Talk:Alaska/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

State Capital

"The state capital, Anchorage, is not accessible by road, only a car ferry, which has spurred several debates over the decades about moving the capital to a city on the road system, or building a road connection from Haines."

Earlier in the article, it says the state capital is Juneau. Did the author of that part of the article mean Juneau, or did they just wrongly believe Anchorage to be the capital? 76.5.134.197 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Alaska's Motto

I thought Alaska's motto was "North to the Future"? Well that's what I get for all the results when I type in Alaska's motto in the search engine at the very least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.245.152.33 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

WW II

Removed from WWII: "Alaska is the only state in the U.S. to have been occupied by an enemy force." This was in reference to Japanese occupation of 2 islands during WWII. How can this be true if Alaska did not join the Union until 1959?

I agree. Alaska is not the only state to be occupied. I am sure that some US states were occupied by "enemy forces" during the War of 1812 also. Throckmorton Guildersleeve (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

If the WWII reference were added, it would be true. Alaska was the only American soil invaded by an Axis force. Alaska became a Territory of the United States in 1867, a State in 1959. Many American (and Japanese) soldiers and sailors suffered and died there. See "The Thousand Mile War". —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonKofAK (talk • contribs) 21:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the "thousand mile war," the American attitude towards the diversion in occupying Alaska was disdain. It was (like Hawaii) a territory. A big "so what" from Washington who had other things on their minds. The Japanese wound up abandoning their base. Student7 (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of USA and Canada

The caption is incorrect. The picture is a map of the USA and Canada with Alaska highlighted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.251.125.85 (talk) 03:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

San Francisco to Jacksonville?

if the state's westernmost point were superimposed on San Francisco, California, its easternmost point would be in Jacksonville, Florida.

This is a great comparison. However when I measure it with Google Earth, I come up almost 100 miles short of Jacksonville. I measure 2275 miles from Attu Island to 130° W. I think a better comparison would be from Los Angeles to Washington DC. I didn't change it in case I'm missing something. --GregU 20:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Google Earth does map datum, because how it approximates the ellipsoid of the Earth over that distance could reasonable throw off the distance by another system by a 100 miles. So in their native coordinates, both Google Earth and the other item could be correct. They could both be wrong. Someone knowledgeable would have to sit down and look at the approximations and see what was going on. BmorePunk 12:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This "fact" is almost certainly not true. Attu to Stewart, BC is 2239 statute miles. SFO to Jacksonville is 2366 miles, LAX to Washington, DC is 2311 mi. I realise Stewart is not in Alaska, but it's on the border, and further east, and the best shot at making the case that I could find. It's at 55°56'00"N 129°59'00"W. Mykej (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Alaska#Cool_map below. Oakland to Memphis, anyone?

Alaska is so big there's no need to exaggerate. Kablammo (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

External link

I have created an Alaskan custom search engine, AlaskanBest.com, and would like to suggest it as a resource in the external links section. I believe it would serve wikipedia users and editors well. For instance in Artistic and literary Alaskans is listed "Eustace Ziegler (1881-1969) painter" without an article. A search of AlaskanBest.com [1] returns results from a wide range of hand selected, screened, authoritative resources, including this wikipedia article.

RJCortez 20:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that if you could create a search engine without advertisements it would likely stay posted. As it is right now, editors will see all those ads and delete it. Many people see this as an ad(s) pretending to be an article or plausible link. Soapy 20:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate if unobtrusive text ads disqualify an otherwise valuable resource from being included. There are no flashing banners, pop ups or web bugs. But I understand your point, that's why I posted here in the discussion area rather than posting directly to the main article. If nothing else, perhaps contributers here will find the link helpful for research purposes.RJCortez 20:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

The vandalism on this and other pages is out of control. They are learning quickly how to skate around the editors. Some of you who are watching this page have probably noticed several times that vandals have edited several times in a row without signing in, and then after signing in they leave a notice that they have deleted some vandalism when in fact they are just cloaking the vandalism from being easy to find. I have seen this happen twice now and if you don't catch it right away it makes it all the harder to find. I for one am tired of this. I can't seem to find anyway to contact Wikipedia so I am posting here. It is time to change the policy in which non-registered and non-signed in editors can edit. This should cut down the massive problem. My daughter's high-school teacher informed her class that Wikipedia would no longer be considered a reliable source for their reports. Vandalism plays a major part in hurting Wiki reputation. Soapy 21:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

- I have tried time and again to get someone in Wiki to do something about the daily, sometimes hourly vandalism on this and other articles. One way would be to lock out the article(s) to those who are not registered or logged in. They seemingly don't think there is a major problem that needs to be addressed. Is it just me, or has the problem doubled? Other editors who watch this one article know what I am talking about. I for one am through with watching this article. I love Alaska but if Wikipedia won't fix the problem then I am forced to stop keeping watch. I just don't have the patience to constantly repair what the vandals do. It's such an easy fix but they won't implement it. Soapy 01:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you guys aren't being singled out ;-) it's all over Wikipedia; we have several pages in the BC project which are ongoing monitor-problems, and all kinds of schoolkid-stuff too ("Hi, mom!" through to rank porn); you are Wikipedia as far as this kind of thing goes; vandalwatch does a lot, and I'm sure there's others who aren't part of your WikiProject who monitor and fix things; I admit to sometimes letting cute vandalisms stand for a bit until someone else reverses them (there's only so much time ;-) ) and there are pages which I monitor just to watch the fray, or which are so subject to ongoing vandalism that it's pretty much an institution at that page. Whatever. Point is, yeah, Wikipedia can only do so much as an institution/organiation, and vandalism is only one of many problems; myself I find it incredible that people need to deface/scrawl on things the way they do, and at other times 'hostile edits' or completely spurious positions/arguments/POV are a lot worse than petty vandalism; I'm not sure which page you're talking about re Alaska but let me know on my talkpage or email me and I'll take a look; not that I can do anything about it, but....Skookum1 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(tearing out of hair, gnashing of teeth) Four I think reverts or whatever today so far for spam or silliness edits on this page today by anonymous users. I'm gonna start making a stink about non-signed in editors. Vandalism sometimes comes from signed-in editors, yeah, but I agree with Soapy that stopping anonymous editors from editing would cut the problem in half. --Yksin 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Skookum1 and Yksin, I was beginning to feel pretty lonely in my views. I found a link Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (→A cure for vandalism) where they have had on-going complaints about the vandalism but claim my idea can NEVER be implemented because it is against their Wiki constitution. They say the vandal problem is not a major one and easy to fix, but only by us editors. They are concerned that vandalism will be harder to locate if they make everyone log-on. Well at least it would not be found on every article, at every hour of the day!

I see that they finally put a lock on this article. I hope they have enough locks. I cut down my activity and my watches to a chosen few due to family ties. Wikipedia is making money but we editors are all voluntary. Until I get paid, or they change the policy so the volunteer work is made much easier, I am not busting my booty for them. With human nature the way it is the problem will only get worse. Soapy 15:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Blame Canada

The Government of Canada Just invaded Alaska!!!

-therefor i changed the page accordingly —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.71.75 (talk • contribs).

speaking of vandals... fixed. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article is on semi-protection for a week (March 22 to March 29), which keeps it from being edited by anonymous editors & newly registered for the next few days -- it will at least give those of use who have been doing reverting all the vandalism the past few days a break for awhile.--Yksin 01:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:TWINKLE anti-vandalism tool

Our semi-protection period has ended, so far so good. Meanwhile, I followed Soapy to the discussion he started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (→A cure for vandalism), and from there to m:Foundation issues and the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (perennial proposals)#Abolish anonymous users -- seems like the whole thing about disallowing anonymous IP edits is pretty much a lost cause, based (as Soapy says) primarily on the argument "it's always been done this way from the very origins of Wikipedia, so we're always gonna do it this way no matter how many people know it would be better to do it some other way."

But -- one contributer to discussion there mentioned an anti-vandalism tool which I looked into, & am now using. I notice some other people who are watching over this article have also been using it. Highly recommended: go to WP:TWINKLE. Twinkle greatly streamlines the process of reverting, warning, etc. vandals, makes it go pretty fast. I've checked out some of the other anti-vandalism scripts out there too, but a lot of bugs, lack of features, etc. -- Twinkle seems to one of the best. It would be nice if there was more documentation of its options for those of us who, like me, don't know Java, but I'm figuring my way through it; I'll be glad to help out anyone else who wants to give it a try but is confused about how it works/what it does. --Yksin 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Salmon enhancement?

"Bear Lake, near Seward on the Kenai Peninsula, has been the site of salmon enhancement activities since 1962." What is salmon enhancement? Totnesmartin 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

if you want an answer round here, google it yourself... Totnesmartin 23:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought this site is supposed to answer questions, not create new ones and leave them unanswered...

It is usually like a fish hatchery or other conservation effort —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.240.4 (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

natural male salmon enhancement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 12:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Photos

This article on Alaska needs more photos of the countryside. I came here to see what Alaska looked like and was rather disappointed. Perhaps someone with more free time than myself could add some pictures. --Airwalk451 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support more photos, but am unable to upload them. A state like Alaska should have numerous images in wikipedia, instead, it's at the bottom of the list in terms of state articles with photos.DMCer 09:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I just added more photos, and would be very happy to add more (I have a vast library of Alaska photos). How many would be appropriate? (And I don't know how to do the gallery thing, which seems like a way to add more photos without overloading the website) AlaskaTrekker 18:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.191.173 (talk) 12:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

wealthy?

wealthiest and racially diverse? i dont know about that. what do you have, white men and eskimos? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.142.83.66 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

The statement probably should move down the page, and could use a little clarification. Still, Alaska does have a higher-than-average per capita income, and the Native community is significant in both number and social presence. Speaking of which, they're not all Eskimos. That's like calling all Hispanic people "Mexican"; it ignores a broad range of related-but-different cultures. -- A. 20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I would really like to see this claim go. If you look at the website citing this, it claims that Alaska is the wealthiest and most diverse (as opposed to being one of the most wealthy and diverse as the wikipedia article says). I doubt the diversity claim, and know that the wealthiest one is false outright. New Jersey has the highest average income at something like $60k. Also, the site linked is just a promo for cruises and hardly a credible or relevant source for wealth/diversity rankings. If no one objects, I'll remove the claim.--N Vale 04:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The source is not even a tiny bit credible, frankly I'm surprised that ended up in the article. I'm busy with schoolwork right now, but when I have time I'll go over some actual census data and see if I can't settle this once and for all. L'Aquatique ^talk^to^me 05:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, what does "most diverse" even mean? If it means lowest proportion of majority, maybe AK has a claim - I don't even know. But "most diverse" should mean that the greatest variety of groups is represented. I seriously doubt that AK comes remotely close to California or New York in this regard. I doubt that all of AK is as diverse as the city of San Francisco. 76.200.151.191 (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

bought?

i thought it was a 99 year lease, correct me if i'm wrong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.84.57 (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

You're wrong

BOUGHT?

Exactly. I believe the same thing had happened: Russian tsarina leased Alaska to United States for the period of 100 or 99 years - a deal similar to British lease of Hong Kong from China. Due to October Revolution in 1917 in Russia, declaration of all laws and contracts made by tsarist regime void by the Bolsheviks, foreign intervention that followed, Russia has never been able to reclaim Alaska. Hope someone can shed some light on the issue from historical and legal stand point.

Well, even if the Bolshevik denunciation of all laws and contracts made by the tsarist regime were recognized and valid (see item imediately below), then that would also apply to the laws and contracts establishing the Russian America Company and its license to trade and whatever form of ownership was claimed by the Tsar over Alaska (the technicalities of which are a very good question; was imperial title implicit in the RAC's trade monopoly and imperial assertions?). In short, the Tsarist actions to extend empire to Alaska and California (yes, California) also were laws and contracts that the Bolsheviks should have repudiated, if they didn't; likewise the accessions of Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kazakhstan, Checnya et al. All tsarist laws and contracts of one kind or another; and the RAC was all about contracts with the imperial regime, just as the HBC was with the British Empire; so what was the nature of Russian title/claim over Alaska, in legal technicalities (i.e. the Tsarist proclamations establishing Russian dominion in North America)?Skookum1 22:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, the Chinese regime invokes Qing rule of Tibet and Eastern Turkestan and Manchuria, but repudiates other Qing constitutionalities; but in those cases they have rule-on-the-ground to back them up. The Russians never established a major military or settlement presence in Russian America, just a series of trading posts and communities built around them, and while there's a lasting Russian ethnic legacy among Alaskans, particularly native peoples, it was never "a part of Russia" or "one of the Russias". In wanting to inherit the mantle ot tsarist empire while disavowing responsiblity for tsarist laws and contracts, post-imperial Russia is not alone....Skookum1 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

03/18/2007: I checked: the Library of Congress has the copy of the agreement. Nothing there about the lease. Just cession. Ratified by both chambers of Congress and the Tsar Alexander II. [Sale of Alaska in Library of Congress]

Exactly if you check both the English language documents and the Russian language documents it is clearly a cession, not a lease. Imperial Russia could not defend the land against the British, and additional currency was necessary at the time for something that was proving to be a less then marginal venture. By transferring the land to the US (which was in a better position to deal with it) It eliminated a liability while at the same time giving the US more leverage against Canada and thus the British. If you don't trust the American documents, the Russian readers should do some digging on the internet and find the Russian copy in which the language is still quite clear.

Russia was in financial difficulty and sold Alaska to the United States. Even though that is mentioned in the separate Alaskan Purchase article, it has no mention here but just says Secretary of State Seward engineered it. It makes it seem like Russia wanted to give it up like they did not hold any interest which is simply not the case. Heresmyworld 23:11, 13 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.179.31 (talk)

Lisa's Background

I'm not a huge Lisa Murkowski fan, but I read the article as suggesting that Frank's appointment of Lisa to the Senate was pure nepotism. Had she stayed in the State House, she would have been State Speaker for the 2003-2004 session, so I think she would have been a finalist anyway. I did a little modification that I think is more neutral. -- A. 20:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairbanks Population

Why is Fairbank's metropolitan population projection listed in the Alaska city's list, but all other city's municipal boundary populations are listed? --Criticalthinker 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Population Density

The article says: "Alaska is the least densely populated at 2.849 people per square kilometer (1.1 per square mile)" How can it be more per square kilometer than square mile? Are these figures swapped?

In all likelihood, yes. Last I knew, we weren't up to 2 people/sq mi yet. I'll check that out. -- A. 21:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The data about population density in Alaska is quite conflictuos between wikipedia articles. In the begining of the article it is 0.42 person per square kilometer and in the middle says 0.2849 person for the same area. The list of "U.S. states by population" says it is 0.42 also. This figure (0.42p/km^2) seams the more likely to be correct as it is 1.1 divided by 1.6^2. -- G. 8:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like some of the confusion comes from conversion factors that aren't very precise. 1 square mile = 0.3861 square km. 137.229.32.105 (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No climate?

I'm replacing an abusive message about our lack of a section on climate with this statement that, hey, maybe it would be good for us to have one. (But abusive messages about it aren't necessary.) --Yksin 22:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

update: Of course, we did have a section on climate, but it had no section of its own (it was part of "Geography"). So I just created a subject header for Climate so that it can be more easily found -- even perhaps by people such as the one who left the aforementioned piece of abuse. --Yksin 22:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Richardson Highway - Emergency Runway

Does anyone have a source for the following claim: "It is interesting to note that Alaska has the longest runway in the world, as the entire length of the Richardson Highway is designated an emergency landing strip." I haven't been able to find any other reference to this. Uniuniunium 02:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

We have Americans in Alaska? Shocker!

In the Demographics section, it lists 'American (5.7%)' as a ethnic group. As an Alaskan, I find this somewhat offensive. Is this article implying that only six percent of the people in Alaska are American? 189.12.207.230 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ancestry data is self-reported to the census in a fill-in-the-blank form. Instead of saying they have German/Irish/whatever roots, some people just supply "American." I guess 5.7% of people in Alaska did that. More info is at Maps of American ancestries. Calliopejen1 22:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm Alaskan and I certainly don't consider myself American. The cheeseburglar 05:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

After traveling to Alaska from New Jersey, I can see you people are so far removed and isolated that you don't know how good you have it. Regardless, Alaska is American.

Permanent Fund?

I noticed that the main article doesn't mention the Alaska Permanent Fund. This is something that many people commonly associate with Alaska. Perhaps it deserves to be mentioned in the Economy section? The cheeseburglar 05:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that permanent Fund needs to be mentioned in the articles. Regarding your last question, I think Alaska Permanent Fund belongs to Economic section. Daniel 5127 05:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Japanese invasion of Alaska

I think the article should at least get a short mention of the Japanese invasion and attack of Dutch Harbor and the Aleutian islands.

68.49.1.207 16:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind. But you should at least mentiont that it was Japan.

68.49.1.207 16:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You have a good point; it should be mentioned. Alaska was not a state when the invasion occurred, and other US territory was also invaded and occupied (Guam and Wake Island). The present text (which states that the islands "were the only part of the United States to have land occupied by the enemy during the war") could use some clarification. Kablammo 17:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Now corrected.Kablammo 12:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

religion section

I've searched and searched and can't find a source for the religious data anywhere. It was added about two years ago by an anon (diff), and I left a message on the anon's page asking if they remembered where it came from. The biggest survey of American religious beliefs (the ARIS) did not include Alaska so I have no idea what these numbers are. For now, I'm replacing it with data from an NBC exit poll. This may not be entirely representative of the state's population, but at least we know it's not made up out of thin air. Calliopejen1 04:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Sound good :) -Icewedge 02:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is another source.[2] It appears to be based upon self-reporting by congregations and therefore is likely inaccurate, due to differences in counting methodology, ommission of those who attend but do not join, continued inclusion of those who have left but do not resign, etc. Kablammo 14:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate section

There is very nice penguins and polar bears there. A lot of people like to visit there because although it is cold, it is beautiful. Why on earth isn't there a climate section?! The main reason I came to this entry was I wanted to see how cold it got at different times of the year, how much and how many days it rain or snows, etc.

I'm not sure if this was there when you posted this but there is a climate section; Alaska#Climate. -Icewedge 07:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no penguins in alaska, only polar bears. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk42 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cool map

File:800px-Alaska overlaid on lower 48.gif

I came across this cool map. Anyone think it's worth adding to the article? -Ravedave 02:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the misspelled word has been corrected in the replacement version at the right, it might be. Kablammo 20:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Organization

Some section headings were recently removed, which left some content orphaned under inapplicable section headings. I restored the previous version, then made some changes. Contributors may want to look at the organization of the two state Featured Articles, Minnesota and Oklahoma The formats adopted there need not be followed here, but they can provide ideas. And given the list of larger and smaller communities in the template at the foot of the page, is a textual list necessary? Could it be deleted, and should a textual Cities and towns section then be moved to Demographics, where it seems to fit? Kablammo 20:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I think the most recent semi-protection, to 8 Oct is far too long. OK, there's a bit of vandalism, but in the overall scheme of things, not that much. 86.31.101.59 16:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, we were running at about 35% vandalism. -Icewedge 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked/banned editors

Blocked IP 75.83.171.237 previously was used to post to the Alaska article page.[3] Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP indefinitely blocked Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See User Talk. NielsMayer and Nielsp have been blocked indefinitely as sockpuppets of Scrotel. See SSP report. If you are aware of any attempts to circumvent these bans/blocks, please consider making a report at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. -- Jreferee t/c 18:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

USA cedes land to russia

Why is there no mention of the recent ceeding of 8 alaskan islands to russia? does anyone know where i can get more information about this, why is it not mentioned in the article?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.188.16 (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh?? 98.221.133.96 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving

Threads which started before 2007-01-01 are now archived at Talk:Alaska/Archive_1. Discussion on some of those threads continued into this year (although none since September, I think); if anyone would prefer to return a still-active section to this page it can be deleted there and re-added here. Kablammo (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article?

I don't have much experience in this area but it seems like this article mets the WP:GA criteria. Does any one else agree? -Icewedge (talk) 06:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead and nom it. Even if it doesn't make the cut (I think it will) we'll have a better idea of how to improve it. l'aqùatique ^talk 08:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I will go do that. -Icewedge (talk) 07:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Not all of the listed religions are Christian, so please don't group them all together in one lump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeantkitty (talk • contribs) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Alaska Independence Party

Even with a source, the statement that the party has been labelled "the most significant state-level third parties operating in the 20th century" brings a highly opinion based character to the article. Additionally, I question whether a total party membership of somewhat over 13,000 people is indicative of a "strong" independence movement. I recommend that the language in this section be toned down. Discuss. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree (there were other third-party movements which elected state officials and the statement, being an expression of opinion, is not really subject to verfication), the assertion is only that it is one of the most significant. (The cited authority cannot be accessed now; it may be too busy.) The statement does not really add much in any event. Kablammo (talk) 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Marijuana is still illegal in Alaska

I just thouht I would point this out, this is from the page["]On November 2, 2004, voters in Alaska rejected Measure 2 by 44-56 percent. Measure 2 would prompt the state legislature to tax and regulate marijuana, and would have removed criminal penalties for marijuana use by adults aged 21 and older.[9]", so I promise you, unless that source lied, Marijuana is still illegal there. thanks. Iamanadam (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, state courts have consistently ruled that possession of small amounts of marijuana for personal use is protected under the Alaska constitution's privacy clause. The vote back in 2004 has nothing to do with this. Visithouse (talk) 10:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Quick-failed Good Article nomination

Per the GA quick-fail criteria, any article with cleanup or expansion banners (like the one in Culture) and/or large numbers of {{fact}} tags (I count at least four, which wouldn't alone be a quick fail reason) must be failed immediately and does not require a detailed review. Please remedy the issues brought up by such tags/banners and remove them before choosing to renominate. I can also tell you that currently the article is extremely lacking in terms of in-line citations. Entire multi-paragraph sections are without a single citation. The GA criteria specifically requires that a candidate

at minimum, provides 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, and contentious material relating to living persons

Thank you for your work so far. Please consider reviewing a GA candidate, as we are currently enduring a backlog of nominations. If you have additional questions, feel free to contact me. If you feel this review has been in error, you may seek a reassessment. Thank you again, VanTucky 02:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

the Map

The map on this article is incorrect. It gives the impression that Alaska is independant & that Canada & the rest of the USA are one country. Would somebody fix it please. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added the standard map, that's being used for all the states in the USA. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

the other map

Just dropped by, don't cruise this article all that much, but noticed that your public lands map shows not public lands in Alaska but public lands in the western continental US, i.e. Wyoming, Utah etc. Seems like you should have one for Alaska, no?Skookum1 (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Transportation - Other Transportation

In the Other transportation section, the wording needs to be worked on, it gets kinda jumbled when talking about the differences with the Iditarod Sled Dog Race and the 1925 Serum Run.

Someone has put in there that the Iditarod had nothing to do with the 1925 Serum Run, which is better stated in the article about the Iditarod. More likely we should just list examples of dog mushing, something like

The Iditarod sled dog race which goes from Anchorage to Nome, The Serum Run 25 from Nenana to Nome, the Yukon Quest from Whitehorse, Yukon to Fairbanks, Alaska.... etc.

This way we can maintain a more neutral tone and still get information to people about Alaska.

I'm open to suggestions and would like some feedback so we can get something good up here rather than just having someone come in and change it and have it be mediocre. Brynath (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Juneau -> Anchorage

Somebody (12:21, 25 July 2008 98.223.100.216) has been replacing plenty of occurrences of Juneau with Anchorage. There seems to have been a number of edits afterwards, so I'm not sure about the easiest way to revert things. Someone better versed in the tools of Wikipedia might be able to fix things easier than me doing it all manually. If that sounds like you, please help /Coffeeshivers (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the diff showing, among other changes, what remains of the Juneau to Anchorage edit, if someone wants to manually change these. I'm a bit busy at the moment, so I'll check back tonight or Saturday and do it if it hasn't been done by then. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I think I took care of it. Looking at the diff I showed above, the only difference other than the vandalism was the removal of a misplaced statement, so I just reverted as usual and manually removed the other sentence in the Religion section about it once being owned by Russians. In other words, I think we're good now. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 19:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Owned By...

Most people say that Canada sold Alaska for $1, but Wikipedia says it was sold by the Russians. Which is right? Who owned it? 76.68.106.120 (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean "most Canadians say" don't ya.

It was purchased from Russia, here is a site that tells all about it, including a copy of the original treaty. I've never heard of the Canada thing. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, when the U.S. purchased Russia's interests in Alaska: at the time Russia was the major non-indigenous power in the region, and Great Britain, the United States, and other countries has "minor" interests in Alaska at the time, see:

In 1825 Russia and Britain signed a treaty to define the borders of their respective colonial possessions. Part of the wording of the treaty was that:

"...the said line shall ascend to the north along the channel called Portland Channel as far as the point of the continent where it strikes the 56th degree of north latitude; from this last-mentioned point, the line of demarcation shall follow the summit of the mountains situated parallel to the coast as far as the point of intersection of the 141st degree of west longitude."

The rather vague phrase "the mountains parallel to the coast" was further qualified thus:

"Whenever the summit of the mountains shall be at a distance of more than ten marine leagues from the ocean, the limit shall be formed by a line parallel to the winding of the coast, and which shall never exceed the distance of ten marine leagues therefrom."

I highly doubt that $1 was ever exchanged between the U.S. and Canada with regard to the Alaska International boundaries. The history and situation is a little complicated. Mostly in South East Alaska (the Panhandle) Great Britain (Canada was a British Dominion at the time), the United States, Russia, and several other countries all had interests, as well as all the indigenous peoples! In particular, the "vague" language of the treaty where Russia sold their interests in Alaska to the United States (above) was one of the causes of later disputes. The border is currently determined by the International Boundary Commission. LeheckaG (talk) 05:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Census data

A lot of the census data, which is in the other states and must have been here once, is missing. It contained data on age distribution and wealth and poverty per capita. Student7 (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

State Government

Does anyone know the line of succession if the Governor and Lt. Governor should abandon their offices? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.152.238 (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To be. Or not

It is usually an advantage to use past tense for nearly everything. It is less confusing since the data is usually more than a few days old and sometimes years old. It is less provoking to say, "city x voted all Democrat in 2006" than to say "city x IS all Democrat." It is also more accurate. We have no idea what the electorate is planning today. Even with polls. I've tried to change this for political stuff. But a lot of the other stuff, less annoying, still needs to be changed to past tense because the data on which it is based is old. Student7 (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Can "oil reserves" increase by a billion barrels a year???

The caption under one chart reads:

"Alaska oil reserves peaked in 1978 and have declined 60% since then"

and the chart begins in 1977 and shows the first year's increase to be about a billion barrels.

Does this make sense? I think it is saying that the completion of the Oil Pipeline made more barrels "available" for use. To me, it's actually not clear what it means.

In any case is "reserves" the right word to use for the oil that in some sense "increased" ???

The oil that is underground took hundreds of thousands of years to form, and somehow it seems unlikely that this oil would in any sense increase by a billion barrels in one year.Daqu (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In the oil industry, the word reserves has a clearly defined meaning. Reserves must satisfy four criteria - they must be:

discovered through one or more exploratory wells
recoverable using existing technology
commercially viable
remaining in the ground

It's all about drilling and has nothing to do with pipelines, although once you pump oil out of the ground and put in in a pipeline, it's no longer reserves, its production.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of technical issues with "reserves".

1) In that, "Yes": "known reserves" can actually increase if a new reserve is "discovered" or if it is realized than an "old" reserve is larger than it was previously estimated.
2) Extractable reserves can similarly increase. At any point in time what can be extracted is limited by both the available technologies as well as the expenses of extracting it out of the ground. So as time goes on, more/newer technologies are available, and as the market price of crude oil generally increases so does the economic viability of obtaining reserves which are more expensive to extract. So when crude oil prices dipped down to $10 to $20 per 55 gallon barrel due to an economic recession in the late 90s during the Clinton administration (largely caused by both financial and natural disasters in South-Eastern Asia) many reserves were not economically viable. Whereas with much higher demand and $100 per barrel prices - many more reserves can be economically extracted. LeheckaG (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Between 1977 and 1978 they found a billion barrels of oil in Alaska - and after that it was all down hill. In 1978, reserves peaked and started to decline as the oil they had already found was produced at a very rapid rate following completion of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. Since then the amount of oil that is known to be left in the ground in Alaska has declined by 60%. There may be more oil there (there's bound to be some), but until they find it, it's not reserves, and if they don't drill wells they won't find it. And, frankly, the chances of finding a discovery the size of the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field range from slim to none, and Slim left Alaska a while ago.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

this page should be locked,

check the recent vandalism I fixed, a lot of people are spamming this page due to Sarah Palin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srinivas666 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is this locked? I hate to be picky but shouldn't you also be protecting Panama(McCain), Arizona(McCain), Hawaii(Obama) and Illinois(Obama)? And then Pennsylvania(Biden) and Delaware(Biden)? Vandalism sucks but I think locking the page of a politician's home state is a little bit overboard and a lot paranoid. If you're going to keep it locked I say MAYBE leave it that way for 48-72 hours tops, not October 4th(not sure I get the reasoning for that date, either--election is November 4th). The vandals will get bored. As it stands, the lock is a little bit excessive in the context of actions taken with other candidates, and potentially prohibits a lot of constructive editing. Do you also realize that Palin's name only appears TWICE in this entire article? 68.12.110.233 (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism sucks, yeah, and it isn't always logical. For whatever reason Palin is been the subject of a lot more vandalism and it's happening here. Sorry.

If you have a specific edit you would like to make, I'd be happy to make it for you. L'Aquatique[approves|this|message] 02:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The only way to protect against vandals. Would rather see it kept locked until after the election. Yes, Arizona, Delaware, etc. should probably be locked as well, though I am not following those articles. Hate to see a large state locked like Illinois, but they may have to.Student7 (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I just looked at the history and realized that this article has been subject to a lot of vandalism in the past--something I did not notice when I made that original note. I don't have specific edits but it's really frustrating that there seems no real convention or standard for article protections. Good judgment of administrators is all well and good... and I don't think anyone calls into question the judgment of protecting an article against vandalism... but that's not a replacement for site-wide consistency. It would be nice if there were more of a standard from article to article for reasoning and length for protection. I am just for consistency and fair treatment. I think if you do one candidate's home state, you should do the others... or do none at all and treat each occurrence of vandalism on a case-by-case basis. I hope that makes sense. I am not specifically questioning judgment, just the bigger picture. :) 68.12.110.233 (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

alaskan notibles not mentioned

NFL hall of famer and espn analyist Marc Schlereth was not added in alaskan notibles, as well as winter Olympic medalist. Skiers Tommy Moe and hillary Lihnd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedball (talk • contribs) 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It was alright

It was ok but i think it should say places that people would most likely go to. It should have like things about the place and what is the average temperature.

Please make my changes to it or tell me the answers to the things i want you to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.21.235.9 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Friday Earthquake

The brief description of the Good Friday Earthquake states:

In 1964, the massive "Good Friday Earthquake" killed 131 people and 
destroyed several villages, often by tsunami [emphasis mine].

I would point out that "often" implies some sort of ongoing activity. This might be better expresses as, "..., many by the resulting tsunami," or something to that effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.53.116 (talk) 14:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction: This article says: It was the second most powerful earthquake in the recorded history of the world, measured at 9.2 on the Richter scale. But the Wikipedia article on the "Good Friday Earthquake" says it was the 3rd most powerful, and only measured an 8.4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.89.78.231 (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the confusion on the 9.2 is because that is the magnitude on the moment magnitude scale, which has largely superseded the Richter scale, despite it's continued use in the press. The second or third most powerful claim is trickier, as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake has been estimated to be either 9.1 or 9.3. I've changed the text to reflect both of these concerns. --skew-t (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations needed?

Juneau has no road to it. We need a citation for that? Seriously?! Fine. For those who don't have time to read, this is the website of the Juneau Access Project, which proposes to extend the road at Auke Bay. From that same website, this map shows the roads marked in red.

Second citation: you have a map that shows this information in this article. It is not a controversial statement and can be confirmed by consulting any atlas. The citation tag should be removed.

Third citation: here's a link for the size of Alaska here's a link for the area comparisons

Fourth citation: US Census data.

Fifth, sixth, and seventh citations: can be partially answered by census data, also see this link

Eighth citation: things live in Alaska. It's wet in Southcentral Alaska. Image provided for the reading impaired

Ninth citation: tag should be removed, information is general knowledge, to be found on any atlas.

Tenth citation: Barrow is located on Point Barrow, which is the northernmost point in North America. Again, this information is obvious if one consults a map.

That is unfortunately all I have time for tonight, but some jackass has gone way, way overboard with these citation tags. Almost all of them have been summarily appended to the end of a paragraph, with no indication of which fact in that paragraph is intended to verified. 10:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC) User:Tenebrous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.237.177.64 (talk)

Natural Resources

Hello people, we need to do a section on Alaska's natural resources! I would do one myself, but I'm afraid of misrepresenting the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandog77 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

A Couple of oddities

Hi all

Just been reading this and there are 2 things that I've noticed that are very odd:

It says Alaska was purchased for $7.2m in 1867 which works out to $111m in today's dollars. This is complete nonsense, it would work out to $464m if you assumed an average inflation of 3%, which is modest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.197.106 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

In one study of BC history I read, a 40:1 ratio was cited for the dollar value in 1860 vs contemporary values/purchasing power. When you see $1/lb of flour at Boston Bar in 1858 or, as famously at Dawson at the onset of the rush, a $4 apple, take another breath and realize that's the equivalent of $40/lb flour and a $160 apple.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, it states that, Alaska has more than 3 million lakes. This seems a little high, I know its got a lot of lakes but 3 million!? This would mean each lake has an average size of 0.67km² —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.197.106 (talk) 00:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The inflation number is a calculation from Template:Inflation, which uses the consumer price index. Unless there is some error in the syntax, you might want to comment on the talk page of the template if you think the numbers are off. The lake number cites two sources, including the state government's hydrologic survey. --skew-t (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

"Lakes and ponds" might be a better wording, though it's not in the sources as I'm not sure hydrology makes a distinction. By comparison the Canadian Shield, from what I remember, has twenty million lakes, or maybe that's only just the Northwest Territories. Certain districts within BC, whether mountains or plateaus, have tens of thousands within even a 50-mile radius. Some may only be 1/10 ha. or less but they're still defined as "lakes".Skookum1 (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no internationally accepted definition of lake, so in glaciated terrain, where the glaciers gouged out the landscape and created a lot of small bodies of water, you can argue that you have an awful lot of lakes. Alternatively, you can call them kettle holes and tarns.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Even so, they're still just lakes. And some tarns (and kettles) can be pretty darned large - particularly in places like the Coast Mountains. I wonder - are Moraine Lake and Lake Louise technically tarns?Skookum1 (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also worth noting that in German, lakes are generally "seas" (See), as in Bodensee/Lake Constance.Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Unlike for lake, there is a generally accepted definition for tarn: "A small mountain lake, especially one formed by glaciers." I don't think that Moraine Lake or Lake Louise could be characterized as "small". European definitions put the upper limit somewhere between 2 hectares (5 acres) and 8 hectares (20 acres).RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Movies filmed in Alaska

On Deadly Ground starring Steven Segal, Michael Cain and others was filmed in Valdez and at Worthington Glacier State Park. The opening scene of Transformers was filmed in the Prince William Sound near Columbia Glacier. Parts of Star Trek VI were filmed somewhere in Alaska. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.161.164.210 (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

religion (keeping of the sabbath)

It is noted in Religion section that Jews have "special problems" keeping the sabbath-- with an interesting link. But then why not Christians or Muslims who must also keep a sabbath? I am not qualified to answer it but what solutions have they arrived at?

SimonTrew (talk) 04:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is less of an issue due to different restrictions and requirements around the sabbath and other observances in different religions. Judaism has specific rules pertaining sunset/sunrise times. Most Christian denominations do not follow these same practices. I am unaware of such requirements in Islam, though I know it can make the timing of daily prayer more difficult. --skew-t (talk) 09:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Purchase from the Russian Empire

2 remarks.
1. This issue takes most of the article opening (the part before the Table of contents).
2. It does NOT appear on the TOC. Actually, that's where I looked first.
Would you agree the beginning of the article can be made shorter, and maybe add the appropriate section to the TOC? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree the purchase seems to take up far too much room in the intro section, and this information should likely be moved elsewhere. On the second point, while the purchase itself does not appear in the table of contents, History does, which is where I'd look for information on the event which occurred more the one hundred years ago. It is covered in more detail in the articles History of Alaska and Alaska Purchase, both of which are linked to from the history section. --skew-t (talk) 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Location map

Could we please have a discussion before changing the map which locates Alaska in relationship to the rest of the country/world? I just reverted a second map version offered by 217.136.124.190, which appeared rather ugly to me (but at least showed Alaska in relationship in its proper relationship to the rest of the country, unlike the first version offered which put us down by Baja California) -- but it would be good to have some discussion before changing the map. The map currently in use has been in this article for a long time. See the alternative offered by 217.136.124.190 here. --Yksin

-- I feel that the current map is not only ugly, but a little too small. It should be changed to a more suitable one. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.2.137.247 (talk) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I came here in seek for a map of Alaska, there's not a detailed map here... I would suggest adding a map of Alaska to this article. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.25.46.142 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

crime rate

I think there should be a lot more regarding the crime rate here in the AK. A few lines are all that I see currently, and it is a huge issue. Just my input. 66.58.182.117 (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I just got done testifying on a gay rights ordinance here and one of the most salient points made was that, while our opponents are getting very up in arms about what might happen to the city's crime if the bill were passed (a lot of jingoism directed at homosexuals regarding pedophilia; ironic, no?), the real problem, which the ABT nonsense largely detracts from (reality has a well-known liberal bias), is that we're already #1 in a lot of things we oughtn't, like suicide, binge drinking, and rape. I don't want to foster unnecessary negativity toward my homestate, but it's a problem that is exacerbated mainly by apathy and ignorance. this raven is icy (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of the intro

I'm puzzled by the inclusion of a long second paragraph -- on the American-Russian telegraph -- that I think belongs under the History heading. In its present form, its depth of detail makes it IMHO inappropriate for an intro section. (My apologies if this has been remarked upon elsewhere). Davis39 (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's also fairly confusing; it doesn't make sense until the end. 72.75.86.126 (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the two paragraphs on the telegraph line. I agree that it is too much detail for the intro, but it also seems to build to speculation about why the territory was sold to the United States; these theories are not supported by the articles on the telegraph and the purchase. --skew-t (talk) 08:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Name of the state

The name "Alaska" comes from a native Alaskan language, not Russian - why is the Russian name/translation included in the first sentence, but not information as to its origin? I'll look for the proper information, though I'm not sure whether or not to actually retain the Russian; despite our state history and demographics, it seems very out of place. this raven is icy (talk) 01:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Farming in Delta Junction

I question the growing of corn in Delta Junction or anywhere else in Alaska except in the occasional greenhouse. Also, I would specify "barley" instead of "cereal." Not sure about lettuce. I live a couple of hundred miles south of Delta and we have only moderate success with corn in a greenhouse. We go to Delta to buy barley for our cows. The Wiki article on Delta Junction doesn't mention corn or lettuce, but does include barley, potatoes, carrots, "and even wheat." And don't forget to include HAY. That's grown commercially all the way from Palmer to Chitina on the Glenn Hwy. and up the Richardson to Delta. Yopienso (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

At the moment I don't think it implies that corn or lettuce are grown in Delta, but that they are among the primary crops for Alaska farms as a whole. The corn claim may or may not be true (it was there before my edits), and could just be removed pending a citation. I went with cereals to include wheat as well as barley, but if it is overwhelmingly barley that would probably be preferable to state.

The Alaska Grown issue is interesting. Do you know if there have been any more developments? --skew-t (talk) 01:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see those crops are state-wide. I went ahead and deleted "corn" after looking it up to verify what I already knew. This could be useful if more sourcing is needed. http://www.alaskapestmanagement.com/mixed_vegetables.html

Alaska-Grown is a pretty big deal. You can find quite a bit by googling "alaska-grown campaign" or "alaska-grown larry devilbiss". Larry is an old friend of my husband's who was instrumental in registering the logo with the state. I think we stick it on the potatoes we sell in a local grocery store. What we personally grow here after acres of brome hay is potatoes, carrots, beets, various crucifers, and rhubarb. Pretty typical. Yopienso (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Peninsula

The name "Alaska" was already introduced in the Russian colonial time, when it was used only for the peninsula

Which peninsula? Mainland Alaska as opposed to the Aleutian Islands? This is unclear. 72.75.86.126 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Alaska Peninsula (mainland is not a peninsula). Added as link in article. --skew-t (talk) 08:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Climate

Pahala is the southernmost point in the united states, not the coldest by any means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.47.146 (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pahala is the site of the warmest high temperature recorded in Hawaii, which is tied with the warmest high temperature recorded in Alaska (Ft. Yukon). --skew-t (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

No Sales Tax?

I know that Alaska has no official state sales tax, but we do still have sales taxes, just not everywhere. Alaska allows each municipality to charge a tax as they see fit. I know that Anchorage has no sales tax (I live there) but there are many municipalities that do, like Seward.

Here are some sites that help explain it:

[4]

[5]

I think it should be made clear that while there is no state sales tax, there are still sales taxes in many parts of the state. I can do some research and figure out exactly what municipalities impose a sales tax, and what the rate is if that would help.

-Emily --Aelyanariah (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is already mentioned in the article that many communities have a sales tax. From the section Taxes: "While Alaska has no state sales tax, 89 municipalities collect a local sales tax, from 1–7.5%, typically 3–5%." It would be excessive to list all 89 communities with such a sales tax in this article, though it might be good information to add to each of those communities' individual articles. The state assessor has a report on what the rates were in 2008[6]. --skew-t (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Correcting Enormous amount of open space in article

Can someone please correct all the extraordinary amount of open space in places in the article? Especially, at the very opening, it looks ridiculous! ... and is wasteful. I know Alaska is a land of wide open uninhabited space, but surely this is ludicrousLOL! ;) Thanks.(124.180.191.96 (talk) 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Alaskas Climate

ALaska's average high is 100 degrees farenhight It's average low is -80 degrees farenhight summers are rainy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.253.100 (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Religion Demographics

"After Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, the largest single denominations are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons/LDS) with 29,460, Southern Baptists with 22,959, and Orthodox with 20,000."

How can there be fewer Orthodox in Alaska than there are Orthodox in Alaska? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.182.106 (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable Residents

Can someone add the 2010 olympians Kikkan Randall and Callan Chythlook-Sifsof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.42.168.9 (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alaska sold to U.S. for $7.2 Million (worth of Gold)

Please correct.

You'll have to provide documentation for this. A photograph of the check is on the internet. However, the check may have been funded with a transfer of gold. If this was how most international transactions took place at the time, there would be nothing notable about it. Please do some footwork, and someone will be happy to help you with the editing. Also please note, Teignoo, that when posting on a talk page, editors are requested to sign by simply typing 4 tildes, the key on the upper left of most keyboards, in capital letter mode. Yopienso (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

there is, apparently, a popular myth in modern Russia that the ship carrying this alleged gold sank before it reached Russia, i.e. that they never got paid for Russian America (="want it back"). This has come up time and again on Alaska Purchase and its talkpage. If Russia never did get paid, none of the Tsars or their foreign ministers seem to have raised the issue any time between 1867 and 1917. And yes, international transactions were done by cheque; boatloads full of gold bullion were no more common then than they are now (today gold's just shipped around from cage to cage within giant vaults). Russia never lived up to its treaty with Britain over the lease of the southeast Panhandle, which they had gotten paid for but chose to ignore when giving that region to the US, but some in modern Russia want to tub-thump about allegedly lost gold when in fact it was a done deal with the ink fully dried; they also have a popluar mythology that Russian America inclucded settlements in BC, Washington and Oregon, which is complete bunk....Skookum1 (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 205.213.117.254, 6 May 2010

205.213.117.254 (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)alaska=Alaska

I assume your implication is that it was improperly capitalized somewhere, but I don't see any lowercase "alaska"s anywhere. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)