Talk:Alaska/Archive 5

Doesn't say who bought Alaska in the second paragraph
It just says Alaska was purchased for X amount of dollars. Sure there's a link to the Alaska purchase wiki entry, but it should at least say "Alaska was purchased by the United States for X amount of dollars". 88.217.68.137 (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since it says in the first sentence that Alaska is a US state I should think this is already pretty obvious. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless it had been bought back then by Canada and resold to the US later ;-) 88.217.68.137 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

mitzvah
Please unlock the post so I can fix the section related to the word mitzvah (where it talks about the Jewish population). The phrase "the mitzvah" is not quite correct here. First of all, you "do" a mitzvah (and mitzvah is singular and this is referring to problems with doing several mitzvot (mitzvot are the plural of mitzvah), but really the word that should have been used is "halachah" (which has a wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakhah) as "halachah" is observed."

In summary, if someone else with enough points to edit a semi-locked page wants to do it, as I said what needs to be done is replace the phrase "the mitzvah" with the word halachah with a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halakhah.

Thanks! Bgpspice (talk) 16:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)bgpspice 11 March 2013


 * ✅. 19:22, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 March 2013
RE: ALaska / The Good Friday earthquake occurred on MARCH 27 1964 - Good Friday 1964.71.217.96.93 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

71.217.96.93 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC) source; I was there.
 * Yes check.svg Done. Your recollection is not a reliable source, but the 1964 Alaska earthquake article also says March, so I changed here.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Formatting Edit request on June 3 2013
There is a lot of white-space blank-lines. Can it be moved up? It is under "Cities and census-designated places (by population)" and the number of blank lines is as large a section as the table of 100 largest cities in Alaska. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Right this minute, I'm in the middle of attempting to reformat the entire article, with particular attention paid to that. I think the problem is the use of Autocol for the table, as it appears to be having the same effect as if I used Clear left in there somewhere.  Give me some time to figure it out. RadioKAOS  –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  01:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hope that helps matters some. If not, please feel free to offer some feedback.  I don't know how much more time I'll have for this before I have to get seriously back to work (the "slow season" ends in about a week or two).  I have better photos of Parnell and Treadwell somewhere, but my photo collection is a whole lot more work which I haven't seriously tackled as of late.  My laptop was stolen about two months ago, which only exacerbated that situation.  At least I know better than to not backup files.
 * Also, I started on a comprehensive rewrite of the article text at one point, which I had to "abandon" (it's on a thumb drive somewhere). I'll try to find it one of these days.  Also, the failed GA nomination pointed out that the article still needs lots of work as far as referencing goes. RadioKAOS  –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  23:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Штат Аляска
Why is the state's name given in Russian? 84.23.155.84 (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because before it was bought by the United States it was claimed by Russia, see Russian America or the "history" section of this article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia does not currently differentiate between administrative divisions, which in this case should not have a Russian name in the lede, and places. A place has a history and names (and even geographic extent) as viewed by various people at various times. An administrative division has a name and history and extent defined by its sovereign. Int21h (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed "Штат Аляска" from the infobox since this is the English language encyclopedia. "Штат Аляска" is just the Russian translation of "The State of Alaska." The word Аляска comes from an Aleut word, but we don't have the text in the Aleut language.  Russia sold the territory to the US about 140 years ago, so I doubt there are very many people who still speak Russian in the state.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 12:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * That would not be a safe assumption, as a matter of fact there are three villages of Russians within 30 miles of where I live and my neighbors are Russian speakers. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As well as a community of Russians and Ukrainians about 100–120 miles southeast of where I live which currently numbers into the thousands. RadioKAOS –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  18:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * From our article "Spoken language(s)	English 89.7%, Native (Eskimo–Aleut and Na-Dene languages) 5.2%, Spanish 2.9%" From the examples you give above Russian less than 0.5%.  BTW "Russian speakers" or "Russian immigrants" is a fine way to speak about people, but "three villages of Russians" or "a community of Russians and Ukrainians" is likely incorrect, they are probably American citizens, born and raised in the US. Maybe Russian-American? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While I think you are correct in removing the Russian language version, I think it should be removed because I think the infobox should only contain bona fide native language versions. I just do not think Russian is a native language of Alaska. Just because Alaskans have spoke English for a long time does not make English a native language of Alaska. But maybe we should consider the name of Alaska according to the Native Americans (Aleut etc.) for inclusion. Int21h (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Data transport"
Is "data transport" really part of "Transport"?! Surely it's better as a part of "Economy". That's why I asked why. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * What's next, putting the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in there under "crude oil transport"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 Oct 2013
"up for grabs" is not encyclopedic language. Suggestion- change to "available for procurement" or something appropriate.


 * Could you please be more specific about where this phrase is being used, it's a big article and I'm not inclined to read the entire thing just to figure out what you are talking about. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Second paragraph: "Occupied for thousands of years by indigenous peoples, the territory of Alaska was considered up for grabs by European powers, who wanted to control its trade."  64.136.192.229 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for clarifying. However I don't think I quite agree, or at least I definitely do not agree that "available for procurement" is better. We are writing for a general audience here, so content, especially in the lead section, should be clear and easy to understand. I'll leave the request up so that others may comment on it and/or a better change can be presented. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * In most cases I'd agree that it's best to avoid an idiomatic phrase like "up for grabs". In this case, I think the phrase fits rather well. I could see someone who isn't proficient in English struggling with the meaning, but for the fluent I think it's instantly comprehensible in a way that "available for procurement" could never be. Personally, I'd leave well enough alone. Second choice: "ripe for the picking". Rivertorch (talk) 05:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * (A text search would have located it quickly enough.) Sure, for a fluent speaker, the phrase conveys the illusion of meaning, but like many colloquialisms, it provides comfort that conceals real vagueness. What, actually, is up for grabs? The snow and the rock underneath it? Besides, can't we think of a way to write this in decent written style? How about "Although it had been ccupied for thousands of years by indigenous peoples, European powers considered the territory of Alaska freely available for [ occupation and ] control of its trade." --Stfg (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Not bad. It implies there was already trade, though, and there wasn't (at least not as I assume we take the word to mean). Also, "occupation" suggests direct military control. How about: Although it had been occupied for thousands of years by indigenous peoples, European powers considered the territory of Alaska ripe for colonizing? Rivertorch (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. --Stfg (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. OK, I've edited it to put Rivertorch's version there. @Beeblebrox, I hope that's OK. (If I was too quick off the mark, by all means trout me.) IP, thanks for pointing out the problem. --Stfg (talk) 09:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess that works. "colonizing" doesn't really fully explain the Russian's approach to Alaska, which was more in the vein of out and out exploitation, slavery, and slaughter, but we have the Russian America which goes into greater detail  the subject. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, "exploitation" might be best there (instead of "colonizing"). What do you think, Rivertorch? --Stfg (talk) 22:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that colonialism always involved exploitation (and frequently it involved slavery, slaughter, and a host of other horrible practices that destroyed indigenous cultures). But it also involved other things, such as political and economic domination, that were arguably the main objectives. The exploitation was inevitably attendant with, and inseparable from, efforts to attain those objectives, but it wasn't the same thing as the objectives themselves. So I think "colonizing" probably works better than "exploitation" in the context. I could be wrong. Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if colonialism always involved exploitation, exploitation did not always involve colonialism. The British and American interest in the Pacific Northwest coast (incl Alaska) was for decades not about establishing colonies but rather about resource extraction. The Spanish interest in Alaska was neither about colonies nor exploitation but rather an attempt to affirm old imperial claims. Pfly (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is why I prefer "exploitation". I believe some powers would have wished to exploit it without necessarily turning it into a colony. --Stfg (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think that's an excellent point, and I have boldly changed it to "exploitation". Rivertorch (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 October 2013
Text in article: Alaska's At-large congressional district is the world's second-largest legislative constituency by area, behind only the Canadian territory of Nunavut.

This is not correct. Greenland is 2.1 millions km2 and is a constituency with 2 seats in the danish parlament.

90.184.140.11 (talk) 10:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done. I've changed it to say "one of the largest parliamentary constituencies in the world", as saying that it's the Nth-largest is original research unless cited. Thanks for pointing it out. --Stfg (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already noticed a little back-and-forth between using "legislative" versus "parliamentary" in the article. This being a United States topic, American English should prevail.  As such, I can't say that "parliamentary" is appropriate, seeing as how we don't have parliamentary constituencies. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  22:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Size Discrepancies
Main article says

Alaska is the largest state in the United States in land area at 586,412 square miles (1,518,800 km2)...

However in the sidebar

Area 	Ranked 1st - Total 	663,268 sq mi (1,717,854 km2)

Why the discrepancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.126.110.23 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Being lazy here and not investigating, I'd guess the larger number includes lakes and the smaller one doesn't. Yopienso (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolving statistics deadlinks
Hello, I tried to resolving deadlinks.

The Alaska Visitor Arrivals and Profile-Fall/Winter 2001 link should point to Visitor Arrivals FW 2001-02.pdf, the Alaska Visitor Arrivals and Profile-Summer 2001 link to Arrivals and Profile Summer 2001.pdf. As suggested on WP:LR, I've added the files to the Wayback Machine. I haven't verified whether the numbers match. Also note, that contrary to statements in the article ("in 2001, the latest year for which data is available"), there exist more recent statistics (at least now, perhaps not at the time of writing): [//www.google.com/#q=site:http://commerce.alaska.gov/dnn/Portals/6/pub/TourismResearch/Archive/AVSP/] [//www.google.com/#q=site:site:http://commerce.alaska.gov/dnn/Portals/6/pub/TourismResearch/]

Thank you, I'm new to Wikipedia and still not autoconfirmed Muelleum (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Problem with dates in Colonization (2.2) under History
In the article it says: "Belorussian explorer Dmitry Pavlutsky (1729—1735)[29]". Those dates are obviously incorrect as he could not have died at 6 and still explored Alaska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Refolo (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (or ANILCA)
Am I going blind? Or is The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (or ANILCA) not mentioned in this article? Yopienso (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

How Alaska became US territory?
Actually Alaska was not sold to US. In 1867 Russia and US signed the agreement about renting this territory for 99 years. Inspite of signed agreement US did not give it back in 1966. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layla05 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2014
In the Agriculture and Fishing section, near the end of the section, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska#Agriculture_and_fishing please change:

"The cost of importing food to villages begins at 7¢ per pound (15¢/kg) and rises rapidly to 50¢ per pound ($1.10/kg) or more."

- to -

"Though most small towns and villages in Alaska lie along the coastline, the cost of importing food to remote villages can be high, because of the terrain and difficult road conditions, which change dramatically, due to varying climate and precipitation changes. The cost of transport can reach as high as 50¢ per pound ($1.10/kg) or more in some remote areas, during the most difficult times, if these locations can be reached at all during such inclement weather and terrain conditions."

- because -

The cost of 7¢ per pound adds up to $1,400 for a delivery of 10 tons of material (via an all-terrain 6-wheel-drive truck or tracked vehicle). Such a price to make a delivery to an area just one or two hours outside of Anchorage or any of the other two major towns (Fairbanks and Juneau) is an absurd price - totally unrealistic. The 7¢ per pound price is stated as a beginning or minimum price, but in reality it is an incredibly high price, much higher than typical delivery costs really are in most populated areas in Alaska (Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau). Transportation by boat is even less expensive than transportation over land by wheeled or track vehicles, and the majority of the population in Alaska that does not live in the three major cities is living in small coastal towns, where the majority of transportation of heavy goods is done by boat. To get an idea what transportation costs REALLY are in Alaska, just take a look on page 3 under Transportation here: http://labor.alaska.gov/research/COL/COL.pdf

71.196.33.234 (talk) 16:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ Kap 7 (talk) 16:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2014
In the section Cities, towns and boroughs, 3rd paragraph (beginning &ldquo;Whereas many U.S. states use a three-tiered system &hellip;&rdquo;), the last sentence begins with &ldquo;/in 2000&rdquo;. I suggest that &ldquo;/in&rdquo; should be &ldquo;In&rdquo;.

50.181.30.121 (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sam Sailor Sing 08:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)