Talk:Hudson Bay

Any Beaches?
Not to sound stupid but I am seriously curious, are there any recreational beaches on the Hudson Bay or is it just too cold, or too sparsely populated, or not enough wave action for sand beaches, or too darn many polar bears? Seriously though, are there any recreational beaches there? Thanks


 * The shoreline is mostly composed of rock boulders and pebbles. The flats have some beaches, but I bet there are too many bears to keep an eye on, and it should be a bit too cold for a non resident to swim in —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Administration
Is Hudson Bay part of the ocean or is it a Canadian territorial body of water?

Jim McPherson

It is a part of the Dominion of Canada, and is totally under their jurisdiction.
 * More specifically, all of the waters and islands in Hudson Bay are part of Nunavut, if I read the maps correctly. knoodelhed (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when is the Hudson's Bay basin part of the United States? It should only say Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.148.172.138 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 November 2014‎


 * Please see File:NorthAmerica-WaterDivides.png, which shows that parts of the United States are in the Hudson Bay watershed and drain into the bay. Mind  matrix  19:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Map colour
Also, maybe it'd help if someone coloured the map (blue for water). Kokiri


 * Done. --Menchi 01:21, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hudson Bay vs. Hudson's Bay
Someone anonymously reverted my change to make the article consistant and accurate regarding the "'s". I have reverted back to my version and added a small explanation. CWood 00:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * In the US an early decision was made by, th US Board on Geographic Names, that the name of no US geographic location should have an apostrophe. Pikes Peak being the best known example.  But, since Hudson's Bay is not in the US, I don't think we should honor the US convention.  I think we should use "Hudson's Bay"  --  Geo Swan 11:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

no mention of the Northwest Passage? Cacophony 18:49, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

While Canada's N bound by US precedent, it's convention now to call it Hudson Bay, N Hudson's. I corrected to that effect. Trekphiler 18:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh? Can you cite a source?  I am highly skeptical of your assertion.  --  Geo Swan 15:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The Geographic Names Board of Canada has the Bay as "Hudson Bay". http://geonames2.nrcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/v8/sima_name_v8?english . If this is how the Government of Canada officially refers to this body of water, Wikipedia should also use this naming convention. As a side note, I have never seen a modern map labelling this body of water as Hudson's Bay. CWood 00:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I grew up on the shores of Hudson Bay, and it's so labelled on pretty much every map (Canadian, admittedly) I've seen. Some of the confusion might result from the Hudson's Bay Company (HBC) of yore, which IIRC does use the possessive form. But the Bay itself (the landform, not the company) is "Hudson". - FlyingOrca 22:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Since the name of the Company used the 's and the official name of the Bay doesn't use it, that should lead to no confusion between the two. In stating that there may be confusion, our article is surely wrong. I guess it's a carryover from the far off days when this article was at Hudson's Bay, so I'll remove the statement. If I'm mistaken, and it does make sense currently, my deletion could be reverted of course but it would be best to add a source. Andrew Dalby 15:29, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There was a line within the article (since removed) that said, "Due to a change in naming conventions, Hudson's Bay is now called Hudson Bay." I included a citation needed tag for this claim. This claim seems particularly important, given that the article name is given without the apostrophe. Does anyone have a source that describes the change?  Tkbrett  (✉) 17:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

What is the elevation above sea level of the Hudson Bay Lowlands?
I have been pulling my hair out trying to find this information. None of my paper atlas show this, and I cannot find it on the web. Thanks.

Depth?
The Mediterranean sea article says Hudson's Bay would fit its definition of a Mediterranean sea, except it was so shallow it functions like a huge estuary. So, how shallow is it? -- Geo Swan 11:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Without looking, I found 260m mentioned, but haven't stumbled across an authoritative source. (SEWilco 19:39, 11 October 2005 (UTC))


 * the depth is getting shallower and shallower. In fact, the isostatic rebound is happening faster than the melt water is rising, literally.  So, the older residents recognize the many islands that were not in earlier history, compared to now, which are growing in numbers and getting shallower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Isostatic rebound is said to be greatest in the world in the Hudson bay area, and in the northern climes of Norway and Sweden. Both areas are rising in excess of 15 mm annually. Thus, not only is the bay getting shallower, but the shoreline is shrinking. This is readily apparent on the western shoreline, where marine deposits are visible many miles from the current lakebed. The lakebed is attributed by many geologists to the weight of the last ice sheet, said to have exceed two miles in thickness, centered over the current bay area. These same authorities suggest the bay will eventally disappear, unless the next ice age intervenes first.... 98.212.239.101 (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Coors lite

Size matters
Is Hudson Bay considered world's largest? I've heard it claimed... Trekphiler 18:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)It is the largest bay.

Geology
what about the semi-circled shoreline on the quebecois side? look like a huge meteorite impact.. is anything known about that? 790 09:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It indeed does look like a huge meteorite impact (I found my way here through Google Earth :), complete with a center formation (obviously shaped by the continental ice sheets moving across here). The Clearwater Lakes could have been formed by parts of this huge meteorite, along with a number of smaller impact sites nearby. The possibility of an impact has been noted, and a little googling reveals it's been studied, too: Earth Impact Database

But what if there is no clear shock metamorphism because the impact happened during the ice age? That would greatly lessen the impact on the ground. I'm just guessing here, but it would seem odd that a shoreline would be naturally that circular - even less when there's plenty of ice scour marks on the nearby lakes. maraz 10:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, first, the Impact Database does not show any part of Hudson's Bay as having an impact crater, while they do show four nearby, on land to the East of the Bay, so, they don't appear to blieve Nastapoka Arc to be the edge of an impact crater.


 * Second, since they do think that the Clearwater Lake craters to the east are about 300 Ma old, and since Ice Ages recur only every ten thousand years or so, and the Clearwater craters haven't been erased by the three thousand or so ice ages that might have gone by since then, it would have to have taken a whole lot more ice ages than those mere three thousand to have eroded away so much evidence that Nastapoka Arc no longer appears to have been created by extraterrestrial impact. I'm not trying to say that it isn't couldn't be old enough to have been created by impact and all that evidence has eroded away over an enormous amount of time, I'm just saying that if it is an impact crater, it would have to be a whole lot older than just one ice age ago.


 * Third, if the islands near the focus of the arc are what remains of the impact shatter cone, it is no longer near enough to the center of the circle to resemble any of the other more readily-believed impact craters in the Solar System. None of the other planets' known craters have impact cones so relatively distant from the focus of their impact radii. Again, I'm not saying that it isn't a crater, just that, if it is, what could have caused those islands to have moved so far southwest from the crater's focus, if not tektonics, but, according to the most believable theories, it's all part of the same plate that is believed to have caused the arc in the first place, so if one theory is to be believed, then the other theory is out. Brightfamouswoodcucumber (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I learned in a college planetology class that Hudson Bay is indeed the site of an ancient meteorite impact.Cyclopiano 05:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have watched something on you tube suggesting that hudson bay could well contain a string of ancient volcanic caldera's. It is only a theory but could well be true. Wiki235 17:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


 * indeed. The impact dumped fine sand sediments which reached the western arctic town called Tuktoyaktok, NWT.  This community is suffering from the space rock impact from Hudson Bay, and climate change, due to extraction of oil, the natural insulation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence of an impact at Hudson Bay. The Geological Survey of Canada has investigated the rocks of the Hudson Bay area and found no evidence of shock metamorphism or any indication that it might have been produced by an impact event. BT (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As Black Tusk stated, Earth scientists have repeatedly looked evidence for impact origin of either Hudson Bay or its southeastern edge and found a lack of any credible evidence for an impact origin. An impact large enough to have created either all or part of Hudson Bay would have left extremely clear evidence that no amount of glaciation and any other erosion would have removed. It is instructive that billions of years after the Sudbury impact structure was formed an abundance of evidence remains despite numerous Quaternary glaciations and billions of years of deformation, metamorphism, and erosion. The 2010 SEIS Impact Database (ver 2010.1) lists Hudson Bay as a class 4 feature. This means that "observations of the structure and/or geological context suggest non-impact origin but a single alternative interpretation has not been well established" for Hudson Bay. For that reason, I have removed the text about Hudson Bay being an impact structure from the article. The SEIS Impact Database is:


 * Rajmon, D. (2009) Impact database 2010.1. On-line: http://impacts.rajmon.cz Paul H. (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I did some browsing through recently published literature, including Eaton and Darbyshire (2010), about the tectonics of Hudson Bay and the Nastapoka Arc. There is clear evidence that it is the arcuate edge of the Belcher fold-thrust belt, which was created 1.85-1.80 Ga ago. In addition, total-field magnetic anomaly and Bouguer gravity maps of the Hudson Bay region in Eaton and Darbyshire (2010) clearly define the structural elements underlying Hudson Bay. They soundly refute any idea about the existence of a ringed structure that could be a Mare Crisium-like or -size impact structures associated with the Nastapoka Arc. Other comments about the origin of the Nastapoka Arc can be found in the Earth Imapct Database FAQ, 2. Is there a large impact structue on the SE margin of Hudson Bay, Canada?.


 * Reference Cited:
 * Eaton D. W. and F. Darbyshire, 2010, Lithospheric architecture and tectonic evolution of the Hudson Bay region. Tectonophysics. v. 480, pp. 1–22.Paul H. (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What made the Hudson bay to have no brecciated rocks and shock or shattered cones, is due to the fact that the humonguous shattered cones were almost flattened by glaciers and are now humpbacked shaped bedrocks in various locations on the shoreline west of the Hudson bay coast. Also the mantle rippled when the space rock made a hole, and the ripples are an esker sized bedrock! AWESOME FORMATION! The latter smaller impact of Iles De Madeleine contributed to the deepest parts of Hudson Bay, the Hudson Strait detaching Meta Incognita from Ungava Bay, the st. Lawrence river, the great lakes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.181.32.205 (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC) \


 * As in the case of the Sudbury impact structure (Sudbury Basin), an extraterrestrial impact of the magnitude needed to have created either the Nastapoka Arc or Hudson Bay would have brecciated, fractured, and deformed the Earth's crust to such an extent and depth that it is absolutely impossible for glacial erosion ("flattening") have erased the effects of such an impact. In addition, if a person takes the time and effort to read through and look at the numerous detailed papers and geologic maps that has been published by geologists and other Earth scientists for the Hudson Bay shorelines and region, they would find that there is more than enough hard data to completely refute any ideas about the "humpbacked shaped bedrocks" having once been "humonguous shattered cones" and the region's mantle and crust having been deformed ("rippled") by any type of extraterrestrial impact. The fact of the matter is that many geologists have looked long and hard for any evidence of impact deformed and brecciated rock, shocked quartz, both "humonguous" and small shatter cones, high pressure mineral polymorphs, impact melt sheets and/or dikes, and impact-related pseudotachylytes associated with either Nastapoka Arc or Hudson Bay. Despite repeated efforts to find it by geologists and expectation that it would be found, such evidence has been found to be completely absent. Instead, geologists have found that local and regional structure, stratigraphy, and other aspects of the geology of either the Nastapoka Arc or Hudson Bay solidly refute any theory that it was created by an extraterrestrial impact. A person just has realize that there are many other processes in addition to extraterrestrial impacts that can produce arcuate geological structures and landforms.Paul H. (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all one need do is spend a few seconds with Google Earth to see that the bay and the "tail" extending southward are obviously a huge impact crater. (Also, compare to images of the crater off the Yucatan peninsula). If the experts think that there is no evidence of an impact, then they are simply overlooking something (such as the fact that repeated ice ages would have erased most of that evidence). Also, considering the size of the bay compared to the impact that supposedly killed off the dinosaurs, it must have caused a mass extinction event on a much larger scale (and thus it might have cause the P-T extinction event, or it might have occurred even before that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.177.80 (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As discussed above, there are many, many more geological processes in addition to either asteroid, comet, or meteorite impacts that produce either circular or arcuate geological structures and landforms. As discussed in innumerable papers, it is impossible to determine whether either a specific feature from images, such as those seen in Google Earth, is of impact origin or not. This determination needs to be made using the presence of evidence of deformation resulting from hypervelocity impact such as shocked quartz, shatter cones, high pressure mineral polymorphs, impact melt sheets and/or dikes, and impact-related pseudotachylytes. Not only that the numerous detail studies of the geology of Hudson Bay and surrounding region have not found any credible evidence for its origin by a hypervelocity impact, they have also found an abundance of evidence that refutes such an origin. Given the widespread and detailed nature of the geological research that has been conducted in the Hudson Bay area, it is now virtually impossible that geologists and other Earth scientists have overlooked this evidence. An excellent paper that summarizes this research is:


 * Eaton D. W. and F. Darbyshire, 2010, Lithospheric architecture and tectonic evolution of the Hudson Bay region. Tectonophysics. v. 480, pp. 1–22.


 * In addition, the proposal that the majority of the evidence for the impact origin of Hudson Bay has been removed by erosion is scientifically bankrupt. An extraterrestrial impact crater that is 1,370 km (850 mi) long and 1,050 km (650 mi) wide would have an average crater depth of 2.5 km and a transient crater depth of 180 km. The bottom of this crater would be underlain by a melt sheet about 25 km thick. A zone of deeply deformed rock that is hundreds of meters thick would extend many tens of kilometers from the edge of such a crater. Because of shallow depth of documented glacial erosion in the Canadian shield relative to the depth of deformation that would be associated with a crater the size of Hudson Bay, it is physically impossible for glacial erosion to have removed the evidence for a Hudson Bay impact to any significant extent. It is impossible to use glacial erosion to explain the lack of any credible and obvious evidence for a Hudson Bay Impact.


 * Finally, it should noted that extraterrestrial impact craters do not have "tails." Because of the physical processes that create craters, even oblique impacts cannot produce craters with "tails." The idea that the presence of such "tails" constitutes evidence of the extraterrestrial impact origin of a specific landform lacks any scientific basis.


 * Some references to look at:


 * 1. The Earth Impact Database


 * 2. Reimold, W. U., 2007, The Impact Crater Bandwagon (Some problems with the terrestrial impact cratering record). Meteoritics & Planetary Science. vol. 42, No,. 9, pp. 1467–1472.


 * 3 Therriault, A. M., R. A. F. Grieve, and M. Pilkington, 2002. The recognition of terrestrial impact structures. Bulletin of the Czech Geological Survey. vol. 77, no. 4, pp. 253–263.


 * 4 Melosh, H. J., 1989. Impact cratering: A geologic process. New York, Oxford University Press.Paul H. (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The tail, if he means the "James Bay", is another feature derived from another more recent impact. The impact of Iles De La Madeleine, which caused a deep portion of Hudson Bay to form, and the Hudson Strait. Also the "Great Lakes" were also formed, and the New Found Land, Hudson River, and St. Lawrence River, leading to the New Madrid Seismic Zone. The North Cordilleran Volcanic Rift was also created and made the B.C. Coast to inch away towards the Pacific every year. Hudson Bay impact also created the "sudden appearance of Granite", and exposed some rare earth elements in Nunavut and N.W.T. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The geology of James Bay, as in case of Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, and so forth are all very well known and described in great detail in the peer-reviewed literature. For all of these these features there is a complete lack of any documented in situ shatter cones, in situ shocked quartz (multiple planar deformation features (PDFs)), in situ impact melt sheet and/or dikes, and other indicators of shocked metamorphism associated with a hypervelocity impact. James Bay, Iles De La Madeleine, and other features also lacked any of the morphology that would characterize features created by hypervelocity impact. The fictional claims about James Bay, Iles De La Madeleine, other features being of impact origin represent a rather extremeb of the "Impact Crater Bandwagon," which Reimold (2007) writes about. They are classic example about how many claims for the hypervelocity impact origin of various landforms are based upon speculation that ignores the lack of any documented supporting evidence for and the existence of evidence that either contradicts or solidly refutes such speculation.


 * By the way, the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province is a 20 million year-old zone of active volcanism created by rifting within the North American Plate. There is a complete absence of any evidence for it being related to a hypervelocity impact of any sort. The Iles De La Madeleine are the tops of salt domes unrelated to any hypervelocity impact structure.Paul H. (talk) 20:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There is one possibility which has not been addressed here. If the impact happens during an ice age, when miles of ice coat the earths surface.This would explain the absents of identifying minerals and crater structure. The cushion of the ice would prevent the formation of a deep crater, It would also prevent the formation of shocked quarts. Because the shock-wave through the ice would travel out and down from the point of impact, the affects would be seen over a larger area. This also explains why we only see an ark shape. Liquid water under the ice sheet would have an added cushioning affect or the ice was simply thicker at that point. Some of the craters on mars near the south pole have a similar shape. Most of this planet is covered in water yet most identified impact craters are on land. There are a lot of unknowns for this theory but there is some evidence i.e. the unexplained extinction of the mega mammals and the narrowing of the human genome during the last ice age, most of the evidence simply melted away. Because impactors can be made of many different substances even ice in case of a commit it may have totally vaporized, leaving no evidence but what we can see from space. I think we really need to take a closer look at this structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.55.108 (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2016


 * First, the Talk section of an article not a forum for discussing either original research or personal opinoins about the topic of an article. If you want to discuss specific ideas, concepts, and so forth for inclusion in an article, you need to find where such material is specifically associated with the topic of an article and published in reliable source that meets Wikipedia standards for acceptable source materials. Wikipedia is not a forum for either personal speculation, original research, or theories about a subject. Finally, what is known about rock mechanics and deformation readily refutes the idea that an impact of any sort can create a 450-km-diameter impact structure without creating detectable impact breccias, massive rock deformation, shock quartz, and a crater that is initially tens of km deep. If the ice sheet by some miracle "cushioned" the impact enough to prevent rock deformation, then the formation of an impact structure is also precluded because the only way to form an impact structure is to deform rock. Without massive rock deformation, a crater cannot be formed. Paul H. (talk) 02:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Navigability
Is the Hudson Bay navigable for trade ships having large containers?

Yes it is - Churchill, Manitoba has a huge grain shipping terminal on the shore of Hudson Bay. CWood 02:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We were told of Dorset people became extinct around 1500's. They aren't gone, they're still around. This is one of the reasons why I do not trust the scientific community. They say this and that, but because they are so small, they cannot even find the quartz boulders, and porous rocks that dot our land. One of the quartz boulder, the size of about a meter cubed, is now under quagmire and mud. There are quite of few of these but are now under the mud, probably about from few inches to about 6 feet. The stages of global climate change has made a lot of difficulties, including finding what the experts want to see, brecciated rocks, quartz boulders, and other land features. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 19:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It also drains southern Canada and parts of U.S.
The article reads: “It [Hudson Bay] drains a large portion of the northern areas of Ontario, Quebec, and Manitoba, and the southeastern area of Nunavut.” It surely drains southern Ontario and Manitoba as well. In fact, large portions of northwestern Minnesota and eastern and northern North Dakota and small portions of northeastern South Dakota and northeastern Montana also drain into Hudson Bay. I don’t see any mention at all of the United States, while I would like to see a map of the Hudson Bay watershed here. -- Nina, 15 May 2000

fish?
Are there fish in the bay? Any commercial or rec fishing?


 * Arctic char is mostly caught on these waters. Also, cod, scalpin, shrimps, seals, but to a lesser extent.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arviatlands (talk • contribs) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Salinity
This was added and should be answered. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Description
Hudson Bay is 1.23 million km², making it the second-largest bay in the world (after the Bay of Bengal). It is relatively shallow, with an average depth of about 100 meters (compared to 2,600 meters in the Bay of Bengal). It is approximately 1,370 km (850 mi) long and 1,050 km (650 mi) wide.[2] On the east it is connected with the Atlantic Ocean by Hudson Strait, and on the north with the rest of the Arctic Ocean by Foxe Basin (which is not considered part of the bay) and Fury and Hecla Strait. Geographic coordinates: 78° to 95° W, 51° to 70° N.

Hudson bay is the largest body of water all within one country

LisaWange (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this was posted here, but the Sea of Okhotsk might count as a larger body of water within one country. Pfly (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The Sea of Okhotsk doesn't qualify as a body of water entirely within the boundaries of one country. To the north, the east, and the west, the Sea of Okhotsk is shored by Russia, but, its most southern shores ar on the Island of Hokkaido, which is part of the Country of Japan. So, the Sea of Okhotsk is bordered shared by two counties. Brightfamouswoodcucumber (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Damming the bay to make a freshwater lake?
Has anyone ever considered trying to build a huge dam, levy, or sea wall across the narrow channels that connect the bay to the ocean?

If the bay already has a measurably lowered salt content than the rest of the ocean, it may be possible through damming for it to become the largest freshwater lake in the world after several decades of flushing out the salts and preventing the salts from re-entering the basin through tidal forces and diffusion.

This is certainly an interesting idea if global warming were to follow the suggested path of melting the permafrost and the United States and Mexico becoming more arid. Having the largest freshwater lake in the world would hold significant economic value for Canada if that region were to become more temperate.

DMahalko (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This is an old idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_Development_Canal. Basically dam James bay, pump the water about 500 km south to the great lakes with nuclear power, and send more water south to the Mississippi River from Lake Michigan (Currently a good deal of water is taken from Lake Michigan and put into the Mississippi river watershed to go south. Lake Michigan flowed into the Mississippi at one time.

Anyway, a project of such massive scale probably won't ever happen, not to mention the environmental consequences. Exhilaration157 (talk) 04:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure that spending all the time, effort, energy, manpower, and money to build such a massive dam would serve to provide all that much of an economic boon in the event of more southern countries drying up. it's at sea level now. It would cost a fortune to try to pipe the water anywhere that dams higher up couldn't reach a whole lot lest expensively. The water would have to be shipped elsewhere, but, at what point does it become less expensive to use solar energy to distill seawater and bottle the recondensed steam and transport it inland, than to use fossil fuels to ship impure water, which will still have to be purified before becoming drinkable. I'm not so sure your proposal would be the most economical way to go. Brightfamouswoodcucumber (talk) 13:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTAFORUM are relevant here...

Talk pages, and other fora, should not, in general, be used to discuss the truth or practicality of the topics of wikipedia articles, except when that discussion is relevant to a discussion of the actual contents of the article(s).

If WP:RS actually discuss damming Hudson's Bay, or James Bay then including coverage in the article(s), bearing UNDUE in mind, is appropriate. Even if those RS all say the idea is impractical, covering that the idea was proposed and dismissed may be appropriate.

If no RS make or discuss this proposal then discussing it here is a lapse from NOTAFORUM.

So, is the proposal discussed in RS? Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

lol
"When the ice cleared in the spring Hudson wanted to explore the rest of the area, but the crew mutinied on June 22, 1611. They left Hudson and others adrift in a small boat. No one knows the fate of Hudson and the crewmembers stranded with him, but historians believe they died." I'm not a historian or anything, but I think they made it.--Toepoaster (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I was tempted to come here and comment on that, then remembered this wasn't Fark where snarkiness is expected. All of the evidence suggests that anyone alive in 1611 would have died since, whether the subject of a mutiny or not. A good clarification would be that "historians see no evidence that they survived for long afterwards."Bollox Reader (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.135.138.110, 13 February 2011
With regards to the History section on the bay, Sebastian Cabot in 1509 sailed the bay, believing to have found his way into the Pacific. He was a patron of Henry VII.

81.135.138.110 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you have a reliable source for that info, please make a new request and provide that source. Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Awkward Sentence
The sentence describing the drainage basin might place a little bit of unnecessary relevance on the current political political geography when describing the physical geography.

"It drains a very large area, about 4,041,400 square kilometres (1,560,400 sq mi), that includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, most of Manitoba, southeastern Nunavut, as well as parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana."

It seems that the "as well as part of" makes an arbitrary distinction between these two groups of land areas with out explaining what makes them warrant separation. Perhaps one of these two suggestions would work better:

1. It drains a very large area, about 4,041,400 square kilometres (1,560,400 sq mi), that includes parts of Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, Nunavut, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana.

or

2. It drains a very large area, about 4,041,400 square kilometres (1,560,400 sq mi) comprised of land located in the Canadian provinces of: Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and Nunavut and the US states of: North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana.

Just my 2 cents.

96.248.6.7 (talk) 01:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)Moi
 * Either of those would be an improvement. I have no strong preference which though. Bazonka (talk) 12:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Part of the Arctic Ocean
The International Hydrographic Organization (IHO) considers Hudson Bay to be part of the Arctic Ocean. The IHO is the inter-governmental organisation representing the hydrographic community. It enjoys observer status at the United Nations where it is the recognised competent authority on hydrographic surveying and nautical charting. When referring to hydrography and nautical charting in Conventions and similar Instruments, it is the IHO standards and specifications that are normally used. Palaeozoic99 (talk) 17:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The IHO source cited—and all other IHO "boundaries of the seas and oceans" definitions I have seen, do not say which ocean Hudson Bay (or any other sea/gulf/bay/etc) belongs to. They define the limits of oceans, seas, bays, and so on, but do not specify which is part of which. Perhaps I am wrong—I'd like to be wrong—can you provide a source that says what you claim? Pfly (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Alberta?
Can someone please tell me how Hudson Bay is connected to Alberta? Check first paragraph.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawsomethingwrong (talk • contribs) 02:43, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Have a look at this: . Bazonka (talk) 10:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Gravity anomoly
There is no information on the actual amount of the difference. Cliffswallow-vaulting (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it an epicontinental sea?
This article and the "Inland sea" article seem to be in contradiction. This article asserts that Hudson Bay "is relatively shallow and is considered an epicontinental sea," providing a link to the "Inland sea" article. That article (which incidentally never uses the phrase "epicontinental sea") states that the Caspian sea is the largest inland sea, and thus apparently does not consider Hudson Bay to be an inland sea. Ishboyfay (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

James Bay vs James Bay (singer)
See proposal Talk:James Bay (singer) to move the Hudson Bay water body out of the way and move in the English pop singer. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Can someone translate Commons:File:Arctic Routes (RUS).svg into English?
Someone needs to translate into English. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

The map also has Crimea as part of Russia, rather than Ukraine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.65.169.6 (talk) 22:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Indirectness and smaller passages
This article's first paragraph contains this sentence: "It drains a very large area, about 3861400 km2, that includes parts of southeastern Nunavut, Saskatchewan, most of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and indirectly through smaller passages of water to parts of North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana." I have two questions:


 * What exactly does "indirectly" mean in this case?
 * Is the Red River considered a "smaller passage of water"? I had thought of it as one of the major rivers of that region. It carries all or nearly all of the water that flows from the United States ultimately into the Hudson Bay, having as tributaries various rivers whose sources are in Minnesota or North Dakota. Also, some in South Dakota flow into Lake Traverse, the source of the Bois de Sioux River, whose confluence with the Otter Tail River is where the Red River begins. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
— Assignment last updated by Quyen Le B (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Information Studies
— Assignment last updated by Wikiforschoolhomework (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)