Talk:Iqaluit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Canada Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is part of the Canadian Territories WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iqaluit article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Postal Codes 2 Capital Access 3 Population 4 economy/leisure/tourists 5 HBC post opening 6 Map 7 School 8 Polar Man? 9 HBC post opening 10 Title 11 Coat of Arms 12 Naming discussion 13 Communication 14 Fair use rationale for Image:Iqaluitflag.gif 15 Pronunciation

[edit] Postal Codes

Iqaluit has two postal codes: X0A 0H0 and X0A 1HO. I know this because mine is the latter (although I do not move up there for three more weeks). I couldn't figure out how to edit the info within the template box, so didn't fix it. --Klanda | Talk 00:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Capital Access

I dispute the assertion that this is the only Canadian capital that can't be accessed via highway. Victoria, BC, is on Vancouver Island and requires ferry access. (Prince Edward Island has a bridge, but Vancouver Island does not.)

The real point this sentence is trying to make (that you can't drive there by any route that a private driver can take) is probably not worth making.

• Ferry lines are considered part of the highway system. - 24.85.187.55, Jun 15, 2005

the barges ship private vehicles in and out three times each year during the summer from Montreal.

That makes it ferryish --Cloveious 7 July 2005 00:58 (UTC)

While ferry lines can be considered as part of a highway system (IE, the highway is considered to continue at the end point of the ferry), barges are not ferries (sp?) and are not connected by the same highway on both sides (because there are no highways in Iqaluit).--Dalar 00:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Population

Inuit population of Iqaluit is 85%, 60% is speaking Inuktitut. Source:[1]--Rocastelo 19:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• I am mistake,:[2]--Rocastelo 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] economy/leisure/tourists

So, what do people do for a living in Iqaluit? What is there to do? What is there that would attract visitors? Do the young people stay or do they leave town asap? Just curious, LA RoeDoe 06:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The population is circa 60% Inuit. Iqaluit is simply their home. Moving to the south would be like moving to a foreign country - some do, but not terribly many. Roughly one Inuk in ten lives in the south, but those tend to be the ones with the most tenuous inuk identities: they're half-white and/or they don't speak Inuktitut.

The biggest part of the non-Inuit population of Iqaluit is term employees. When I was a kid in the 70s, the average time a government employee spent in Iqaluit before moving back south was 1.3 years. It's probably longer now, but the pattern of temporary employment hasn't disappeared. Government is the largest employer - administration, police, the hospital, airport staff, the schools, infrastructure support - and a lot of the rest of employment is in support industries for the government population. Unemployment and underemployment are the norm among the Inuit, who often take casual work and suppliment welfare, unemployment insurance and family allowance (all checks from the government) with an annual schedule of hunting and fishing.

What would attract visitors? A lot is just the notion of being in the arctic. Iqaluit is pretty exotic from a southern point of view, and a lot of adventure tourism uses Iqaluit as a base since it's accessible and has a full range of services. In terms of things to see and do... probably not much. The midnight sun in summer... Seeing the the northern lights to the south... Getting bargains on Inuit art... Tidal ice in winter... Wild polar bears... I guess those sorts of things are attractive to some people.

I lived there in the 70s, and I know things have changed since then, but if you're looking for the ordinary sort of tourist attractions, you might as well just stay in Montreal.

--Diderot 07:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] HBC post opening

For some reason, someone keeps coming back to change the correct opening date of the HBC post in Apex. The Correct date is 1949, not 1943. According to documents found in the HBC archives in Winnipeg, the Apex site was chosen by Post manager J.A. Ford in September 1947 (until 1949, the post was in Ward Inlet, further east on Frobisher Bay). The material for the construction of the post were chartered from Newfoundland on the vessel "Clarenville" in September 1948. The construction of the post was completed in 1949 and 1950. A new heated store was built in 1956 because the 1949 post was already too small (the population of Iqaluit - then Frobisher Bay - grew rapidly at the time). Thus, I'm pretty sure I'm right here in saying that the post openend in 1949 and not in 1943.

You may be right - but the 1943 date comes from the city of Iqaluit website (http://www.city.iqaluit.nu.ca/history.html). You might drop them a line saying so. I have no independent means to determine which date is correct, and I'm happy to defer to anyone who does. --Diderot 18:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have just gotten in touch with them asking them if the post was built in 1943 or 1949. I was pretty sure it was 1949, but then I did not know the website of Iqaluit mentioned 1943... I'll keep you posted.

[edit] Map

The map shown at the top of the page shows Nunavut and Northwest Territories as the same color. That may cause some confusion.

There was no map on November 13, 2007. I created one, and uploaded it to the article. When I went to replace it with one with the lines of latitude and longitude, another wikipedian had replaced the one I had originally uploaded with a red-dot map, which they described as "less confusing".

I should have posed my questions about that "less confusing" map here, not on their talk page.

1. I pointed out that the wikipedia is an International project, and suggested readers outside of Canada may not really even know where Canada is, let alone know where Iqaluit is.
2. I pointed out that the red-dot had been placed so as to make Iqualuit appear land-locked.
3. I pointed out that the red-dot disappears when one clicks on their thumbnail.

The other uploader responded on my talk page, rather than here.

1. The other uploader expressed skepticism that anyone literate enough to use the wikipedia could fail to know where Canada was.
   • Americans are notorious for their lack of familiarity with basic geography. Various studies show that an alarming number of Americans can't even locate their home town.
   • Europeans may be no better. When the popular Canadian drama "North of Sixty" was sold for rebroadcast in Europe the distributors renamed in "Alaska" because they thought their viewers would be confused by more accurate titles.
2. The other uploader told me that if I wasn't happy about the lack of a red-dot identifying the location of Iqaluit, or I wasn't happy with its placement on the thumbnail, I was free to upload a specific, corrected version. Well, since I think the projection I used is preferable in the first place, I won't be doing that.

The projection I used makes clear how close Iqaluit is to the North Pole. The red-dot map doesn't. I think Iqaluit's proximity to the North Pole is significant.

I'd like to request other people's opinions.

Cheers! Geo Swan 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not see a dot on that map, but if you'd rather use that one, fine. Put it back in. I'm not going to fight with you over something so trivial. vıdıoman (talk • contribs) 20:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To 2nd User:Vidioman, the dot really isn't visible on that map when it's thumbnailed, so it looks like it's just a blank map in the article. The polar projection is nice, but it should probably have the Canadian and provincial boundaries on there as well as a larger dot. Kmusser 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School

• My class has done some work on Iqaluit.

[edit] Polar Man?

• Maybe I'm wrong but, is this some sort of joke?! If not, should it really be in the same article as Iqaluit?

--Simtropolitan 16:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It was put in and I removed as non-notable but was able to find information that he does exist. So I figured he was worth a couple of lines but not really his own article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• Hey there! I'm a resident of Iqaluit, and I can confirm that this guy really exists. I've met him. He's actually a very well-known figure here, attends just about every major event in the city, and certainly is a big part of the community in many ways!

[edit] HBC post opening

I am a resident of Iqaluit as well and Polar Man does exist, like the other posting said... it's rather odd but sure is true There is a discrepency between the text and the timeline. The text says the HBC post opened in 1949 (which is correct) and the timeline says 1943 (which is incorrect). For some unknown reasons, the Iqaluit City website mentions 1943. I inquired several months ago why this was the case but no one ever answered my querry. Now, internal HBC documents mention that the Post opened in Apex in 1949. Robert V. Eno (p. 72 of 2003, « Crystal Two: The Origin of Iqaluit », in Arctic, 56(1): 63-75) also mentions 1949, so does Peter Usher (p. 164 of 1976, « Fur Trade Posts of the Northwest Territories: 1870-1970 », in Milton Freeman (ed.) Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project. Volume Two: Supporting Studies, Ottawa, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs: 153-168).

[edit] Title

Why is this article currently at Iqaluit, Nunavut instead of simply Iqaluit? There's nothing to disambiguate from, thus no need for complications. Duja 15:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coat of Arms

What is the territorial coat of arms doing on the page of a particular city? Seems inappropriate to me... Radagast 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Gone. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming discussion

Should this page stay at its current title, or should it be moved to just Iqaluit? Though it's vastly smaller than most of the other cities for which the clause in the Canadian naming convention permitting undisambiguated titles has been applied, it's also a unique name that's unlikely to ever be shared with a non-Canadian topic, so disambiguation isn't necessary — and as a territorial capital, it's at least moderately more important than its small population would ordinarily suggest. Iqaluit is already a redirect to this article anyway. And the idea of putting a specific population cutoff into the convention was rejected, so population by itself isn't a valid argument against such a move. I'm fine with whatever the consensus of editors would prefer, so I'm not going to express an opinion either way, but since the question has been raised here before I'm willing to at least put this to a discussion. Bearcat 23:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't really think of an objection to a move - as you said, it is definitely unique. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd support the move. Mindmatrix 15:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd also support the move. Again, Iqaluit redirects to here, and there's no reason for this not to be here. It feels good to be with editors who are progressive, and don't insist on names for other reasons. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communication

I'd like to see some information on communication in Iqaluit. Do they have internet there, for example? Radishes 08:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes internet is available and in much smaller places than Iqaluit. For example we have two ISP's in Cambridge Bay. But I'm not sure that its necessary to have it in the article. There is nothing in Edmonton or Victoria, British Columbia to indicate that they have internet. I suppose that it might be a minor bit of trivia to mention that it's the only place in Nunavut that cell phones can be used. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dial-up internet is available in virtually all Nunavut and NWT communities; the only ones lacking it lost their incumbent ISPs within the last two years. Iqaluit has had ADSL since about 2004 or 2005, and wireless high speed has been introduced to most communities in Nunavut; satellite high speed (direct to home) has been introduced to many southwestern NWT communities. GBC 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is any dial-up left in any Nunavut community outside of Iqaluit now. As far as I know all the ISPs shut down the dial-up after they converted to the Qiniq network with the help of the Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation. And that, they claim, is available throughout Nunavut, they also say that your modem can be taken anywhere in Nunavut and it will work. Where it's available the Netkaster is cheaper and faster. Even one of the land claim organizations that was part of setting up our local ISP has gone over to the 2-way satellite internet. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the value of discussing telecom in Edmonton's or Victoria's articles may not actually be equivalent to the value of discussing that stuff here; most people don't really have the same kind of misconceptions and stereotypes about Edmonton's or Victoria's access to modern telecommunications technology that they do about Iqaluit's. I really don't think it would come as a surprise to anybody that Edmonton has Internet and cel phone service, but unfortunately, it still would come as a surprise to some people that Iqaluit does. Wikipedia does have to at least take into consideration sometimes that our readers may not always have the background knowledge that we might consider so obvious. It might well be worth talking about the Qiniq network itself; that could really be an interesting article in its own right, in fact. Bearcat 01:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about it like that. When you think about it there are a lot of smaller communities in Canada, and probably most of the world, where it is not obvious if they have cell/internet access such as Ahmic Harbour, Ontario or Tierra del Fuego. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 20:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Very true, actually. But for what it's worth, I've been reading a bit of Qiniq's web page and think that would make a great Wikipedia article. Bearcat 22:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iqaluitflag.gif

Image:Iqaluitflag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

There are two contradictory pronunciations given at the beginning of this article: IPA: /ɨˈkæljuːɨt/ and IPA: [iqaluit]. The first one appears to be the common pronunciation of Iqaluit in Canadian English; the second appears to be the phonetic transcription of the pronunciation of Iqaluit in an Inuit language (Inuktitut?). The templates IPAEng and IPA2, used for each pronunciation respectively, seem to confirm this. However, could someone with a genuine familiarity with this matter verify this before I go willy-nilly adding labels to these pronunciations that might or might not be correct? Thank you. --Makaristos (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There should only be one pronunciation. If you go to here you can listen to the Inuktitut way to say it. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need both pronunciations, because there are 2 languages. There may even be 3 prononciations:

• one used by local Inuit in their language
• one used by local Qallunaat (white people) in their language, English
• one used by other Canadians (in the South), in English

--Sonjaaa (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sonja! I was wondering if you'd be the one to show up and settle this. (-: At any rate, do you know these pronunciations, with your vast knowledge of the intricacies of spoken languages of the modern world? I certainly don't, and I don't really know of where to go to find them. --Makaristos (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Iqaluit is an Inuktitut word, therefore I think there should be just the Inuktitut pronunciation in the lead. A subsection (simply titled "Name") should be created explaining where the name Iqualit came from, and how is is pronounced by different people. It can also cover previous names for the area, such as Frobisher Bay, and any other names used for the community and area around it. vıdıoman 19:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)