacific Northwest.  However, I hope that this will change in the near future. --Gregorof 14:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also originally from British C olumbia and disagree wholeheartedlyl with Gregoprof's opinion about what Pacific Northwest means. It includes BC and always has.  The central Canadian perspective that it is "southwest Canada" is BUNK.  I think you've lived in Montreal too long....it may b e taht Canadianist bias has crept into the curriculum but in my generation (52) if you were raised in the Lower Mainland, Vancouver Island or the Coast anywhere there was no doubt that it was part of the term "Pacific Northwest" and also "Northwest Coast".  The context of "Northwest" here is conteintnal, not national.    And the term predates the existence of Canada, as well as British Columbia's becoming part of it....when you say "originally from BC", Gregorof, how old were you when you left?Skookum1 (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fjord-lakes
Hi, I've added some fjord-lake content into this article (it would have merged into this article at one point, or another -- so I straight-up added it into this article). If anyone is unfamiliar with fjord-lakes, you can see the Reference I've added from Eyles et al. (1990), or just search it. However, the content I've added is slightly biased to British Columbia. I know there are other fjord-lakes, such as in New Zealand, and in Norway -- I just don't know enough to add it. I have also found that Quesnel Lake (near Likely, British Columbia) is the most "extreme" fjord-lake -- however, there are a few things that can be mixed up to determine how "extreme" a fjord-lake is: Also, are the Finger Lakes technically "fjord-lakes"? I don't think they have eroded below sea-level, but they have the same characteristics, in that they are deep and narrow. +mwtoews 22:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Depth to lake bottom
 * 2) Depth to the bedrock erosion
 * 3) Elevation of lake bottom
 * 4) Elevation to the bedrock erosion

Confused? So am I - or?
Having grown up inside of a Norwegian "almost-real fjord", but real enough to me, I must confess that the article and talk is, to me, unreal. My forefathers gave the name fjord to whatever waterway they saw fit. Most times it looks like they said that a fjord happened when you had headland on both port and starboard side, and still had a way to go inwards. They didn't know about glacial erotion and moraines. But they were hardly consequent around their coastline, so my confusion starts at home. What happened in other parts of the world, was that whoever came first gave names and titles according to his lights. No Norse viking gave a name to the Bristol fjord between Wales and Cornwall, so no Englishman should delete or change the name of Kieler Förde (Kiel Inlet?), since it is of the same Germanic root as fjord. In British Columbia, Canada and down south to at least Oregon, there are channels and inlets that to my eyes looked like what I would baptize fjords - but alas, i came some 100 yrs too late. But please don't stop the dispute, it is entertaining. ;)) --Bjørn som tegner 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Important
In The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, fjords were Slartibartfast's favorite part of building planets! Macmelvino 22:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Fjord-lakes
What exactly does this mean: "The first recognized fjord-lake is Okanagan Lake". Is it the 'site-type', ie the first lake to be called a fjord-lake? It's not clear from the context. 82.32.238.139 22:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I reworded the phrase — is it improved? +mwtoews 05:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although normally used to describe a saltwater inlet, in eastern Norway a long, narrow freshwater lake with similar characterisitcs is called a fjord and has been for at least 1000 years (hard to find written records older but usage clearly predates that). Although this differs from the English use of the word, it is well established. As for the glacial formation - it certainly was recognized before the 1960s that Norwegian freshwater fjords were glacially formed. Randsfjorden is the largest example of an inland fjord (lake). I'd suggest you delete or substantially reword. - Williamborg (Bill) 15:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, and I'm all about simplicity. I might, however, reword the "sea inlet" someday (not now). A minor detail to add, but the lead is quite long, and I won't extend it any further.+mwtoews 05:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hudson River?
Is the Hudson River In New York a fjord? Many sources seem to state that it is. Can anyone clear this up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.10.120 (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC).


 * There seem to be a wide range of claims out there; some say the Hudson River river is the only fjord in North America, or the southernmost in the world! I've found a few apparently reliable sources saying that the estuary forms a fjord in the Hudson Highlands region, but not further downstream. Others seem to feel it is now generally better described as a drowned river valley or ria. -- Avenue 06:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Astounding how much this article has degraded from earlier versions
Astounding how much this article has degraded from earlier versions. Continued minor vandalism makes it hard to spot substantive deletions. It makes one wonder if Wikipedia actually is viable. Williamborg (Bill) 15:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you've spotted all this missing information that the rest of us have apparently completely missed, I'd suggest you go add it back. If it was there, it should be in the history, which makes re-adding easy.  If it's not there, then... What are you talking about? -Bbik 16:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just did as you recommended. Not all of the missing materials restored, but some of the bigger blocks were added. Interesting that the article appears to have degraded by a combination of vandalism and edits from well meaning folks who didn't trouble to read the entire article before putting their contribution in (usually near the top).


 * There is significant new literature on fjord formation which should also be added - publications in refereed journals in the past 2-3 years. Need to pull that in as well but that'll take some research.


 * Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 23:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fiord"
I think there should be specific mention of the fact that the New Zealand spelling is "fiord" (apart from the indirect hint displayed in the Fiordland link). Robin Patterson 12:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's another example of the article degrading over time. It was there in August. -- Avenue 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Fjord in Finland?
I have never heard that Finland has any fjords and I have never seen one in here. 84.250.50.59 12:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see substantiation that there is only one fjord in Finland.
 * 1) Name the fj^h^hvuono to show that it exists.
 * 2) Name a second one to show that there are more than one.
 * 3) Ultimately, this will clear the implication that there is one and only one.
 * 4) This needs to be clarified, because Wikipedia is being cited as a source of Ultimate Truth on this matter.


 * Demodave (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)Demodave

Original Research?
The Etymology section contains unsourced claims like “The German use of the word Förde … seems to indicate a common Germanic origin of the word” and “One may therefore conclude that fjord was one of the names used by Germanic tribes to describe a sea-territory.” These look like original research, but could be badly phrased uncited unoriginal research. The rest of the article contains a disturbing lack of references, too, but I’ve tagged it as “merely” unreferenced. -Ahruman 11:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore it claims fj is a digraph, this is obviously incorrect as a digraph would imply the two letters create a sound or combination of sounds different from that of each seperately, but fj only becomes /fj/ (that's IPA representation) in this word because the spelling of the word in Norwegian has fj and they pronounce it so because of their orthography for the letters individually. The etymology section will have to do though until someone bothers to find and source info to create a more acceptable paragraph, for now I think we should focus on trying to source any of that that we can.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.185.34 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Say What?!
"In Mexico, the calanques—narrow, rocky inlets—on the western side of the city, where the famous cliff-divers perform daily, are described in the city's tourist literature as being fjords." What city? Certainly not Mexico City. That's in the middle of the country hundred of miles from the coast. Acapulco, perhaps? That's where cliff diving is most famous, but I dunno. 24.6.207.223 (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's Acapulco; my omission or brain-fart or wahtever; been a while since I added that, and I don't have n Acapulco brochure/guidebook to quote from though.Skookum1 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This article needs an infobox...
Seriously? no infobox at all? who made this article? Anyway, I'd create one if I was sure exactly what to put, maybe a mountain-related geobox, maybe not. If there is an infobox used on pages for specific fjords maybe we could use that? If not maybe a new category of geobox or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.145.185.34 (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * None of our articles for bay, sound, bight, cove, estuary, inlet, or firth have an infobox. But go ahead if you can find or create something appropriate. -- Avenue (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture
"The coastline of eastern Greenland, with its many fjords. At the bottom is the longest fjord in the world, Scoresby Sund."

That picture can hardly be correct! 88.90.255.48 (talk) 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Fjords in Galicia in Spain?
The Pyrennee range had a glacial shield, too, But was the ice on the western end of the Iberian northern range strong enough to dig fjords? The Galician term "ria" just became the international term for those narrow inlets that are no fjords.--Ulamm (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oslofjord
The section on False fjords says that the Oslofjord is a rift valley. It may have been so in the Permian period, but it definitely isn't now and the shape of the fjord today is due to glacial erosion. It lack the steep sides of the classic definition as it was cut by an ice sheet rather than a valley glacier, and therefore resembles those from Finnmark, described in the same section. Otherwise it fits the definition, being relatively long and narrow. I know that this has been raised before but the current text lack any sources. I will try to find something definitive regarding the Oslofjord. Mikenorton (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Fjords in Ireland
The one fjord, Killary Harbour, which the fjord article claims to be the only fjord in Ireland has it's own article, which in turn claims that the body of water in question is not a fjord at all and further that Ireland has two real (i.e. glacial) fjords further to the north of Killary Harbour. So, which is true?

Danish rivers and fjord etymology
I am quite certain the the Danish word for river (flod) is derived from fjord. Both refer to similar bodies of water (though not identical) in traditional Scandinavian and the sound is also very similar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrederikHertzum (talk • contribs) 19:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition needs expansion?
I was puzzled by this article explicitly calling water in a quite flat area a "fjord": Mariager Fjord. Fjord must mean something else besides the explanation in this article " a long, narrow inlet with steep sides or cliffs". 98.210.208.107 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read further into the article and you'll find a section on Scandinavian usage; this example is of Danish/Scandinavian usage. That said, you are correct. This article accretes inconsistent additions almost as frequently as any article. This is because it is so popular - everyone adds - few read it to weed it down for encyclopedic content. We need a major rewrite as part of an attempt to bring it up to at least A-level article status.

Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 04:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Saguenay fjord
I see another IP has removed it again a couple of times. It has been discussed before in the archive,Talk:Fjord/Archive_1, and though some of the links are outdated, there is no question that the Saguenay fjord (which is only part of the Saguenay River, from Saint-Fulgence to the Saint-Lawrence estuary) is a fjord, with sea water, tides, arctic marine life that is not otherwise found at that latitude or that deep into the continent (beluga whales and Greenland sharks), and was created by receding glaciers. I put a cite to The Canadian Encyclopedia's article. It's not hard to find more sources.--74.58.194.221 (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the word, "false fjords" ?
The word "fjord" origins from the Scandinavian languages and Old Norse. The article only deals with Norwegian fjords however. There are many fjords also in Denmark and Sweden (at the eastern coast somtimes refered to as "fjärd" instead. But all it really means is a narrow part of the sea. For instance Limfjorden is actually a straight that connects the North Sea with Cattegat without being deep. There are no demands that at fjord needs to be deep, or surrounded by mountains. So "Vikinger" = "People from the fjords" gets very disturbing with the current describtion. The heartland of the Vikinger before their expansion, (around the 7th century) was the area which includes Jutland, the Danish islands and and southern third of the Scandinavian peninsula. The geologigal term should therefore be separated from the true meaning of the word, I think 1. fjord (historical vikinger term) 2. fjord (modern geological term)Boeing720 (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


 * No, the article is primarily about the inlets typically described as fjords in English. It is not about what Scandinavians call fjords/fjards, except in some minor respects, e.g. where it's relevant to the etymology of the English word, or to people interested in the geography of those countries. I've reverted the lengthy off-topic opinion added in front of the lead section, and the changes to the "false fjords" section. Not that I'm a fan of that phrase - I'd agree that it's needlessly confrontational. --Avenue (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. But the word "fjord" has been in use within English language long time before any theories about their formation was thought of, and has included f.i. Limfjord in Denmark (in Danish it's "Limfjorden"). You also avoid the main issue. In English language the word "Vikings" (or "Vikingr) still means "Men (or people) from the fjords". And has done so long time before anyone distinguished Norwegian fjords from other ones. But at the time for their expansion they mainly lived around "false fjords". Almost none Viking-ship has been recovered in Norway, while plenty has been found in Denmark and Sweden up to approx latitude 59-60 North. And within the English language "fjord" atleast has ment all fjords. Hence I suggest a new article for the description of all fjords due to this fact. It will cover all Scandinavian fjords but not mention their creation, only their history.
 * Elsewise I have removed lots of wrongful words from the lists of "English words with Swedish/Norwegian origin" (2 lists), they were maily dishes, well described in articles. But a Wikipedia article doesn't make a word as "Surströmming" a part of the English language ! But this is different. Boeing720 (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Oxford Dictionaries dates the use of "fjord" in English back to the late 17th century, so I'd agree that it has been used in English without any idea of their glacial origin. But I'm pretty sure that its English meaning doesn't usually encompass inlets or narrows between lands of low relief. Dictionary definitions seem almost unanimous about the inlets being between cliffs or at least steep slopes. I've found one dictionary that gives a second meaning as "(in Scandinavia) a bay", which I think this article's section on Fjord already covers in enough depth.
 * Overall I think this article should continue to focus on the (English) geographical meaning of the word. Of course you are welcome to start another article covering Scandinavian fjords and their history. --Avenue (talk) 13:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not a question of English or non-English, it is a question of scientific or non-scintific.--Ulamm (talk) 00:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems like it would be smart to start the article by pointing out the origin of the term, and the fact that it differs from the same word in the originating languages. English speakers can govern their own language, but not pointing out that an english term lifted directly from another language has a different meaning seems more like obfuscating the truth than anything. There's nothing saying english use has to encompass the original meaning, but not acknowledging that this is a scientific term derived from a term with a wider meaning is more like putting blinders on than sticking to the facts. There are several norwegian fjords(listed as such on Wikipedia) that would be "fjards" by this terminology. I know there is a section detailing the difference in scandinavian use, but I think the onus is on the english version of the term to define itself, and not to treat it like it is the original meaning of the word. I'm used to the first paragraph of a Wikipedia article defining semantics like this, and not a short paragraph near the end. I think the world is more connected now than centuries ago when english people traveled the world thinking of every remote locale as theirs to define. I think current english speakers would appreciate being better informed as well. Markopeter (talk) 12:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

English WP should focus on the English use of the word with a global perspective, not the English speaking world, that is, fjords as understood in the English language, not fjords in USA, UK and New Zealand. Issues raised above are however complicated because the label fjord is used for bodies of water that are not fjords in a geological sense (that is, glacial valleys filled with water). Some fjords, such as Milford Sound, are not called fjords. In addition, in Norway (and Sweden) "fjord" is also used for lakes (not perceived as fjords in English), but are still fjords in a glacial valleys filled with water (some were in fact filled with sea water until the rebound lifted the threshold above sea level). See tentative table below. --— Erik Jr. 17:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * If the article should only cover "fjord" as it is used in English without regard to their glacial origin (as Avenue suggests above), then it does not make sense to discuss geology as for instance Limfjord, Oslofjord and Sognefjord dont have much in common geologically. — Erik Jr. 17:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources for etymologies
What are your sources for the etymologies given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:330B:6C00:2D35:FB88:481F:C944 (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Removed this: "This word has partially lost that meaning. The one geographic object is a waterbody that allows the traveller to enter the land by boat, the other one is the shallow site in a waterbody that allows the traveller to cross the water on foot, horse or wheels."

--— Erik Jr. 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fiord spelling
In English "...the word was for a long time normally rendered fiord..." - a spelling preserved in many place names. The fact that this spelling is now generally only current in New Zealand English is a minor, tho interesting, point that doesn't need to be in the first sentence of the article - but is covered fully later. Snori (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. We don't detail which branches of English use the other spelling right in the lead. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Question about Skelton Inlet as Deepest Fjord in the World
Skelton Inlet is cited here and many other places as the deepest fjord in the World. Yes, the bedrock valley is deep, about 1900 m at its deepest, but it is filled with ice. A fjord is defined as a narrow, steep sided inlet, cut by ice but presently filled by sea water. It would seem that Skelton Inlet is not a fjord and should be removed from the listing in the page. Would the sub-glacial Lake Vostok be called a fjord?--MuTau — Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Sill or shoal
The sill or shoal at the mouth of glacial fjords are referred to as "terskel" (threshold) in Norwegian. Is there no fixed term for this in English? This threshold (as far as I understand) can be bedrock or moraine. --— Erik Jr. 13:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

A Norwegian fjord near Kristiansund covered in sea ice
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/Bolgav%C3%A5gen_i_vinter.JPG/220px-Bolgav%C3%A5gen_i_vinter.JPG

I wonder about the correctness of using this image in an article about Fjords, when the image used is infact not a Fjord, but rather an Inlet or a Sound (Våg, Bukt in Norwegian). The spesific Inlet in question is not, and never will be, in the right sense of the term, a Fjord. The Bay also consist mostly of Freshwater, not seawater, which is the reason it freezes over in the winter, as seen in that image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingemazen (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The small bay is part of bremsnesfjorden, so technically fjord, many Norwegian fjords are brackish. But i agree it is not a good example. Perhaps replace with another image of a frozen fjord. — Erik Jr. 22:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

A fjord is not a type of bay
"The German use of the word Förde for long narrow *bays* on their Baltic Sea coastline, indicates..." "Whereas fjord names mostly describe *bays* (though not always geological fjords), straits in the same regions typically are named..."

A fjord is NOT a type of bay. This is an incorrect use of the word bay. (The main article on Bays also makes this error so please do not use this as a reference or support! I wonder if the same person editing this may have added fjords as an example of a type of Bay...?).

It is NOT case that a bay is any area largely surrounded by land (and with a fjord as a sub-type of bay). A bay specifically has the sense of an open or rounded (usually both) area of water, largely surrounded by land. A bay is not a narrow inlet. There is no one English word that covers both senses. Rather we have two words covering different geographic features. Please see dictionary definitions of ford which describe a narrow inlet (and not refer to bay).

I simply would replace 'bays' in both the quoted sentences with 'narrow inlets'.

I would guess that a non-English speaker has (understandably) used bay since they were looking for a more native English word for fjord. However there basically isn't one (probably because England does not really have any fjords so had no need for the word!). Hence why English adopted and uses Fjord.

Note however, as the article correctly states, that Scots/Scottish English does have a word - Firth - which is derived from Scandinavian fjord. (To complicate matters, Firth is however used slightly differently again from both the standard English narrow geological definition of Firth AND the wider Scandinavian usage of Fjord!) Iainmacg (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is apparently no consistent use of the term "fjord", please see my tentative summary table above. One reason is that the word occurred before any scientific understanding of how landforms are created, specifically the type of glacial valley that is most associated with "fjord". Even in Norway, where the word originates, "fjord" is used for many kinds of bodies of water, including bays. For instance Vestfjorden is a kind of bay or a strait between the mainland and Lofoten. Boknafjorden is called a fjord or is perhaps a bay? The large lakes of East Norway are "fjords" in the local terminology, and in fact in a strict geological sense. Whereas the Oslofjorden is not a glacial valley but a graben or depression. I think we have to accept these ambiguities, and describe the variations as precisely as possible. --— Erik Jr. 19:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Erik for your response and your nice use of the maps to demonstrate types of fjord (in broader native Scandinavian usage). However, you misunderstand me! I largely agree with everything you said (except your use of 'bay') but you are largely debating the point about there being two usages of fjord: firstly a native broader Scandinavian usage and secondly a narrower geological sense (which I understand). Whereas I am objecting to the use of 'bay' as a synonym to describe either meaning of 'fjord' since it is wrong and misleading.

However firstly let's get the above point about there being two usages of fjord so we can agree that we both understand each other and agree! I also hope that that I can demonstrate that I understand the wider point about Scandinavian usage better than most English speakers since I am in the relatively rare position of being Scottish and as noted, we have 'firths' which is a cognate of 'fjord' from our shared Scandinavian/Norse heritage and it basically has a similar usage as the native Scandinavian usage (or at least it covers the broader meanings of fjord). I will explain that more with some examples as you did (partially because it's just interesting!). So usages of 'fjord':

1/ original native broader Scandinavian usage This meaning is broader in the sense that it describes more geographical features than the narrow English/geological meaning of the word. As you have described, and I agree with, this use of fjord describes:

a/ geological fjords

b/ sea-water (non-geological) fjords - long narrow inlets. Fjord shaped in two dimensions but without steep sides. Example - the Schlei in Schleswig-Holstein is a good one since it very much does NOT look like most English speaking people's idea of a fjord (PS. I have sailed on it so it's familiar!) In Scotland, cognate 'firth', see Firth of Clyde (especially *upper* firth - lower firth is more like my category e/). Also Cromarty Firth. All easily searchable I hope. Will link if I have time! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firth_of_Clyde#/media/File:Firthofclydemap.png

c/ fresh-water fjords (which as you say may or may not have been sea water earlier before land rise). Again fjord shaped and steep sided; geologically same as a/. (Again we have similar in Scotland but, confusingly, we would never call these 'firths' for some reason - we use the word 'loch' (lake) for these and have reserved the word 'firth' for the wider meanings your have demonstrated above. Note that there can be sea lochs, e.g. Loch Etive, and fresh-water lochs, e.g Loch Awe, just like your fjords.). My *guess* would be that we took the sea-faring Norse word for the more peripheral feature and used the Gaelic 'loch' for the more central geological fjords...!

d/ straits Example - as per your example, the Vestfjorden. A Scottish example that is very similar would be the 'Pentland Firth' - a classic strait.

e/ fjord or estuary mouths (difficult to describe in English - they may well often just be called 'Estuary') Example - as per your example, Boknafjorden. In Scotland, Firth of Forth and Firth of Lorn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firth_of_Lorn#/media/File:FirthofLornmap.png

2/ geological/English fjords This meaning is, as the main subject of the Wiki article, narrower and refers only to meaning a/ above, i.e. steep sided geologically formed long narrow inlets.

OK, so now we hopefully have that part out of the way? There is much nuance and I am sure there are different ways of categorising in meaning 1/.... (For instance, some fjords that look like 1b/ are actually geologically formed but without steep high sides due to glacial ice pack and subsequent erosion.)

Now, on to my point: use of 'bay'. I would not in English, describe any of the meanings using the word 'bay'. There are possibly some exceptions, where because they just don't have the right words, one might use bay to describe some of the features in my category e/ but I don't think so and it still means that 'bay' is not a useful synonym. It is a misleading synonym. I would however DEFINITELY not use 'bay' to describe the meanings 2/, i.e. a geological fjord OR meaning 1b/ a low but narrow long inlet such as many of your 'fjord', German 'Förde' (such as the Schlei) or most Scottish 'firths' They are just not 'bays'! Go back and look at the quotes I objected to above. Are you with me now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iainmacg (talk • contribs)


 * I think the article should make clear that there are several uses of the word "fjord". The most common use in English is geological precise (less than the Norwegian use I would say), instead I think the layperson associates something like Geirangerfjord with the notion of fjord. But there are lots of "real" fjords (created by glaciars) that many would not perceive as a fjord, Trondheimsfjord or Boknafjord for instance. Boknafjord is a mixed case as I think it is partly a graben and partly glacial (but clearly not an estuary), at least the wider system that includes Lysefjorden. Breisundet (litterally the "wide strait/sound") for instance is a real fjord, glacially shaped as the mouth of Storfjord. I think the article has to accept these ambiguities, and we should not narrow the article down to what the average English speaker perceives as fjord.
 * A bay is defined as body of water connected to an ocean or lake, formed by an indentation of the shoreline. According to this definition there is no clear distinction between bay and fjord. Boknafjord and Oslofjord are bays (and perhaps false fjords). Vestfjorden is perhaps a bay or a strait. Bjørnafjorden I think is a real (glacial) fjord, but can be perceived as bay. Amlabukta (Amla bay) is actually a small fjord, part of the wider Sognefjord.--— Erik Jr. 15:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The short branch of Nordfjord at Olden is known as Oldebukta (Olden bay), while it clearly is a fjord. --— Erik Jr. 15:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fjord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626120059/http://atlas.nve.no/SilverlightViewer/?Viewer=NVEAtlas to http://atlas.nve.no/SilverlightViewer/?Viewer=NVEAtlas

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fjord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011222735/http://www.imr.no/coral/ to http://www.imr.no/coral/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fjord. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160203130343/http://www.artsdatabanken.no/NiN/Naturtype/6 to http://www.artsdatabanken.no/NiN/Naturtype/6

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)