Talk:Canoe/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Graphite?

I dont think any canoes are actually made of pure graphite. Carbon fiber reinforced composite canoes do exist, these are mentioned, carbon-carbon composites are not used in boat manufacture. I have removed the mention of it.

Merge 'Canoeing' article to here?

There is also an article called Canoeing with a lot of duplication of this Canoe article. Maybe we should merge the contents of canoeing into this article, and redirect it to here (as I mentioned on Talk/Canoeing) -- Nojer2 12:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• This article discusses the boat itself, whereas the Canoeing article discusses the activity of canoeing as a sport and recreation. No merge is necessary, except for the portion in the Canoeing intro on the different canoe types (I'll do that soon). -- P199 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I say rearrange the content as necessary, and add prominent cross-references, but don't merge the articles completely. --Smack (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with Smack, that is also what needs to happen to the Kayak article. If you are interested in kayaking or canoeing, please consider joining the Kayaking WikiProject Bennyboyz3000 08:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• As it stands now, there is very little overlap between these 2 articles and there already is a prominent link. -- P199 14:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguity over the word 'Canoe'

I put the bit in about the ambiguity over the word Canoe, which, outside North America, is commonly used to cover both Canoes and Kayaks collectively. -- RB-Ex-MrPolo

This may seem an unnecessary addition to North American readers, but to anyone who plays Canoe Polo in Kayaks which they call Canoes (!*?!!?), they just would not recognise the description of Canoe as matching the "Canoe" they use! The "clinching" evidence/case is that the International Canoe Federation covers the Sport of Canoeing, which includes far more "Kayaks" than "Canoes".

But of course, if anyone can do it more elegantly, then go for it.

Also my apology. This was my first use of Wikpedia. I did not know to log in first, so only my IP address is recorded. Also, the last change was only a Minor edit, but I did not know to flag this. In future I hope to get better at using Wikipedia! -- RB-Ex-MrPolo

Britain everything is a canoe. One bladed boats are canadian canoes and two bladed boats are canoe-kayaks. Your distinction of closed and open boats doesn't work because there are closed canadian canoes which you kneel in, usually for competition (and very strange beasts they are too).

The ambiguity over the word Canoe is indeed a difficult subject.

Here is my take on it:

The word canoe is said to come from the word canoa, which is said to originally come from the native people (the Arawaks?) in the Caribbean via Columbus to Europe. But, I also have read comments on this, that canoa was already an existing word in the Portuguese language.

The use of the word 'canadian' for canoe, is the result of misinterpretations during the development of the sport of canoeing in several European countries, where the kayak was often seen as the canoe and the open canoe was then called 'Canadian canoe', later shortened to 'canadian'. This designation came from the so called 'Open Canadian Style' Canoe from Canada, the then approved open canoe model by the American Canoe Association, as opposed to the Wood & Canvas canoe from Maine in the United States, that was not recognized by theACA until 1934. This discrepancy was unknown in Europe, and as a result they saw both vessels as 'Canadian' canoes, and started to call all canoes 'canadian'(canadees in Dutch, canadier in German, canadensare in Swedish etc.) -- even the closed canoes..

The use of this nickname 'canadian' for canoe, caused a lot of confusion. So much in fact, that I know some people who actually call a canoe a Canadian kayak... This confusion is, however, understandable, when you consider that in those European countries, almost all canoeing books, canoe magazines, canoe clubs and canoe lessons are mostly about kayaking, and very little, if at all, about canoeing!?

The problem is also that it is so hard to define when a canoe becomes a kayak. Technically, I think that a kayak can be seen as a special kind of a closed canoe that is meant to be paddled with a double bladed paddle from a seated position. Exceptions to this are, for instance, a 'sit on top' kayak or an open inflatable kayak, and what makes it extra complicated, is that there are also open canoes that are more or less meant to be paddled with a double bladed paddle, and there are partially decked canoes that are meant to be paddled seated with a double bladed paddle or a single blade paddle.

However, the trend in some European countries to use the nickname 'canadian' for canoe is declining in the last decade -- especially for official use like for instructor certification, where it really matter whether one is dealing with canoe or kayak instruction. In the past it was a serious problem that kayak instructors called themselves canoe instructors and acted accordingly -- even when they were not able to paddle a canoe at all... This had a very bad influence on canoe instruction, with severe consequences for canoeing in general, because people were often taught to paddle with inappropriate kayak techniques and kayak ideas about canoeing.

-- Dirk Barends

ores?

What is ores of a canoe? - 203.113.160.222

I could be wrong, but my guess is you're talking about oars. If so, the answer is canoes & kayaks are not powered by oars, they are powered by paddles. Similar but not the same. Oars are used for rowing. -- Nojer2 22:28, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(Pre)history of the canoe

This article focuses on the modern sport of canoeing. It'd be great if the small paragraph on historical designs could be expanded to also talk about the canoe as a technology of the native peoples (its economic, social impact, etc.). For example, the entire Pacific Ocean was practically colonized with this invention. A-giau 23:44, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd also suggest some historic mention. The HBC canoes carried multi-ton loads (if you can believe it).

For the trivia buff, Chestnut Canoe Co (Frederickton) sold every canoe it could make to HBC, & was #1 mfr in Canada. Trekphiler 05:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Sailing

Some people apparently sail in canoes. For example: http://www.smallsailboats.co.uk/canoe/canoe.htm.

Would you still call that a canoe? Is there a better name?

Those things look like a blast to operate, though liable to hit you upside the head with the boom. I guess you Europeans have some rather muddled definitions, but according to the Wikipedia definition, that's not a canoe with a sail, but a kayak with a sail. To really be comprehensive, you'd have to include this oddity both at Kayak and at Sailboat, but if they're really no more than oddities, it may be best to neglect them altogether. --Smack (talk) 05:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the different paddling techniques portion.

I added the different paddling techniques portion.

I have been canoeing for some odd 12 years now, being taught while a boy scout. I have also read numerous books on the subject, most of which reflect these different types. Although, finding information about the locked arm technique is generally rarer, but it was the way I was taught, and I despise the other ways now that my flatwater/river endurance has increased two-fold by using it.

What do you mean by saying that flat-bottomed canoes feel stable but after a while are liable to flip over (and the contrary about round-bottomed canoes)? I'm hardly an expert on canoes, but I have participated in expeditions of many canoes that traveled maybe 25 km (15 mi) on a lake and 10 km (6 mi) by sea, in flat-bottomed canoes, without incident. --Smack (talk) 03:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its called initial and final stability. See: http://www.paddling.net/guidelines/showArticle.html?86 for information, but basically: A flat bottom canoe, while popular, offers high initial stability, where as a rounded or Vee bottom canoe offers high final stability. Initial stability is the stability when sitting on flat water without moving, or when not in a situation where flipping becomes possible. Final stability is when you hit that rock, or accidentally lean too far one direction how far it can go before actually flipping. BTW, thanks for polishing the page up for me, I am great at the actual data, but i suck at making it encyclopedia worthy. -- Ruckc (talk)

That makes sense. I'll try to clarify it.

Good encyclopedic style is a learned skill. You'll pick it up after a while. Good luck and happy editing. --Smack (talk) 03:16, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keels

Keels don't really appreciably help canoes go in a straight line. Canoes are displacement craft. Their hull, moving through the water, is much larger than the keel alone, and has considerably more effect on a canoes path through the water. In aluminum canoes, keels are manufacturing artifacts, where two halves of a hull are joined. In wood-and-canvas canoes, keels are rub-strips to protect the boat from rocks and as they are pulled up on shore. Plastic canoes feature keels for stiffening the hull and allowing internal tubular framing to be flush with the sole of the canoe. Hull shape, particularly the degree to which the hull is fine fore and aft, and rocker, determine how well (or not) a canoe tracks. Oh, and paddling technique.

Is there agreement about this?

Any objections to changing the article in regards to keels?

Bruce N.

Objections there are.

1. Most watercraft (with the exceptions of hydrofoils and hovercraft) are "displacement craft".
2. Yes, the submerged part of the hull is very large, but it does not protrude far below the water. Consider a flat-bottomed aluminium canoe. Only the very edges offer any appreciable resistance against lateral movement; the rest can only resist by means of viscous forces.
3. There's a misunderstanding of terms. According to our article on keels, the word refers to two things: the thing you're talking about, and a flat piece of material that sticks out from the hull. I think the paragraph in the article that you disputed refers to the second definition.
4. The keel according to the first definition is not just a "manufacturing artifact"; it's an important structural element. --Smack (talk) 05:38, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rocker

The article deals with the concept of rocker in two locations but does not use of define the term. In Britain at least it is the amount of curvature in the length of the craft. I propose clarifying the section on rounded and flat bottoms to make it clear this is a discussion of the cross sectional profile, delteing these two sentances "Rounded-end canoes are able to turn easily. Angled-end canoes are somewhat resistant to turning, but have greater tracking ability." and adding after the first paragraph in the Keels section.

"The term rocker defines the curvature of the hull along its length, more rocker means a greater curvature which has a similar effect on handling as ommission of a keel; conversly less rocker gives better tracking."

Paddling strokes

This subject is starting to get long already, and I think more description and diagrams could be helpful. Would it make sense to start a separate article on the subject? I'd be willing to work on it. --PurpleRain 17:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not being a canoeist, but rather the mythical interested bystander, I find the list of strokes and accompanying detail mystifying. Separate article please. Matt Whyndham (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I was interested in the North Woods Stroke, or the Canadian Stroke. I haven't heard much about these, would love to try them. Does anyone feel authoritative enough to add some words about these? They're supposed to be older 'native' strokes very effective for flat water canoeing. Geoff Meissner 13:53, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

I'd like to see a much more detailed article on paddling styles. With diagrams as PurpleRain said, and maybe even video if possible. If no one objects, I can make a start on an article. I know a fair amount about some styles as I compete in dozens of canoe races every year, however I'd have to leave descriptions of other styles not used in racing to other, more knowledgeable people. 74.79.75.142 (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Lily Dipper

A common term for a lazy paddler. Should it be included? Fremte 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Canoeing is part of the "wiki kayak" project? Why?

Might be as sensible to make it part of a row boat project! Fremte 16:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

it's basically the same thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.54.9 (talk) 22:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Canadian canoe to this article

Support — I'm from Canada, and I've never heard of a "Canadian canoe" that is distinct from any other canoe. From the description in the article, it sounds just like some of the canoes described in this article. —P^urpleRA^IN 14:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Let's first determine whether a "Canadian canoe" really exists. I too am from Canada, have paddled a lot of canoes and have never heard of a "Canadian canoe" either.--BC 15:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. -- P199 17:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Support merge. There should be a section on canoe terminology. I'm from Ontario. Here "canoe" means an open-decked boat paddled with a single paddle by a person who is kneeling (or close to it). A kayak is a closed-decked boat paddled with a double paddle by a person who is sitting with straight legs. There are many variations, particularly in how open or closed the decks are. I understand that in British English, what I would call a kayak is called a canoe and a canoe is called a Canadian Canoe. See above for a larger discussion of this. Lkmorlan 21:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Support. Please see Elk and Moose for an example of how a similar word-usage problem was handled elsewhere. I think it is important to list and discuss the various words used for the article topic in the lead paragraphs, or just below them. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Fremte 23:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Support the Canoe article is quite extensive and covers everything that is mentioned here...if there's some confusion with the use of the word 'canoe' around the world, that could easily be explained in the canoe article. Burtonpe 14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I refer you to the International Canoe Federation (ICF) website. Although there is no use of "Canadian" in the Flatwater rules, the ICF Slalom Rules: Final Version with Article 13.2.1.2 Amendment - July 2007 (http://www.canoeicf.com/site/canoeint/if/downloads/About%20ICF/Rules/2007%20final%20version/ICF%20SLR%20Rules%202007-6.03.07%20for%20printing%20-%20Art.%2013.2.1.2%20Amendment.pdf) State: "7.1.6 Kayaks are decked boats, which must be propelled by double bladed paddles and inside which the competitors sit. Canadian canoes are decked boats that must be propelled by single-bladed paddles and inside which the competitors kneel." They classified the types into K1/K2/K4 (K for Kayak) and C1/C2/Cn (The C means 'Canadian', not 'Canoe'). To understand this you think in vertical hierarchy of class and type in the class. (A bit like Football is a top-level and underneath you have Association football (i.e. Soccer), American football , Australian rules football , Rugby football.) Canoe is a generic name for the boat used in the sport of Canoeing. Therefore Generic Canoeing includes Kayaks which are based on a double-blade powered Inuit hunting design and Canadian Canoes which are powered by a single-bladed paddle. You could therefore say correctly that a Kayak is a type of canoe used by the Inuit peoples of Greenland. The sport is "Canoeing" we have the "British 'Canoe' Union, Interntional 'Canoe' Federation and so on. These guys invented the modern sport of Canoeing in the 19th Century as differentiated from Rowing. They didn't make a mistake with the name of the international governing body! They use 'Canoe' and not 'Canoe-Kayaking', or having two distinct sports. Another example "Rowing". In rowing there's two types of boat: on is rowed with a single oar per crewman and the other is sculled with two oars per crewman. They don't call it Rowing-Sculling, do they? In this definition of Canoe, The ICF and BCU are defining the sport by the plan-view of the hull. The Canoe design is a boat whose hullshape in plan-view is elongated and comes to a point at both ends. It's as simple as that. You get The Canoe-Hulled Half-ton Yawl - a bigish sailboat, but we don't include that in the sport of canoeing. A generic definition of a canoe used in canoeing is "A craft of Canoe Profile Portable by the crew and is propelled by paddle - not fixed-oar". This general description covers Canadian and Kayak types of small-craft. A comment above states "...have paddled a lot of canoes and have never heard of a "Canadian canoe" Well, this brings to mind the comment "We play *both* typsa music hyar - Country *ayand* Western!) (Chum, they are all canoes. The types you paddle will all be "Canadian" and not "Kayak".) It just makes life simpler if we group objects under generic names. My proposal would be to re-name the Kayak as a 'Kanu' (as in German) and the Canadian as a 'Canu'. This would preserve the sport as Canoeing (at least soundalike) and the classes as C and K, and it would lead everyone to see that the root shape in naval architecture is the Canoe Shape..(Sharp at both ends). In yachting you get Canoe-stern and Transom-Stern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.89.16 (talk) 22:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment: The canoe is a Canadian invention, and is not attributed with any other culture whatsoever, so how can there be a "Canadian canoe" since all canoes are Canadian? 90.213.102.176 (talk) 05:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Canoer → Canoeist

There is a proposal underway at WP:CFD to change the name of categories using the term "canoer" to "canoeist" 9which is a far more widely-used term). Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_3#Canoers.2FCanoeists. Grutness...wha? 01:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I call BS on the history of the canoe

The Canoe is of Canadian design and invention; whilst there are many single hulled simple boats, they are not canoes. The canoe is unique much like the coracle is unique and of Welsh design. This artlcle has the oldest canoe being from the Netherlands but provides no refereces; well, I require at least one WP:RS for this statement. The canoe is an Northern North American Indian boat design and they existed for thousands of years before the Netherlands was even thought of. 90.213.102.176 (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I also call BS on most of the article

This article has very poor references and if there are truly facts presented here, then WP:RS will be easy to find. If they are not I will strip the article of every single "fact" that has no reference attached to it. This is an encyclopedia not a fiction book; facts need to be backed up and I WILL strip this article if they are not backed up!!! 90.213.102.176 (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Who has had a fit with the "citation needed" tags?

Hello, hello? What on Earth has happened to the "citation needed" tags? Someone seems to have had an issue, tagging the most basic facts. No offense at all if there are questionable statements, but tagging common knowledge statements does not make much sense. And the "sources" won't help anyone either. It's the same as if someone were to tag Barack Obama is the US president with a "citation needed" tag.

So unless someone will give a reasonable explanation why the specific sections are questionable, I will delete some of the tags. If I should delete more tags than you think is reasonable, please also feel free to discuss here. Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Canoes vs. Canadian canoes

There's been this wonderful discussion (see above)--and nothing of it is reflected in the article. I don't know if the majority of (in this case: North American) users has simply decided that anything they don't know isn't relevant... or if it's just an accident. Either way, we should include a decent explanation at the beginning of the article. (In the discussion above, the examples Moose and Elk have already been mentioned.) BTW, some of the comments in the discussion above show that explanations seem necessary even for some Wikipedia users.

[BTW, "Canoe" does not mean "Kayak" in any language I know of. It's simply a matter of a different scope of the meaning, like with "America" in and outside of North America: Canoe/America have a broader meaning outside of North America (i.e. Canadian canoe and kayak // American continent(s)) than in North America. I don't claim that this is the case everywhere, just trying to make people understand that we're not talking about a simple reversal. Given that even Wikipedians seem to struggle with the definitions, they should clearly be in the article.]

Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 03:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Hello. I came across this article reverting vandalism from the recent changes page. The vandal vandalism inserted was a silly (in my opinion) edit re: the origin of the canoe. Before reverting I checked the article and found information contradicting the editors addition, so I reverted. The information in the article on the oldest canoes was marked with a "citation" tag, so to be safe I googled the info and found a reliable source (again, my opinion) on the very first page of the search. After editing the cite in I noticed that my source was already listed in the external links section of the article. Now curious, I checked into the edit history of the page and found that an anon IP had gone through and marked the article with more than a dozen "citation" tags. They state "RS should be easy to find!!!!!"...and they were indeed correct. The external links contained them. Most of the other citation tags are attached to very mundane and non-contorversial facts in the article. It seems well researched generally and I believe the "citation" tags are not needed. I am posting here to determine if there are other editors that have any issues with the facts stated in the article. Thanks Tiderolls 00:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The anon edit was unhelpful in my judgement.[1] The tone of his/her talk page comments was inappropriate, also.[2] That said, we typically allow anons some leeway when their contributions may be in good faith. But, I should have reverted the mass tagging of the the article by the anon when I added the {{refimprove}} tag.[3] On the substance of the matter, I think that the article could benefit from more use of inline citations. Good Article criteria require "in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged". However, it seems to me that many of the tagged statements do not require in-line citations based on these criteria. I note, however, that many editors are not expert in the topics that they edit. In-line citations allow such editors to verify and expand content without having to read all the referenced literature to find relevant material. For this reason, each section and many paragraphs should contain one or more in-line citation, I think. The same citation can be invoked a number of times, if that is appropriate, and the effort is minimal after the first instance. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to make clear that the vandalistic edit that brought this article to my attention was not made by the anon user that added the citation tags. In looking over my post I don't think I made that very clear. Thanks for your feedback, Walter...in general I agree with the points you make and will not remove any tags without posting here first or providing a cite. Tiderolls 15:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

With no objections, I removed the excessive fact tagging just now from Feb and Mar 2009 (as I suggested on 1 June) . The {{refimprove}} at the article head should suffice. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)