Talk:Russian America

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

Clean-up, Re-write?[edit]

The article makes it sound as if all Russians disappeared from Alasaka. Anyone visiting Sitka knows this ain't true.


This article requires copy-editing. Does it warrant a notice on the top of the article? Zachkchk 15:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Move/rename to "Russian America"[edit]

Proposed split-off of "Missionary activity" section[edit]

This is an entirely different subject, and extends into the American period....I suggest History of the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska for where most of this section can go, and that article has a lot of room for growth and also can carry the relevant religion categories and WP:Christianity or WP:Orthodoxy, whichever. And isn't htere a Russian Old Believers faction in modern Alaska? Some historical elements/themese in the section shoudl still be in the Russian America article; the attempt to found Ft Stikine in 1833 didn't come off like this article implies; the British were unable to found that fort until 1840, after the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1838 ('37?) which was the end-result of the Russians repulsing the HBC in 1833 ('34?); and the fur trade had been siphoned off by American vessels, the British were more inteersted in establishing those forts in order to get the inland trade, which was theirs by the 1825 treaty; anyway that's a separate history subject but the general topic should stay in this article, it doesnt' have to do with Missionary Activity and shuldn't have been in this section, really. Anyway I thnk the religious history split-off is valid and would give more latitude for necessary expansions oto this article. That the sequence of Governors and no other notable names are mentioned is kind of an issue; see next.Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Governors' list et al.[edit]

There's very little information here on personnel; most important would be the sequence of governors, though perhaps List of governors of Russian America would be aworth making, and also succession boxes for their pages, and a category to boot. In general this article needs major enrichment, so I'll place the "expand" tag...Skookum1 (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

Now that this article covers all of Russian America, all periods not just 1825-, it seems appropriate to merge in the material from Russian colonization of the Americas. AjaxSmack and Shunpiker proposed this merger on 19 December 2008, and it was discussed somewhat above in the /* Move/rename to "Russian America" */ discussion. --Bejnar (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was me placed the merge template in the first place, since discovering what was then titled "Russian Alaska" and I've been pondering it since. It may be more of a rename discussion/recontextualizing rather than a merge. In the same way there's a distinction between Oregon Country and Oregon Territory, there's a distinction between Russian exploration and commercial activity in the 18th Century and the constitutional/legal entity of Russian America 1799-1867. "Coloonization" still isn't an adequate term; the ostensible reason for wider article beyond Russian America/"Alaska" was because of Russian colonization beyond Russian America proper; but that really only means Fort Ross, i.e. something that lay outside the bounds of Russian America proper, in any of its territorial shapes (which changed/retreated back to today's Alaska boundary, more or less a the Panhandle boundary was never fully decided until 1903 once it was American). The only other Russian outpost that had anything to do with North America, and wasn't in North America, was the RAC post on Oahu; in the same way there was an HBC post there, under the theoretical supervision of the Columbia Department of the HBC; neither of these outlier posts - Fort Ross or Hawaii - were part of Russian America, though they were part of the Russian-American Company operations in the Pacific and "satellites of Sitka"; still some Russian imperial and other maps show Russian claims extending into California (when they never did in formal terms). The wider reason I've reconsidered this merge, and maybe a simple retitling or a new article (Russian exploration of the Americas might suffice...but wouldn't take in Fort Ross, which was an outpost, not an exploration) is because of intensive Russian scientific and mapping expeditions on the Northwest Coast and also down to California....List of Russian ships in the Pacific Northwest and California I've also proposed, with the ratioale for that title partly Fort Ross but also the Russian sending of a warship to back up the US during the Trent Affair during the Civil War. There were also land expeditions like Lieutenant Perelshin's ,up the Stikine in 1863, though not many, and in that case he didn't go beyond what Russia considered its boundary (ten marine leagues from the sea inland); mostly I'm thinking of the separate article, though ,becaues Bering's expedition and othres like it, which pre-date the existence of Russian America, are a somewhat separate topic. I'm not making a decision here or recommending one, just laying out some issues....Skookum1 (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try and get off my duff and finally put together the Ukase of 1799 and Ukase of 1821 articles (the first Ukase established Russian america, the second expanded it) and expand the Russo-British Treaty of 1825 one (Treaty of St. Petersburg (1825) (which reduced the claims/territorial assertions of 1821) and the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1838 ('37? '39?) one concerning the HBC lease of the Panhandle, which also means I have to finally write Fort article begets another.....maybe all th pieces will fall into place once that's done; there's also a Russo-Spanish agreement from the 1700s which recognized that Spain would claim no farther than Cook Inlet and Russia would claim no farther than...I'm not sure, might be the 42nd Parallel; the Nootka Convention came after it, that's all I remebmer for now....I wonder if I can find a copy of Pethick here in Halifax? maybe....Skookum1 (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What the heck?[edit]

In the following passage

The earliest written accounts indicate that the first Europeans to reach Alaska came from Russia. In 1648 Semyon Dezhnev sailed from the mouth of the Kolyma River through the Arctic Ocean and around the eastern tip of Asia to the Anadyr River. The descendants of these people (as well from mixed marriages with Native Americans) became the first Russian Americans, after purchase of Alaska from Russia. One legend holds that some of his boats were carried off course and reached Alaska. However, no evidence of settlement survives. Dezhnev's discovery was never forwarded to the central government, leaving open the question of whether or not Siberia was connected to North America. In 1725, Tsar Peter I of Russia called for another expedition.

I removed the bolded passage because, obviously, it's got stuck in there by accident from an entirely different section and is a non sequitur. Since Dezhev quite probably did not even reach Alaska let alone land let alone found a settlement then members of his expedition are not the first Russian Americans, plus what is meant by "these people" is not clear (Dezhnev's men?) and so the passage is ungrammatical. However, an editor restored it, so per WP:BRD here we are, awaiting the argument for retaining the passage. Herostratus (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Errr... (?!) Considering that it is completely unsourced, I'd be fascinated to find out where this information came from! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the passage refers to later settlers and is just misplaced. User:Zemant (the editor who wanted the material included there) not having responded, I've removed it again. Herostratus (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Herostratus, User:Zemant has been making strange changes to articles without edit summaries or responding to queries on the correlating talk pages or, as you would have noticed, on their talk page, full stop. He/she doesn't provide sources but changes centuries and adds WP:OR content. I have absolutely no idea of what motivates this user, but it's getting frustrating. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
and "became the first Russian Americans" discounts the high probability that Russians were already in the Lower 48.Skookum1 (talk) 06:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Confirmed as correct. Thanks, Cyberbot II. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Biased paragraph[edit]

The following paragraph in the 19th century section seems very biased to me:

The naval officers of the Russian–American Company established schools and hospitals for the Aleut and gave them jobs. Russian Orthodox clergy moved into the Aleutian Islands to aid the people. The Aleut population began to increase.

This seems to reflect a colonial mentality where the Russians were "helping" the Aleuts by "giving them jobs", "aiding the people" by missionary activity, etc. Also the time frame when these activities were occurring is vague. This could use some rewording by someone better versed in history than I. (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

I've tagged the paragraph you've pointed out, as well as the paragraph above it, as being WP:POV. Ultimately, short of removing these paragraphs altogether, if I were to make any changes it would be original research simply because most of the content is unsourced. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)