Hello, Dankarl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:03, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your image question and left a reply but here is a copy. "I am not an expert on Image rendering but you could go to sourceforge.net and download Gimp. Gimp is a freeware version of Photoshop and does most of the same things without the cost. You can also go to youtube and find tutorials that will teach you how to use it."--Kumioko (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any books that say that Vladimir Atlasov founded Anadyrsk or some such. This claim has been in the wiki since the big bang and I think it must be wrong, but I don't have any sources. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC) /////// I just saw em. I'll add some more when I get thru with Fedot. 1652 must be wrong, but I need to dig to see what book has it.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)///// I had a good book to copy from. The ataman business was copied from the previous Stadukhin article. I don't have a source and can't find what it would mean in this context. 1652 will be dropped soon. ///Fisher page 246-47: on 23may1659 (probably old style, so add 10 days) Dezhnev turned stuff over to Ivanov. 'He was the first regular representative of the state on the Anadyr'. Improved administration. '.. he built a stockade around the zimov'ye, thus making it an ostrozhek.' (where zimov'ye is roughly winter quarters and ostrozhek must be little ostrog, but Fisher does not say how these differed from a regular ostrog)Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not much Google book search seems to be mostly Lake Baikal German wiki gives date of death as 1666. I don't have the keyboard to fully search the Russian wiki. Bruce Lincoln: KI reached Lake Baikal in 1643 Dymytryshyn document book has him fighting Buryats around Baikal 1642-46 (If you don't have this, volumns 2 and 3 seem to be about Russian America (amazon.com, cheap))

Finally Fisher Dezhnev book: page 182: "In the summer of 1660 KI ... embarked on a voyage of 22 men which carried them along the coast north and east of the Anadyr to a 'big bay', probably Kresta Bay .... and thence eastward along the coast to another bay where they found a rookery or sandspit frequented by walruses .. for walrus ivory. Ivanov had learned of this from Fomka Permyak's Chukcha woman. .. Belov [Russian Dezhnev expert] believes this to be Provideniya Bay" Then a one-page discussion of Belovs claim that the Chukcha woman was captured here during the 20 September native fight, which would locate the fight. Fisher says rookery=Cape Chukotsky probably right, claim about the woman probably wrong. Page 220: KI left what Belov claims is Cape Chukotsky on 18 September. Soon storm arose, 3 days riding out storm, 2 days at a place of shelter, left, got back to Anadyr of the seventh day (unclear is this is after leaving Cape of leaving shelter) Then a discussion if this can be used to set sailing speeds.

The vagueness of all this implies there were no good sources in 1981 when Fisher was writing. The footnotes point either to Belov or big document collections that would only be found in acedemic libraries.

I was abbreviating to avoid typing in two pages of text. Page 182 exactly reads 'another bay near which'. Page 183 'rookery=Cape Chukotsky probably right' exactly reads "Belov's argument appears plausible and perhaps convincing, especially in placing the walrus rookery on or near Cape Chukotsky" Page 220 is copied exactly. Fisher's map has Cape Chukotsky as the southernmost curve of land east of Providinya Bay. Can't go much further without buying Belov and then maybe getting his sources. Google earth has the interior sand spit, no near spits, a big spit 100 miles west and what I think are called 'barrachoix' which are sand spits fully blocking a bay or river mouth. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC) /// There's a new article on Kurbat Ivanov. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC) ////// Greyhood has been adding to category:Siberian explorers from Russian sources that I don't have. A few need more work. I may step on some of his/her articles if I get the time. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per Fisher, both were used in nineteenth century by some people, not clear who. Nordenskiöld once recommended change but no evidence here of connection between Nord. and offical change.

• 1. Page 217 Adelbert von Chamisso in one work (1821?) mentions 'Ostcap (Cap Deshnew)'.
• 2. Page 217: "Nordenskiöld writes: '..the eastermost promontory of Asia, East Cape, is an unsuitable name, for which I have substituted on the map that of Cape Deschnev after the gallant Cossack who for the first time 230 years ago circumnavigated it.'" citing Voyage of the Vega round Asia and Europe (London 1881) vol ii. p 68
• 3. page 17:'..in 1898.. at the suggestion of Yuliy Shokal'skiy, president of the Imperial Geographical Society, Emperor Nicholas II on June 18 [probably old-style?] of that year... ordered the name... changed from East Cape to Cape Dezhneva (Mys Dzhneva).'Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your query. First, I assume that you refer to Wrangel Island (Russian) not Wrangell Island (US). The Wrangel Island article states "Radiocarbon dating shows the human inhabitation roughly coeval with the last mammoths on the island circa 1700 BCE" and "In 1764 the Cossack Sergeant Stepan Andreyev claimed to have sighted the island, called "Tikegen Land," and found evidence of its inhabitants, the Krahay." When I first read the article I had understood that the Krahay had gone and Andreyev had found evidence of and not inhabitants. This is supported by a statement that "aboriginal" inhabitants had gone when Europeans found the island. None of the shipwreck and marooned incidents refer to native or other inhabitants. Also assumed that the island was uninhabited in 1879, when there was a US attempt to claim the island and in the 1920s when the Canadians also had a go and settled some Inuits there (this is not stated and it might be that native inhabitants were not deemed relevant to a claim). There still remain the prehistoric settlement "circa 1700 BCE" at Chertov Ovrag, a site not in continuous use, ie, abandoned (this has a separate article already tagged as a former settlement), and the (apparently) abandoned penal settlements. The two settlements (Zvezdnyy and Ushakovskye, I think) were established after 1926 when the Canadian Inuits were evicted ¹, can they be considered to be continuations of previous settlements? If so, which? BTW, Ushakovskye is referred to by a researcher who visited the island in 2001 as the only permanent settlement and this is supported elsewhere. There is a reasonably detailed map here. All-in-all and apart from Chertov Ovrag, I think there's support for interrupted human settlement on the island. What do you think? Folks at 137 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being unclear. To restate: There was prehistoric settlement which was abandoned or died out. This was Chertov Ovrag. The Canadians established a settlement of Inuits, which was evicted when the Soviet Union wished to establish ownership in 1926. Even if the new residents occupied the same site, the Inuit settlement had ceased to exist, I suggest. There were Soviet prison settlements which have also apparently ceased. Hence "former settlement". Hope I've done a better job this time! Folks at 137 (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted a short ship article. Please feel free to add or amend. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response about the disambiguation page for the name Jeanette. It helped me organize a rewrite of that page, separating items that belonged on Jeanette (given name) from those others. Both pages may still need some work, but I improved both to the best of my present understanding. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 09:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because he's already in Category:American fur traders, he doesn't need to be in Category:Fur traders at the same time. Bearcat (talk) 17:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dankarl, I saw the cool pix you added to the Cape Dezhnev article. I wondered, given both the ratio of words to images and the fact that a couple of them are of Port Dezhnev rather than the Cape itself whether they might better serve Chukotka articles by being moved to the Chukotsky District article since you would have to go past Cape Pe'ek to get to the site of the photo. I'm not going to move them myself as you put them up, but maybe they would be better elsewhere. up to you mate! Fenix down (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for upgrading the image, and for the tip about Archive.org. M2545 (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the long-delayed reply. My primary source for the Richardson Clover article was in this link: http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rclover.htm. Thanks for asking! RashBold (talk) 06:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying Victoria Island. I'm wondering if Stefansson meant the Inuit with him or all Inuit. Given the ranges shown by File:Artic-cultures-900-1500.png there is a possibility that the islands had been seen prior to Stefansson. Of course without finding evidence on the island it is impossible to say if there was a prior knowledge of them.Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. Gray would be a suitable source. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If I want to get permission from the muralist, I've gotta act fast. Here's his website. That window is, oh, three weeks? And once he's gone, he's gone for TWO YEARS. Raymie (t • c) 15:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my setting specifically, but something on the AWB typo list. You should probably take it up with them at Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos, or else it'll keep happening.—Chowbok ☠ 03:46, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (Asteraceae) Antennaria media Greene subsp. fusca (E.W.Nelson) Chmiel. -- Brittonia 49(3): 325 (1997) (IK). ¡Thanks! Rosarinagazo (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for asking on User talk:Mikenorton about goethite. While checking I found the source of the conflicting info ... and it was a reading/editing error I made back in Feb. 06 ... fixed now I hope. See my posts on talk:Goethite for more details. Vsmith (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Hike395's talk page.

By popular demand, error reporting is here! I'm just letting you know personally since you've been involved in one of the threads related to errors encountered in the NARA catalog. If you can add error reports to that page from now on, we'll have an easier time relaying them to the NARA digital description staff, and we'll be able to track our progress. Let me know if you have any problems using the page; I already added one report as an example. Providing corrections for mistakes in the online catalog is one of the best ways we can show demonstrable benefits to the institution, and you'll be helping all the other users of the archives, so it's really useful. Thanks! Dominic·t 23:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to check and see if my comments answered your questions. I am totally fine either way if the project wants support or doesn't but so far your the only one to respond so I wanted to make sure I answered your questions. --Kumioko (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to handle this. What I wrote was a summary of Fisher and if I started with footnotes I would need to footnote about every sentence. The new information seems to come from the Lydia Black book which I don't have. Fisher is a closer study and therefore more reliable, but Black is newer and may have some recent Russian research that I can't access. I left a message on Apanuggpak's talk page to see if there is any evidence to override Fisher. Kamchatka River and Diomede Islands are the main contradictions. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska/Recent changes/Images to reflect the current contents of Category:File-Class Alaska articles. Can the non-free images be gathered like this without having to post a use rationale on each one? I'm unclear about that.RadioKAOS (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

James R Gibson, "Feeding the Russian Fur Trade",1969, page 23, footnote:"however, in 1937 the remains of a European settlement of thirty-one dwellings dating back some 300 years were discovered on the Kenai Peninsula. This site may have been settled by the missing companions of Dezhnev, who lost four vessels while rounding the northeasternmost cape of Siberia in 1648 ( A V Yefimov and S A Tokarev, eds, Narody Ameriki [Peoples of America] [Moscow: Izdatelstvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1959], 1:99" Sounds cockeyed to me. Do you know anything about it from the Alaska side? Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

• Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There you are. I was going to ask you something over on Commons, but I see you're doing something on here. When I was in Anchorage recently, I took a series of photos of the upper Anchorage Hillside neighborhoods and the surrounding mountains with intent on making a panorama. I've never played around much with panorama makers, but this one came out sweet. It also came out at over 20,000 pixels wide. I'm guessing that's overkill even for Commons. My laptop has been choking on uploading these 16 MP photos to begin with, so that explains in part why I continue to have an unresolved backlog. I'm guessing I should reduce this panorama somewhat before I upload it?RadioKAOS (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is now supposed to be able to upload 100 Meg+ images, but I have never tried anything close. There was some discussion of the capability at the Commons village pump. I think I'd ask there or Commons user Jmabel seems pretty well versed. There are several upload routines on Commons, so if Upload Wizard can't handle there are a couple more levels. I've never needed to use them, but a lot of people are pretty annoyed with Upload Wizard. This does nothing about your laptop, however. In my limited experience fast connections help if you can get on one, preferably hardwired. Dankarl (talk) 01:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me at a bad time yesterday. I think I'm a little more awake now. I'm in the middle of looking for stuff with not much time left before I have to go, so I'll get back to you or let you know that something was posted to the article's talk page. RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 18:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Mikkelsen must be referring to some other "Peary Channel," but in that case, the Mikkelsen article needs clarification.John Paul Parks (talk) 05:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across a reference used by Evans that I though might interest you. B.L. Reed, The Contribution of the Coast Guard to the Development of Alaska, U.S Naval Institute Proceedings, May, 1929. I have not seen a copy of the article, but perhaps it could be obtained through the U.S. Naval Institute. http://www.usni.org/ Just a thought. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/06/15/william-dall-national-geographic-founder-and-pioneer-of-alaskan-exploration/ The above link shows that Dall was amongst the founders of the National Geographic, so I thought it may be worth keeping the National Geographic as one of his affiliations. In addition, his republican politics can be found in Box 18 Folder 40 of the William Healey Dall collection at the Smithsonian Archive, and in folder 10 box 1 of the same collection, where he mentions his support for President Hayes' election and he mentions leaving the Coastal Survey due to political differences with the democratic Cleveland admistration's changes to it. In addition, his mother was a republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daniel.villar7 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why my edits here was reverted. Warda99 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-I removed William Healey Dall from the Whitney family article and category. Several sources stated that Annette Whitney Dall was a niece of Oscar Whitney. It is unclear what relationship Oscar Whitney had with the Whitney family. It was interesting that Oscar Whitney was mentioned being related to Annette Dall. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

During her service as Pandora, she was a merchant ship, was she not? Mjroots (talk) 05:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the bit where it says "Pandora was retired from duty and sold as a private yacht to a British explorer, Allen Young". Mjroots (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Research ships may be either military or civil (merchant). A merchant vessel may be owned by a governmental organisation. Mjroots (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

>

Hello. I was told you were quite knowledgeable about the RAC. Do you know if they ever built a whaling station or settlement on Big Shantar Island in the western Sea of Okhotsk? I only know of their station in Mamga Bay. ST1849 (talk) 15:50, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,

In the article Will the Circle Be Unbroken?, you reverted my modification: The Broken Circle Breakdown-Alabama Monroe back into:The Broken Circle Breakdown calling it “prank edit” (!).

I am sorry to inform you that the Belgian film The Broken Circle Breakdown is also known as Alabama Monroe, as the Wikipedia article on that very film could have taught you.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

5915961t (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had read the Wiki article a couple years ago and do not recall the alternative name then. If you had stated clearly that your insertion was an alternative name rather than just drop it into a line it would not have looked so much like a prank edit. Anyway I presume you have reliable sources...Dankarl (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So I am responsible for your error? And I am supposed not to have reliable sources? Well, my sources are Wikipedia … and the DVD. I suggest that next time you edit someone's annotation, you make some pieces of verification first, it will be good for your culture. (sigh)

5915961t (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dankarl, sorry if I stepped on toes with the fishery edit. I was not aware that this was common knowledge. Having to find separate references for different fish that are commercially harvested seems inelegant when there is an authoritative source that lists a number of them (although, admittedly, not Alaska pollock). The change I made was minor and not factually inaccurate (as the sentence did not claim that the list was exhaustive). You are correct that I could have searched for another source to support the inclusion of Alaska pollock, but was comfortable that a list provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was comprehensive enough. Cheers, Sadine83 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dankarl, I'm hoping to get some support from you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#perpetual issue: ncships and the definite article. Broichmore (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I do not own the book, but did keep large quoted sections of the book regarding it that I can share if you'd like. I was also able to find one of the citations used for the claim, which I've included on the page. Owen (talk) 23:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do! Will send it now. Owen (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've resent! I can't promise there are no typographical errors. Owen (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be two Footes afoot. Don Foote was the author of this, not the Harpers article. https://www.worldcat.org/title/human-geographical-study-in-northwest-alaska-final-report-of-the-human-geographical-studies-program-united-states-atomic-energy-commission-project-chariot/oclc/79619481

I am completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's protocols for editing and communication, and I am having trouble following the tutorials. Forgive me, I may have entered multiple posts, but I cannot find any of them posted. I would like to post a comment on the Project Chariot article to the effect that the Davis, et al, book used as the source for the last paragraph is not reliable regarding Chariot. I deleted that paragraph from the article, but it was restored. I would like to list the errors it contains. Can you advise me as to how to do that? I'd like those who edit this article to see it. AlfonsoLuhan (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Project Chariot article and the source "The genocide machine in Canada"  by Davis, Robert; Shor, Ira; Zannis, Mark (1973): 

This may be a duplicate message. Forgive me, I am totally unfamiliar with Wikipedia processes for editing and communication.

After my deletion of the Davis et al claims was restored, I ordered the book via inter-library loan and read the scant 8 pages and the few endnotes devoted to Chariot. I have it before me as I write. The work is neither scholarly nor journalistically professional, in my opinion. It contains errors. But mainly the authors present extravagant claims that simply are not documented; the damning rhetoric amounts to conjecture and leaps of faith.

Page 143 - The authors place the Chariot blast site on "the northeast coast of Alaska." Of course it was to be on the northWEST coast. - They place Point Hope on the Bering Sea. It is on the Chukchi Sea. - The area is said to be "virtually ice-locked the year round." Actually, the ice is gone for about a quarter of the year. Longer, these days. Small errors, perhaps, but indicative of the authors' care with facts.

In the very first sentence, the authors claim to know that the entire Chariot program was "an adventure in public relations," aimed at correcting the bomb's "bad image." It is a serious allegation, and it is offered without any evidentiary support. (I think there is plenty of evidence that public relations was one of the AEC'S objectives with Chariot, but these authors present none.)

Page 144 The claim is made that, "apart from a few businessmen, people were not very aware of what the project entailed." The faculty of the University of Alaska and Alaska’s conservationists were far more aware of Chariot than the business community.

Page 145 The authors write: "When the commission found that business wouldn't buy the project, it decided to turn the bomb into a scientific experiment of cold-blooded, detached cruelty." The claim is as inflammatory as it is unsupported. Apparently it is conjecture.

The authors argue that the "true nature of this experiment" was to "put the people in deliberate and carefully calculated jeopardy." For evidence, the authors quote the AEC's own final report on the environmental studies, published years after Chariot was abandoned. If the AEC was so attuned to public relations (which they were), why would they clumsily incriminate themselves in their own publication? In any case, I see nothing incriminating in the passage quoted as support; it outlines the environmental studies, which appropriately included studies of man's activities, e.g., Foote and Saario's work (both were fierce Chariot critics, both highly concerned with the Native people's welfare).

Page 146 "The evidence shows that the AEC was trying to measure the size of bomb necessary to render a population dependent." There is no footnote at the end of that extraordinary sentence. No evidence is offered.

The plan, according to the authors, was mainly "(1) the disruption of the normal hunting and foraging patterns [of the Native people]; (2) The radioactive contamination of the local food chain rendering it dangerous..." Source? None. The authors' conjecture derives from that fact that the site selected by AEC for the detonation was near traditional food sources for the Native people, mainly caribou. Yet the people’s degree of dependence on this area for food was only determined by Foote's work AFTER the AEC had already indicated its preference for the Ogotoruk Creek site, and had begun surveys there.

Page 147 "The evidence seems to indicate that the research goal was to determine the most disruptive time [to fire the shot]." This conjecture flows from the fact that the AEC preferred a spring detonation. It is true that the people depended on caribou from this area at this time (per Foote's work). But correlation does not prove causation. There are other reasons that might (and I think did) influence AEC in favoring a spring detonation: increased daylight for post-shot diagnostics, moderate temps for field work, the presence of snow and sea ice to hold fallout such that some of it might degrade before mixing further with terrestrial and marine systems.

Page 148 - The authors refer to Don Foote as "Donald," which was not his name. His father was Spanish, and "Don" alluded to the Spanish title. - Alaska is contrasted with "the Continental US." Which continent do the authors think Alaska belongs to?

"...the Environmental Studies Program was designed precisely to measure the disruptive effects of a nuclear explosion on the food chain." Again, no footnote here, no supporting evidence.

Page 149 "None of the official reports of the AEC lists this radiation [via lichen to caribou to man] phenomenon as a deterrent to Project Chariot." I don't have the 1966 volume in front of me now, but I believe Pruitt's report did. He certainly did write up and submit this very concern (it may have been edited out of the final, I can't remember), but he was fired from the University of Alaska for raising this exact concern.

Page 150 "The AEC devised the blast with cold calculation to release just the proper dose of radiation." As evidence, a paragraph is quoted wherein the AEC states that it would make sense to measure body burdens of local people both before and after any detonation. I think it is fair to argue that this amounts to experimentation on human beings, which would be wrong and illegal without their informed consent. But even if the authors were to design an experiment they felt would deliver zero harm to subjects, they should include a control group base line and post-event measurements to prove or disprove their expectation. In any case, I see nothing here suggesting AEC calculated "just the proper dose of radiation" to deliver to the people.

Page 151 "While some call such programs 'ecocide,' we believe that a more appropriate term is 'environmental genocide.'"

The authors may "believe" their claims, which they launch like salvos from a dreadnaught, but they don’t amount to much more than smoke and flash. In my view, this book is not a credible source on Project Chariot and should not be used as a source here. Its short Chariot chapter is an example of advocacy journalism at its most disappointing, where rhetorical flourish and indignation, however justified, stands in for actual investigative work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlfonsoLuhan (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]