Talk:Barrow, Alaska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Trivia was wrong[edit]

Barrow has a "damp" law, not a "bone dry" law. I live here (Barrow), I know.

You have to refine the misconception from Flying Wild Alaska, Floyd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.34.11 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

There are two ongoing edit wars. The first is over the external links, and the second is over the tagging of the popular culture section. This is disruptive, and it looks to me as if there are ownership issues here. No one owns this article. And content disputes are, by definition, not vandalism, so please stop characterizing them as such.

Please discuss the changes rationally here before reverting any more, otherwise I would not be surprised to see this article receive full protection for edit waring, and rather soon. And then the article will be in a state unwanted by someone. — Becksguy (talk) 12:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Floyd, you and the other RL residents of Utqiaġvik , Alaska are going to have to resign yourself to the fact that several comic books and a movie have referred to the town. Clearly, no one is going to think Barrow is a place that Vampires vacation in - any more than people expect to see the Blues Brothers in my city of Chicago (or vampires for that matter, as per White Wolf Games' book, Chicago By Night. While it is understandable that you would take umbrage at the insinuation, your argument is with the writers of the comic and the makers of the film, not the editors who are adding it because of its notable usage outside of a Chamber of Commerce brochure. As the information is cited, please stop edit-warring the trivia tag in. You are incorrect to utilize it here, and the inherent conflict of interest should pretty much make it clear that you cannot speak neutrally to the statements. Leave it be. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
For many, the issue is not that there's a vampire novel set in Barrow, stuff happens, but the gross inaccuracies, like that once the sun goes down, the town plunges into pitch black darkness from mid-November until around Groundhog Day. The truth is, even without the sun, the twilight makes it almost like there's a small amount of sunlight. At least that's what I think the problems would be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.61.43 (talk) 07:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Mayor is not current[edit]

Need to update the mayor. Her name is not there. 198.123.56.217 (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction[edit]

"Beginning on around May 11 or 12 the sun remains above the horizon the entire day, there is a increasing amount of twilight each day, and on the summer solstice (around June 21 or June 22), civil twilight in Barrow lasts for more than 3 hours and the phenomenon known as the midnight sun is observed." -- How can there be any twilight in the summer if the sun is up all night long? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I see that this issue has (finally!) been resolved. I'm removing the contradiction tag. Thanks, whoever you are! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Barrow, Alaska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Barrow, Alaska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Move to change name of article to "Utqiagvik, Alaska" following newly approved ordinance[edit]

http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Barrow-voters-narrowly-approve-ordinance-to-rename-city-to-Utqiagvik-396998551.html

BARROW, Alaska (KTUU) - Voters in Barrow have narrowly approved an ordinance to rename the city Utqiaġvik, according to final results from the city clerk’s office.

Following this change, I believe the article should be re-titled and names adjusted throughout the article. Azotochtli (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Absolutely not – An article subject's common name trumps its official name every time, an issue the community seems to have trouble coming to grips with judging from the wildly inconsistent attitude I've seen exhibited towards that over the years. Recent past instances of eradicating English names in favor of indigenous names based merely on press releases, news stories or similar announcements with little or no discussion was bad enough. Please note that relevant policy/guidelines for this English-language encyclopedia cover common usage across the breadth of English-language sources, not just basing decisions on cherry-picking one particular source which may have been a trending topic on one particular day. If you're really concerned about indigenous languages, it would help to point out that ik.wiki, the Inupiat-language encyclopedia, has been in piss-poor shape for quite some time now. I'm not the one with the expertise to do something about it, and when I've brought it to the attention of those who may be able to help, have been met mostly with excuses and/or lip service. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 19:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

It should be changed. It IS the common name of the community, and has been for centuries. Barrow is far more recent, and the recent vote is reverting back to the common name for the community. The official name is the common name. People should respect the will of the community to call their community by its real name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naulagmi (talkcontribs) 05:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, you should really read WP:AT. Even glancing at it for a few seconds would tell you that this runs totally afoul of that policy. The policy covers recognition in sources, not recognition by a small subset of people particular to the article subject. Once again, an article subject's common name trumps its official name every time. As you can see by the redlink, we don't even have a redirect entitled Metlakatla Indian Community, let alone are considering calling Metlakatla, Alaska by that name. Secondly, the story in the source provided mentions a rather pertinent aspect near the very bottom. I realize that many folks these days lack the proper attention span and therefore may have missed it, so I'll repeat it here: "The ordinance is now on the desk of Lt. Governor Byron Mallott, who has 45 days to approve the name of Alaska’s northernmost city. Once that’s completed the city can begin the process of changing signage and maps to reflect the new name." This isn't even official yet, so there's also WP:CRYSTAL to take into account. I very much doubt that Mallott would reject this, but there's always that possibility. There's also the aspect of how far this will be recognized. 27 months ago, Anchorage Daily News was changed to Alaska Dispatch News almost immediately following the announcement of the pending name change, despite the fact that the name "Anchorage Daily News" had been in use since at least the 1950s. To this day, people still refer to the newspaper as the "Anchorage Daily News". If I go to the airport and see that Alaska Airlines has "Utqiaġvik" rather than "Barrow" listed on its arrivals / departures board, I may have reason to believe that this is being taken seriously by people other than local residents and perhaps also state government. The message we're sending with this is that we're not here to be an encyclopedic reflection so much as we're here to be a part of a social media strategy for article subjects, among other negative messages. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@VonWoland:@Kmoksy:In the interest of discussing this instead of engaging in move warring, would you please explain why you moved this while a move discussion was ongoing and no consensus had been reached, as can be seen above? Once again, please read WP:AT, which is the operative policy regarding this issue. Whenever I've said something in the past which others interpreted as applying IAR to established policy because I may not have necessarily agreed with that policy, I've been called on the carpet about it. I don't see how this is any different. Boldly moving the article like this reveals numerous problems. The biggest problem is that it suggests that our primary purpose is to blindly respond to yesterday's headlines and to provide a venue for advocacy on issues. If you bothered to look beyond the headline, you would have seen that this doesn't become official until December 1. That is mentioned in the very first sentence of the story. Are you assuming that this needs to be done now because people will have forgotten about it in another month? That's been the case in countless other instances where we reflect headlines and trending topics without regard to actual happenings when the two don't necessarily occur at the same time. Furthermore, like with any name change, it will take quite some time for it to sink in among the general public, as I mentioned above in the case of the ADN. The story indicated that the percentage of Iñupiat residing in the community exceeds the percentage by which the question passed by at least several percentage points. That says that no clear consensus exists in the real world, just as no clear consensus had been established here beforehand as is customarily expected. All this is important in terms of delineating the difference between an encyclopedia which is supposed to trade in facts and a news site which peddles headlines "while they're hot" and doesn't necessarily follow up to factual happenings at the appropriate time. Regardless of all that, WP:AT and specifically WP:COMMONNAME still applies whether the name change were to take effect immediately or in another month. I don't like repeating myself, but I suppose it's important to reiterate that common names trump official names every time. A clear indication of this topic's common name can be found in the simplest Google search:

  • Barrow, Alaska – 5,000,000 hits without quotes surrounding search string, 414,000 hits with quotes surrounding search string
  • Utqiagvik, Alaska – 10,200 hits without quotes surrounding search string, 648 hits with quotes surrounding search string
  • Utqiaġvik, Alaska – 5,230 without quotes surrounding search sting, 112 hits with quotes surrounding search string

Methinks you would have a better chance of walking to the North Pole from Barrow Utqiaġvik ? than you would in overcoming a chasm like that. This is all too reminiscent of past moves from English names to indigenous names merely based on announcements, press releases and the like without regard for official or common recognition or even common sense. The main difference here is that this article is a little higher profile than many others which have been moved in like fashion, so it needed a more thorough discussion first before any thoughts of moving occurred. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 20:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

alaKSaalaSKa ["Kmoksy moved page Utqiaġvik, Alaksa to Utqiaġvik, Alaska"] --Kmoksy (talk) 01:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Avoiding the point. You're still a party to something which lacks not only consensus, but really a leg to stand on, as I've already pointed out. Wikipedia:Other stuff exists doesn't explicitly mention page moves. However, the principle of that page still applies in that other folks have gotten away in the past with moving pages under the same reasoning with little to no discussion or consensus, which leads to a further lack of discussion or consensus in other cases because folks start to believe that this is the way things work. Part of being neutral and encyclopedic involves not caving in to the agendas of the article subject or those related to it, which can be summed up in one of the above rationales in favor of the move. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Change it back - you jumped the gun on this one. Legally it is still Barrow, so set it back ASAP. The name should not be changed again until after Governor Byron Mallott approves the name change. The state is the legal authority that approves the name of a city, and until the governor authorizes it, legally it is still Barrow. For American city names in Wikipedia, we are suppose to use the legal name in the format of "City, State" for the Wikipedia article name. The 3 main sources that should be used for name references is GNIS / IRS Census / US Post Office, but their databases will lag after a name changes. • SbmeirowTalk • 04:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep as Barrow. The city has been known as that since before there was a written Iñupiaq language. Activist (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

While the article itself should clearly be moved to Utqiagvik, someone was clearly overzealous in doing a find-replace in the article. Historical references to the city from 1850-2016 or so should still say "Barrow" IMO, at least if that was the word used at the time - it's weirdly bizarre to see, say, that an Agents of SHIELD episode released surely before the name change should say "Utqiagvik". (Unless they actually used that phrase for some reason.) SnowFire (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

It is now the official name of the community (as of December 1st), and statewide media is now referring the the community as Utqiagvik in their news articles. (Alaska Dispatch News, Alaska Public Media). Seems to be the common name now used in government, media and people of Utqiagvik themselves. Time to move wikipedia page to Utqiagvik? --Naulagmi (talk) 04:42, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved. I moved it to Utqiaġvik on Dec. 1 once the name change became official but someone reverted me. I explained the situation to them and gave them the chance to self-revert as a courtesy, but they have so far failed to do so. 28bytes (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@28bytes: If you could please wait a little longer, I would like to review the lengthy Denali name change discussions. Also I think we should have a requested move discussion as this issue seems very similar to the Bangalore/Bengaluru situation, where consensus remains to keep the old name, two years after the official change. — Sunnya343✈ (háblamemy work) 05:36, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, please review those, and let us know your thoughts. I think you will find the Denali situation more relevant, both culturally and geographically. Bangalore/Bengaluru really has little similarity other than "place with a Wikipedia naming dispute." 28bytes (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Change it. The current title has the unfortunate honor of being both racist and wrong. This is supposed to be an Encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.131.80 (talk) 07:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

See WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The only thing these shadowy advocates have going for them is that "Utqiaġvik" is favored in current media style guides and therefore a factor in gaming search results in favor. Still, numerous news stories since the change became official have not only shown no rigid consistency in the use of Utqiaġvik versus Barrow, but this discussion has conveniently avoided acknowledging the ongoing court case regarding the use of Utqiaġvik versus "Ukpeaġvik" (see here). I've seen no news that the case has been resolved. This follow-up story, the top story of a Sunday edition, affirms my earlier contention that there's an attempt to force consensus here on the encyclopedia where none exists in the real world. In practical terms, I'm around Iñupiat every day of my life (my last two housemates were Iñupiaq) and there is no traction for this whatsoever among the rank and file. Someone who performs music at the churches I attend talked about the name change very briefly to the congregation one Sunday. Apart from that, I don't hear anything but "Barrow". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Barrow, Alaska. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)