Talk:Sitka, Alaska

Alaska B‑class Top‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wondering how to edit this U.S. Borough Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Counties standards might help.

Requested move: 12/3/06

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move. Main article had already been moved to the present location, only the talk page remained. Closing this debate early, I believe this is an uncontroversial proposal. --Húsönd 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sitka City, Alaska → Sitka, Alaska —(Discuss)— Common way of reference —Jarfingle 23:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support — I support moving the page to Sitka, Alaska because that is the most common way of referring to it. Google agrees and, being a lifelong Sitka resident, that is how I hear Sitka referred to most as.

God no!! Don't put me in Sitka City! Somebody please fix it!

It should be either Sitka, Alaska with a section on the borough, or it should go back to City and Borough. 66.58.243.235 10:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title of the Pioneer Home

The state website is here. It says "Sitka Pioneer Home" -- it seems like we should go for that. I agree, Alaska Pioneer's Home is emblazoned but coloquial usage predominately goes by the "Pioneer Home." That, and the fact the state calls it a "pioneer home" should rule out "pioneer's" despite historical usage. I think "Alaska" should not be used because that is ambiguous (sp?) with the Alaska Pioneer Home System as there are five others in the state. And again, the state refers to this is the "Sitka Pioneer Home" not the "Alaska Pioneer Home."

Ferry service to Sitka

The article states that ferry service is spotty and minimal. I'm not sure I agree with this statement. I spent a several months in the area the last two summers, often near the ferry terminal in Starrigavan Bay. Ferrys frequently came in and out while I was there, and securité calls could often be heard from them as they went through Whitestone Narrows. Some quick searching on the official site says that there are only weekly sailings from Bellingham (vs. twice weekly to Ketchikan and Petersburg), but I don't think that is infrequent enough to warrant a label of spotty.Stubblyhead 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ferry Service

Here are some stats to consider:

Sitka gets 17 calls in the month of January '06[1] -- population: 8,800
Petersburg gets 34 calls in the month of January '06 -- population 3,200 (nearly two and a half times smaller that Sitka) although this can be argued as an anomaly
Ketchikan gets 30 calls in the month January '06 -- population 8,000 a town of comprable size

My argument is that a town that gets twice a little service as comprable and smaller-sized towns should be labeled as "spotty" especially considering the ferries are the primary mode of transportation for many Southeast Alaskans.

I'm not sure if this convinces you, but I think it's obvious at very least that we can note that Sitka has less service than other towns. Also keep in mind that service is all relative, so while you were at (I'm assuming) Starrigavan Campground and saw ferries coming every other day that may seem a lot but relatively it isn't. What are your thoughts?Jarfingle 02:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that Sitka gets less ferry traffic than other cities in the Southeast, but I still disagree with the use of the term spotty. Spotty would imply that service is irregular or of poor quality, and I wouldn't say the ferry service is either of those. From looking at the schedule for this summer, there appears to be regular runs both northbound and southbound, including some runs on the Fairweather. While I think it would be fair to say that it recieves less ferry traffic than other nearby communities, I wouldn't define it as either infrequent or irregular.Stubblyhead 20:40, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tlingit history

There's a huge amount of recorded and oral Tlingit history of Sitka. Someone should take some time to examine anthropological and historical records involving Stika, and list some of the more famous potlatches, interclan wars, etc. that occurred in Stika. More importantly, someone should add some of the Tlingit side of the story to the history about Sitka's early battles between the Russians and the Tlingit.

I would do a lot of this, but I never can find enough time. So I'm encouraging anyone with a historical or anthropological bent to look into this. — Jéioosh 22:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions of city and borough

Is it correct to say that the city-borough is located on the west side of Baranof Island when the city-borough also encompasses Baranof Island and part of Chichagof? Probably not. I'm not sure what the definitions of "city," "borough," and "city-borough" are, but someone who does might clear this up. It might be that the "city-borough" is being conflated with the "borough seat." Again, not sure. Dkreisst 13:00, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in the article List of Alaska borough seats, it states that the City and Borough of Sitka has no borough seat. Dkreisst 10:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Sitka both does and doesn't have a borough seat. It doesn't because it's "seat" is the Sitka City Gov., but that government also runs the borough, so it does, just not in the way other borough's do. Wrad 00:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a unified city-borough, the "city government" does not run the borough, because there is no independent city government: the former city government and the former borough government have been unified into a single government. The "City of Sitka" no longer exists as a legal entity. Refs at http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/government/ak_local.html.

Hence, the List of Alaska borough seats is correct about the City & Borough of Sitka not having a borough seat. I've removed the reference to such from this article, & the tag regarding the former contradiction. --Yksin 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

What are editors' opinions on maintaining a trivia section in this article? Dkreisst 07:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The policy of wikipedia is the following : Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections . Hektor 08:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts:
I think most all of the non-media/literature-related trivia can easily be put into the main body of the article.

Dana can support the history section.
most valuable fisheries port and largest harbor system can be put into a new economy section (badly needed).
largest incorp. city limits is already in the intro paragraph, and the "four times as large as Rhode Island" isn't that crucial.
Sitka written in cyrilic should be deleted.

Dkreisst 07:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of renaming Novoarkhangelsk to Sitka

I was wondering when it was decided to rename Novoarkhangelsk to Sitka, as I can't find a specific reference to it in the article. Was it when the Alaska Purchase came into effect or when general Jefferson C. Davis the Russians out of the settlement threw or at some other date? --Hardscarf (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to some sources the Americans persisted in calling Sitka before the handover was completed. Berry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.90.190 (talk) 14:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding renaming: right after the handover the first street that the Americans have renamed was the main street: Lincoln Street. But what was the name (if any) before I cannot find. Berry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.90.190 (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sitka in Books

I found one more book with large part of the story based in Sitka: 'The Great Alone' by Janet Dailey, Sphere Books Limited, London 1987 Berry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.49.90.190 (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finskoj Aljaskje / Finnish Alaska

It seems that nearly the whole population of Novoarhagelskij (renamed later Sitka) was of Finnish origin. Only few ethnic Russian lived there, but more than 500 Finns which were citizen of The Grand Duchy of Finland, then part of Imperial Russia. Also some Germans from Danzig, Balts from Courland and, according to their names, quite many Mordvians (Volga Finns). It was a real "Wild West" according to the Finnish preserved records, still available in Finnish archives. The Finnish men were quite popular in the eyes of the Indian women with a result that the descendants of such free sexual relationships spreaded from Sitka to Fort Ross in California and can be today (2008) accounted in thousands. Finnish language seems to have been the general language used and I think the main road was named Suomentie (Finland´s Road) if they followed the common practice of Finnish emigrants. There is lot of additional information also in Finnish Wikipedia, but unfortunately only in Finnish language. The Finns can be found in both church registers, the Protestant and Orthodox ones, and form the majority of the whole European population in Russian Alaska. As late as 1939 there were over 2.000 Finns living in Alaska and their descendats live still there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.113.112.46 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]