Talk:Utqiagvik, Alaska/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Untitled

Wondering how to edit this U.S. City Entry?
The WikiProject U.S. Cities standards might help.

Added a couple of pictures. --Cromagnon 02:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Will Rogers - Wiley Post plane crash detail; Barrow page at odds with Rogers & Post pages

The Barrow page is at odds with the Post page and Rogers page about details of their ill-fated trip to Alaska. All on Wikipedia.

The Barrow page says they were 'headed around the world'.

Per Post page: "Post became interested in 1935 in surveying a mail-and-passenger air route from the West Coast of the United States to Russia."

And "His friend Will Rogers often visited him at the airport in Burbank, California while he was building the plane and asked Post to fly him through Alaska in search of new material for his newspaper column."

Landing at Barrow: Per the Rogers page, bad weather and getting somewhat lost, they landed at Barrow for directions, get their bearings. [It was NOT a destination they had planned.]

Upon take off, an engine failed and they crashed.

??

68.228.70.223 12:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Demographics?

This page has absolutely no info on the demographics of Barrow. Naaj 21:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Slight inaccuracy on main description, sort of.

This page lists Barrow as the northernmost settlement in the United States. While correct, it is also true that Barrow is the northernmost settlement on the continent of North America (also Point Barrow is the northernmost point on the continent.) —The preceding comment was added by Webgrunt 00:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the northernmost in CONTINENTAL North America, but not of the North American continent. Alert, Canada is the northernmost permanently inhabited settlement in the world. Meateatingvegan 18:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Climate Section Accuracy?

The chart being used to illustrate the average and record temperatures seem to contradict what the section says such as, "July is the warmest month of the year and the frequency of minimum temperatures of 32 degrees or less are about one day out of two for July and August."

I'm also editing the bit about when the sunrises/sets because it's not a fixed day/time every year as the writing currently implies. --76.214.222.150 05:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean about the chart not agreeing with the climate section. I've pretty much re-written the climate section, so it may or may not say that now anyway... :-) I pretty much removed that one big blockquote from the UAF Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks because it was poorly written and had several errors.

I also rewrote the part about sunrise and sunset too.

If you think either of those parts need more effort, let me know what you think and I'll try to make them better.

Also, if you would like to see photographs of anything in particular, post a request here and sooner or later I'll see it.

  Floyd davidson 20:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Length of darkness

First, the 30 Days of Darkness in the bottom of the page is bothering me. I think it would bother a lot of Alaskans as well, given that Barrow actually experiences over 60 days of darkness each year. The whole deal seems like a sort of B-rated, won't remember it in a week, lame attempt at horror anyway, so I'm not sure it deserves mention on the Barrow page.

Second, why is there a "set" date for the annual sundown and sun up again. I thought the above poster fixed that. If the sun doesn't go down on a date certain, then it certainly shouldn't be presented as if it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.210.219.131 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the reference to the movie is irrelevant to a discussion of Barrow; however, clearly others thought it was worth adding, and I don't see it as that bad. Eventually it will be "stale" information, and I will remove it (probably in a couple of months or so).

The dates for the transitions to the sun being always down and the sun being always up are correct. What was not correct was specifying an exact time, as that varies slightly from year to year. The date, however, is a constant.

—Preceding Floyd Davidson 23:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC) 

No, the dates are not constant. Take the solstice date-the shortest day of the year. This can occur on any of three calendar dates, Dec 20, 21, and 22. Solstice is an instant, but thanks to time zones the dates can differ In Barrow's time zone, it's the 21st from 1988-2027. In 2028,32,36, and so on in it will be on the 20th. And it was on the 22nd in 1987,83,79, etc. The dates of the Sun's first January also vary. It will be on the 23rd on 2008, but the 22nd in 09. Saros136 (talk) 12:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Coming in from a neutral place the "Popular Culture" title negates the section being trivia and a very large number of articles about real places have popular culture sections. The section here is appropriate. What is not appropriate is original research where you say "that's not true, I know because I live there." You cannot be your own source for adding information. Your personal knowledge of what happens is not verifiable. Anyone can say "the sky is green, I've seen it" but anyone else can dispute that with fact. OR is not contributable. The popular culture section is approrpriate and I've reworded it to reflect that the entertainment medium is who is depicting the 30 days of night and that it is not factual. Regardless of fact, the movie and comic DO depict 30 days of night in Barrow. That is fact and belongs in this article. IrishLass (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The title has nothing to do with whether it is trivia. Please read the wikipedia section on trivia to understand what the significance is.

I have NEVER stated what is in your fabricted quote. It is well known fact,which can be verified by comparing to the NOAA site that I referenced, or even to the website of the movie in question, or to any number of published articles about the movie.

Your statement that it depicts 30 days of night in Barrow is an example of invalid personal opinion (original research doesn't quite do it justice). It doesn't, and even the people who made the film say that.

The point of course is that discussion of the movie belongs in an article about the movie, not in an article about Barrow. In this article it amounts to trivia, and that is not appropriate per Wikipedia guidelines.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The trivia section only discourages lists of miscellaneous or trivia facts, not having trivia in the article. The objection seem to be on readability, which is not an issue here. Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles also deals with lists of references. (and allows them). This is focused on one thing. So this pop culture section isn't really covered by those policies. Whether this is relevant is judgment, not policy. Saros136 (talk) 09:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I just looked as some clips of 30 Days of Night on youtube, and the sky looks plenty dark to me. Saros136 (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You are simply incorrect on this point, Floyd. There are always inaccuracies in how locations are depicted and you should just get over it. But if you look at many city articles, from New Haven, Connecticut to Santa Monica, California to Roslyn, Washington you will note popular culture references in all. That's not even touching on the larger cities. --David Shankbone 15:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

David you are posting false statements. Only one (New Haven) of your cites above actually does have a "Popular Culture" section, and it, appropriately, has the same trivia tag that you have repeatedly removed from this article. Santa Monica has a section listing both movies shot there, and one that has a scene from there (apparently quite accurate too). The other has no such section under any sort of title, but does have a link to a TV series that was shot there.

Obviouly you still have not actually read and understood the wikipedia section on trivia, and cannot correctly compare other articles to this one.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No Floyd, you are misstating your argument. You want the information removed from this article. The other articles all contain the information. Or do you forget that this is what you originally edit-warring over? All of those articles and most city articles where it is notable contain references in popular culture to the city. So, let's not change what the original debate was about, which was not about a trivia tag. --David Shankbone 02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

How many times did I put in new language, and YOU reverted it. How many times did I add a trivia tag, and you deleted it. In fact, your war editing complaint was because I continued to reinsert the trivia tag that you (and your buddy) continued to delete.Floyd Davidson (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it so difficult for you to see that Popular Culture is not trivia. Trivia can be incorporated into an article through wording. Titling a section Popular Culture is a common practice on Wikipedia and is an acceptable way of adding facts that some, but not most, consider trivia. The Pop Culture section is not trivia. Obviously you live there, maybe because of that you should consider not editing the page. I know I don't edit my home town's page because of OR issues. Maybe you should consider the possibility that this article is not the best one for you to be editing. Just a thought. And I can tell you, if you are talking about me being Dave's little buddy, you should check my talk page or his, that is far from true. I came in to be neutral, you just can't see that. IrishLass (talk) 13:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen or read 30 Days of Darkness, but if the movie and comic have 30 days of darkness, that doesn't conflict with the fact that there are 30+ additional such days-so the statement In both the film and the comic, neither Barrow, nor the period of darkness in winter, are depicted accurately. might need to be changed. Saros136 (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sports

I reinserted the Sports section and cleaned it up after a wholesale deletion several months ago that no one seemed to notice. I removed the "hype" that seemed to be the target of the person (IP only) who deleted it. Please folks, if you don't like a section, clean it up; don't just delete it. - Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 16:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted it again. It is trivia about people from other places, and is not about anything that defines Barrow, which is what this essay is about.

We don't have information on the BHS band, which has won national honors on many occasions, yet is cannot get sufficient funding. We don't have info on the BHS girls volleyball team either, which could also use funding. We don't have info on the basketball teams, even though that is the most popular team sport not only in Barrow but all across Alaska. We also don't have a section on local record holders in various Arctic games competitions that are held here and around the Arctic on a regular basis.

Hence before football becomes something that defines Barrow, we should see sections describing one foot high kick, two foot high kick, middle finger pull, ear pull, and "drop the bomb" competitions.

Demonstrating that people from other places (including some who live in Barrow) cannot comprehend Barrow's unique culture; and in that ignorance are willing to devote half a million dollars of funding to allow kids in Barrow to do what kids in Texas do, is not particularly bright (even more so in that it teaches them the same violence here that it does there, and what we should be doing is exactly the opposite).

Floyd Davidson (talk) 18:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Floyd, you have some severe WP:OWN and WP:COI issues interfering with your ability to edit this article neutrally. I suggest you remove it from your watchlist. --David Shankbone 18:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. You don't have a monopoly on information relevant to Barrow.C1k3 (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Floyd, I'm curious why you don't source and expand the sports section to include your bullets mentioned above? - Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because that information is not appropriate for this article. I could also provide a very well documented list of street names (and even a bit of history for each), with references! That's about Barrow! That's sourced! That's interesting trivia!

But it does NOT belong in this article.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 13:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Floyd, despite the fact that consensus went against you, you removed the 30 Days of Night information, and you are once again edit-warring over this article. If you do not stop, I will broach the topic at either ANI, or I will ask the COI board to rule that you clearly can not edit this article neutrally since you live there. There's more than enough evidence of that. --David Shankbone 01:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attacks of Floyd Davidson are wrong. And his points are valid. You've never been to Barrow. He's right, you are wrong.Tundra4 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm another Barrow resident who agrees with Floyd. Do you need to hear from others?Okpik2008 (talk) 03:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And I'd be willing to bet that you and Tundra4 are Floyd Davidson writing under different usernames, since you've only contributed to the Barrow article and done so in accordance with his views.C1k3 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Floyd, et al: it's amazing to me how you can deny that the sports section is not about Barrow. I removed all the hype about people raising money for the football field. I agree; that really did not belong. But the remaining text is certainly about Barrow. Have you re-read it, or have you just gone in and yanked it out each time without reading it? Even if it's an embarrassment to some residents (which it apparently is), the football/sports info *is* about Barrow. Other towns have history they are embarrassed of (how'd you like to be the home of Ted Bundy?), but that doesn't make it less historic or appropriate for an article about the town. FWIW, since Tundra4 asked, I have been to Barrow. - Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 15:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The obvious reason people cannot see that mentioning "Barrow" does not make it about Barrow is because they simply don't know what Barrow is. Keep in mind that Barrow is NOTHING like a town of 4000 people in the Lower-48. Not even close. (That's why it requires a "technical expert" to edit encyclopedic articles. And that is one of the reasons Wikipedia has such a poor reputation...)

The "Sports teams" section, like the "Popular Culture", is not about Barrow, it is about what people from other places expect Barrow to be like, or want to make it like if it isn't. It is inappropriate material for an article describing Barrow.

Also note that even if it were re-written to be about Barrow, it is still inappropriate. As noted, if it included info on the variety of other sports teams, that may well make it about Barrow... but it would be no different than having a list of street names and descriptions of the history attached to each. Interesting trivia to someone perhaps, but not appropriate for this article.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That's like saying, "How can you write about Karl Marx? You weren't alive when he was?" "How can you write about Victorian England? You weren't there to experience it." --David Shankbone 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude, look at the articles for other cities/towns! Even if Barrow is "nothing like" towns in the lower 48, it is still a town and its sports teams should receive the same coverage. Take a look at WP:OWN again. As I said before, you do not have a monopoly on information relevant to Barrow. That's not what Wikipedia is about. And I still don't see how the sports and pop culture sections are irrelevant. C1k3 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well aware that this question isn't sports related but it is related to the WP:OWN issue. Isn't there some major conflict of interest (WP:OR maybe?) for a self-proclaimed resident editing this article in such a manner and doesn't having self-promoting web links to the same user's site violate policy? IrishLass (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Missing details

Some things the article lacks and may benefit from discussing:

• Isolation (enclosed road system)
• Air cargo/barge supply system
• Major industries or source of municipal income

For a place like Barrow, it's important for the article to mention the fact that one cannot just drive there.
—DMCer™ 15:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good concepts. I'll see what I can come up with to add that information.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Floyd and others: Transportation section looking good. You might add a sentence with details about why barge traffic only in summer. "Barge traffic is limited to the summer due to winter sea ice, which typically restricts shipping from <month> to <month>." I know the ice melt varies, but figured you might have a source for averages. Thoughts? - Dave C.^{talk | Esperanza} 04:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice job Floyd!!—DMCer™ 05:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion Area regarding Commercial Website Links

I notice there is no discussion regarding this subject. Perhaps there should be?18:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Tidy

I changed the climate box to the standard template and at the same time used the NOAA as the data source. I changed all inline external links to references and at the same time removed two external links that were already included as references (National Weather Service and KBRW Public Radio). I reduced multiple links to the same article which included duplicate links in the "see also" section. I added links to articles that weren't linked but do provide some useful information that is releven to this article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks great, thanks! --Golden retrievers (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

Please read this. There were a number of external links that were irrelevant to the subject and I've removed several of them. Wikipedia is not a link farm.

External links to be avoided

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."

"Links mainly intended to promote a website."

"Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising."

"Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority."

"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject."

"Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers."

"Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles."

"Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files."

According to the policy and guidelines mentioned, the following links should not be included: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.

The first 3 are nothing more than photo galleries, one operated by a frequent editor of this page. There are already several pictures in the article and any news ones should be uploaded to Commons. There is already a Commons link at the bottom of the article page. Please utilize it. The fourth is an advertising link to a hotel. The fifth links to a page with only a list of Alaska towns. Clicking on Barrow results in a refreshing of the page. The sixth is not directly related to the town article. That link would be appropriate in an article about Eben Hopson, if one exists. If there is no article about Hopson, then feel free to write one if he's mentioned in reliable sources. The next two are advertising links. The last merely contains information already covered in the article.

If you have any questions about why these links are unnecessary, reply on this page and I will give a more detailed response. Although I think the policy guidelines mentioned should explain it. APK ^{yada yada} 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Your evaluation of those specific links is interesting, but it is both inaccurate and it does not specify connections between specific links and the cited Wikipedia rules.

I do appreciate that you have pointed out that number 5 link has changed, and needs to be updated to a correct URL, which I will do.

Numbers 1-4 are all (including number 4) extensive photo galleries, as is number 5. That is a reason they should be listed, not a reason to delete them. Granted that number 4 is also a commercial site with advertising. I agree that is unfortunate, and would also agee with removing it at some future date when similar photography is available from a non-commercial site. The point is, because it is NOT there just to promote the website or for advertizing, it IS an acceptable link because it DOES provide unique photography that is not otherwise available. All of those links together provide significantly useful information about Barrow that is not reasonable to include in the Wikipedia article.

I am sorry if you do not see the connection between link 6, about Eben Hopson, and Barrow. Please take my word that the fact the article provides information about Barrow that is useful and is not reasonable to condense into a form suitable for the Barrow article in Wikipedia.

Items 7 and 8 are not advertizing. They both provide absolutely essential information about Barrow. I realize that you might not be able to recognize that; but it is still a FACT, as virtually anyone from Barrow will tell you. UIC is of course the corporation formed for the Barrow tribe under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1972. ASRC is the Regional Native Corporation, also specified by ANCSA. They are integal to Barrow. It is also unreasonable to provide extensive information on them within the Barrow article, and therefore links to those web sites are provided.

Link 9 is to the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium web page. It provides vast amounts of information about Barrow that is not reasonable to include in the Wikipedia article. In the past others have edited the link to point at only the statement they provide about Barrow. That indeed fits your statement that it repeats information already provided. The main webpage is of course signiifcantly different issue.

If you want to discuss these links, please to so. But it is inappropriate to unilaterally remove them simply because you are not aware of how useful they are.

Floyd Davidson (talk) 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

After reading your condescending comments, I'm sure you've been pointed to WP:AGF in the past. Please read over it again. I'm also sure you understand the policies I listed and is there really a need to point to every specific guideline after each link? That's why I listed them above the link breakdown. Please read over them again, as well as the links in my first post. Once again, "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority should not be included. If you want to add your pictures from your web page, then upload them to Commons. The Commons link at the bottom of the page will show your pictures. Number 4 is completely unnecessary for this article. A hotel website is advertising. If you want pictures from the hotel website visible to WP readers, then contact the hotel and ask them to upload pictures. WP is not the Barrow Chamber of Commerce, if one does exist. Your excuse about including the Hopson, UIC, ANSCA, and BASC links ("not reasonable to condense into a form suitable for the Barrow article in Wikipedia") is discouraging. The article would benifit greatly if you actually took the time to add the information from those websites instead of relying on people clicking on links. You could expand the article and maybe even get it to GA if you spend some quality time adding relevant information. You say these websites offer alot of information, then take that information and make a great article. Also, it is not "inappropriate" to remove these links. I am following WP polices and guidelines. APK ^{yada yada} 07:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you chose to revert my edit and include all of the links. If you do so again I will make a request for you to be topic banned from this article. Also, a checkuser request may be in order since a review of the edit history and this talk page implies you may be using multiple accounts to revert edits and to agree with yourself on this page. You have edit-warred many times on this article despite multiple users disagreeing with you. You are ignoring consensus and displaying ownership issues. APK ^{yada yada} 07:54, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Funky "new" math?

Quote from the article:

The high daily temperature is above freezing on an average of only 109 days per year. There are freezing temperatures on an average of 324 days per year.[7][8] Freezing temperatures, and snowfall, can occur during any month of the year.[6]

If... number of days above freezing is 109 days and freezing is 324 days a year... that adds up to, uh, hmm, let me look at my calculator. Ah! 433 days a year. But, wait, the year only has 365 a year or so. So that's about 67 days too many on average. Are we talking about Earth years?

One of these two claimed figures just doesn't match up. Which is it? Thanks, 64.209.16.204 (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They are both correct. It's saying that on 324 days of the year the temperature usually falls below freezing, but that only 109 days through the year have temperatures that rise above freezing. In both statements it is talking about a single recorded temperature not the temperature throughout the day. The 109 number says "high daily temperature" (maximum temperature for that day) and not "days above freezing" (where the temperature throughout the day would always be above freezing). CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks -- gotcha. 64.209.16.204 (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Climate

I noticed a couple of minor errors in the climate section, not a problem as typos are easily done. However, I can't duplicate the entire "Record high °F" line. I get completely different figures from the source. Can someone else check that and see what's the correct version. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

transportation

Is barrow connected to the city of Fairbanks by road? Is it a standard paved highway? Would like to know, thanks. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no roads to anywhere outside of the immediate area from Barrow. --skew-t (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Lindbergh mention --1931 visit

Aviator Charles Lindbergh and his wife visited Barrow in 1931 (Anne Morrow Lindbergh, North to the Orient, 1935, Chapter 8). The population was far smaller than at present--"ten or twelve red roofs, numerous shacks and tents, a church steeple ... " (pp. 99-100) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurelcooper (talk • contribs) 06:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Climate section

Right now, the deafault climate box that the page keeps reverting to is inaccurate for two reasons.

1. A January record high of 54 was NOT recorded in 1997 in Barrow. That is a typo that can be atrributed to someone who added the blooper into official records. The January record high is 36, and the February record high of 38 may be wrong, but that one's harder to disprove. 2. The November record low of -40 set in 1948, however, is real. That keeps being reverted to -38, which is the second coldest reading in November in Barrow.

Basically, the weatherbox when you log onto the page looks like this.

Climate data for Barrow, Alaska (Wiley Post–Will Rogers Memorial Airport)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high °F (°C)	54 (12)	38 (3)	34 (1)	42 (6)	47 (8)	72 (22)	79 (26)	76 (24)	62 (17)	43 (6)	39 (4)	34 (1)	79 (26)
Mean daily maximum °F (°C)	−8 (−22)	−10 (−23)	−7 (−22)	7 (−14)	25 (−4)	40 (4)	47 (8)	44 (7)	36 (2)	22 (−6)	6 (−14)	−3 (−19)	17 (−9)
Mean daily minimum °F (°C)	−19 (−28)	−22 (−30)	−20 (−29)	−8 (−22)	15 (−9)	30 (−1)	35 (2)	34 (1)	28 (−2)	12 (−11)	−5 (−21)	−15 (−26)	5 (−15)
Record low °F (°C)	−53 (−47)	−56 (−49)	−52 (−47)	−42 (−41)	−19 (−28)	4 (−16)	22 (−6)	20 (−7)	1 (−17)	−32 (−36)	−38 (−39)	−55 (−48)	−56 (−49)
Average precipitation inches (mm)	0.12 (3.0)	0.12 (3.0)	0.09 (2.3)	0.12 (3.0)	0.12 (3.0)	0.31 (7.9)	0.87 (22)	1.04 (26)	0.69 (18)	0.39 (9.9)	0.16 (4.1)	0.12 (3.0)	4.17 (106)
Average snowfall inches (cm)	2.2 (5.6)	1.9 (4.8)	1.7 (4.3)	2.2 (5.6)	1.7 (4.3)	0.8 (2.0)	0.2 (0.51)	0.9 (2.3)	5.0 (13)	7.4 (19)	3.2 (8.1)	2.2 (5.6)	29.2 (74)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in)	4.9	4.1	4.2	4.3	4.8	6.0	9.1	12.1	13.1	11.9	6.0	5.1	85.6
Average snowy days (≥ 0.1 in)	5.5	5.3	5.3	5.8	5.6	1.7	0.5	2.4	9.4	13.8	7.6	5.9	68.8
Source: NOAA

However, the correct numbers would be.

Climate data for Barrow, Alaska (Wiley Post–Will Rogers Memorial Airport)
Month	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec	Year
Record high °F (°C)	36 (2)	38 (3)	34 (1)	42 (6)	47 (8)	72 (22)	79 (26)	76 (24)	62 (17)	43 (6)	39 (4)	34 (1)	79 (26)
Mean daily maximum °F (°C)	−8 (−22)	−10 (−23)	−7 (−22)	7 (−14)	25 (−4)	40 (4)	47 (8)	44 (7)	36 (2)	22 (−6)	6 (−14)	−3 (−19)	17 (−9)
Mean daily minimum °F (°C)	−19 (−28)	−22 (−30)	−20 (−29)	−8 (−22)	15 (−9)	30 (−1)	35 (2)	34 (1)	28 (−2)	12 (−11)	−5 (−21)	−15 (−26)	5 (−15)
Record low °F (°C)	−53 (−47)	−56 (−49)	−52 (−47)	−42 (−41)	−19 (−28)	4 (−16)	22 (−6)	20 (−7)	1 (−17)	−32 (−36)	−40 (−40)	−55 (−48)	−56 (−49)
Average precipitation inches (mm)	0.12 (3.0)	0.12 (3.0)	0.09 (2.3)	0.12 (3.0)	0.12 (3.0)	0.31 (7.9)	0.87 (22)	1.04 (26)	0.69 (18)	0.39 (9.9)	0.16 (4.1)	0.12 (3.0)	4.17 (106)
Average snowfall inches (cm)	2.2 (5.6)	1.9 (4.8)	1.7 (4.3)	2.2 (5.6)	1.7 (4.3)	0.8 (2.0)	0.2 (0.51)	0.9 (2.3)	5.0 (13)	7.4 (19)	3.2 (8.1)	2.2 (5.6)	29.2 (74)
Average precipitation days (≥ 0.01 in)	4.9	4.1	4.2	4.3	4.8	6.0	9.1	12.1	13.1	11.9	6.0	5.1	85.6
Average snowy days (≥ 0.1 in)	5.5	5.3	5.3	5.8	5.6	1.7	0.5	2.4	9.4	13.8	7.6	5.9	68.8
Source: NOAA