Jump to content

Talk:Russian America/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Copy-edit

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"

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved to Russian America. 2 editors also favored a merge from Russian colonization of the Americas, which is outside the scope of a requested move discussion. It can be carried out as normal.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 10:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Move/rename I'm fairly sure the name "Alaska" was not adopted as a name for the territory until it became a US possession; the most common historical reference is to Russian America, a title which currently redirects to Russian colonization of the Americas....I almost placed a merge template on that article and this one, though I gave it second thought as the colonization article would include exploration history and also Fort Ross, which wasn't in Russian America. The context of the currnet title is "Alaska when it was Russian", but that's not how the Russian American Company referred to it and I don't think it was how the Tsarist ministers/sources referred to it either. There's a need for the two separate articles, I'd say, although a lot of overlap between them; but the title just doesn't work for me given the historical sources and the Russian American Compay's own nomenclature - "Alaska" was not Russian; Russian America was...Americans are the ones who coined the term - I think it even says that on Alaska Territory or Alaska purchase.....Skookum1 (talk) 15:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I note the infobox caption and associated map use "Russian America"....what's curious is how Pitt Island and Banks Island are shown coloured as part of Russian America, even though they were south of 54-40....is the "Sixth Street" in question in an American city, i.e. was the map American-published?...it's an interesting incongruity, but not alone in maps of the era; some maps even show Russian America as extending east into the Northwest Territories....Skookum1 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • By the way, given the date of publication, I should note that the Mainland Colony (as British Columbia was then known) did not extend north of "Simpson River" (the Nass River today) and did in fact exclude coastal islands until 1863 or so...the Queen Charlotte Islands were a separate colony, declared in 1853.....so in a sense the map is correct, as far as the coast goes - Stikine Territory was not declared until the next year (it was north of the Nass)...."correct" insofar as the islands in question were not formally part of any British colony, though they were definitely in the region claimed by Britain as a result of treaties with Russia and the United States (namely the Oregon Treaty). This was - I think - long before - agitation from within the US to buy Russian America, but it could be part of a cartographical propaganda campaign that helped that cause along, including President Buchanan's willful anc scheming confusion of "Portland Canal" and "Portland Channel" (Clarence Strait), which played a big part in the Alaska boundary dispute. what's also missing from the map, however, is any acknoweldgment of the lease to the Hudson's Bay Company/Britain of the mainland part of the Panhandle, lpus adjoining islands, from the RAC as of 1838, which was renewed in 1848 and again repeatedly on four-year intervals; this area was, legally, as much British as was Hong Kong and other territories elsewhere in the eworld that were leased. Russian and American maps never show it of course....I'll be writing up an article on the Russo-British Convention of 1838 soon, so stay tuned......Skookum1 (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Philadelphia, 1861. No campaign, as far as I can tell; Seward's folly was his own idea. Russia had agreed with the United States in 1824 that neither would claim land on the other side of 54°40' N; but there is no reason for the cartographer not to annoy the British. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, well that would certainly fit the window between the declaration of the Colony in '58 and the Territory of Stickeen in '61 - especially bearing in mind news travelled slowly, and printing wasn't an overnight job either; I think it was in 59 that President.....Grant? (sorry I dn't know your prez's well) started publishing maps showing his version fo the Russo-British boundary; what's interesting on the map is where the wash of colour is divide, from the southern tip of the Charlottes to the mount of the Portland Canal area, so as ot include Aristazabal and Pitt Islands, though that straight line doesn't exist on a better map; what possession of those islands, and implicitly Banks Island also (not shown) is the control of the mouths of hte Skeena and Nass; BC's official northern boundary wsa the Nass as noted; but if the US had come to control those islands, control of the lands accessed from that area would have or could have followed suit....Anyway Stikceen Terrirtory was declared shortly after this mapmaker set to work, interesting to know; other Russian maps show claims east to the Mackenzie and beyond, even though they were published after the treaty establishing what is now the Yukon border...(and after the 1825 treaties making the fuzzy Panhandle border that caused so much troubel later i.e. 1898-1903).Skookum1 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. As this article is currently written it is not about the Russian presence in North America, it focuses entirely on the territory that became American Alaska. In the Wikipedia, history articles (almost inevitably) go back in time prior to the use of the current name. For example, History of Iran goes back through Persia, past the Elamite dynasties and even earlier. Historical articles that focus on a geographically restricted area based on current boundaries cannot help but have this problem of using a current name for the area. If someone wanted to change the name to "Russian America", they should first rewrite the article so that it is about Russian America, which goes south at least as far as Fort Ross, California which was was a thriving settlement from 1812 to 1841. But that article already exists as Russian colonization of the Americas, of which this one is a daughter. This article is about a restricted geographical area, it has a name which non-technical readers will easily understand, and it doesn't conflict with the scope of other articles. There is nothing to change. --Bejnar (talk) 06:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • This article is not about the Russian presence is North America writ large -- and that's the point: The most common and historical meaning of the phrase "Russian America" does not apply broadly to all Russian settlements in the Americas, but refers specifically to to the territory that is known today as Alaska. There is no doubt that the phrase can be construed in a broader sense, but only at the expense of its historical meaning. Should we rename the Magna Graecia article "Greek Italy"? "Magna Graecia" is a historical term, and we expect it to be interpreted as such. So is "Russian America". "Russian colonization of the Americas" is a fine description of the broader topic of Russian settlements in the Americas. To use "Russian America" as a synonym for that topic is to efface the historical sense of the phrase, and needlessly so. References abound showing "Russian America" to refer specifically and exclusively to the territory that was acquired in the Alaska Purchase. Can the broader use of the term be similarly documented? -- Shunpiker (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
still opposed Yes, the use of "Russian America" to refer to the larger area can be documented. The Russian explorers and settlers did not draw the same lines as some academics. See, e.g., Colonial Russian America: Kyrill T. Khlebnikov's Reports, 1817-1832‎ - Page 106, by Kiril Timofeevich Khlebnikov, Oregon Historical Society - Social Science - 1976 - 158 pages - "Fort Ross Early Views On Settlement In Albion In the first part of these observations, reasons were given for relations with California being established" retrieved from GoogleBooks, or an academic citation, e.g., Clothing in Colonial Russian America: A New Look‎ - Page 8, by John Middleton, Lyn Kalani - History - 1996 - 146 pages - "The question of costumes that are historically accurate for Russian America, and in particular Fort Ross, is a difficult one.", retrieved from GoogleBooks. There are many more. The point, simply put is that "Russian Alaska" (descriptive) is not ambiguous as to the area covered, "Russian America" is ambiguous. --Bejnar (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Interesting feedback, and I'm on the way out the door until later, but just to note that re "Russian colonization of the Americas" the only place other than Russian America in that equation is Fort Ross; Russian America as delimited by the Ukase of 1799 went to 55 North, and in the Ukase of 1821 first to 43 North, then on revision to 51 North, then finally by the treaty with the US in '24 and with Britain in '25 to to 54-40; and there were no Russian settlements anywhere in any of that region. That the post-1825 boundary of Russian America is more or less identical to the American territory/state of Alaska is incidental to teh reality that Russian America, at least as declared/constituted, took in a much wider swathe of coastline - uninhabited by Russians and while frequented by Russian ships not settled or exploited in other ways) and the only other Russian presence in North America was at Fort Ross, outside of Russian America "proper" (even in its most extreme sense i.e. the 43 parallel - 41st?); Ross was admittedly part of California though I cant' remebmer the technical details of the agreement between the Russians and the Californian authorities. Russian America proper ,to summarize, only matched today's Alaska as of 1825; it did not from 1799 to that time; the "broader topic" of Russian colonization of the Americas is only broader in the sense of Fort Ross....but on the other hand, to repeat, Russian America in its earlier boundaries was not teh same as Alaska....Skookum1 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
So are you saying that the two articles Russian colonization of the Americas and Russian Alaska ought to be remerged? --Bejnar (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Skookum1's comments make the ambiguity of the title Russian America quite clear. In looking at the actual article as written, the entire focus is on the territory that became Alaska. --Bejnar (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
But the entity known as Russian America was bigger than what's now Alaska, that is my point; in official terms Russian America reached south of the Columbia, even though the Russians never did anytihng at Coos Bay and Tillamook other than land and maybe buy some clams; "New Spain" likewise extended all teh way, legally, to Cook Sound until Russo-Spanish treaties established the 42nd Parallel as a demarcator; from 1799 to 1825 the Russians were just as active in the marine trade and exploration on the BC Coast as anyone else, with the exception of certain notable American captains; they did not settle in palces like Bella Coola or the Queen Charlottes, but their trading and exploration/scientifric presence was felt. Now, origianlly, or when I got into Wikipedia typing "Russian America" sould take you to Russian colonization of the Americas; which as a title is suggestive of more than Russian America but really, as noted, it's only in combinastion with Fort Ross (though a Russian base at Honolulu was aprt of the system of the marine fur trade and a rival to the HBC post there...). So while the Russian colonization article can both take in Fort Ross, and discuss Russian trade and missionary activiete,s it's not the same subject as teh legal and territorial entity known as Russian America, and as Russian America was, if only for a while, larger than Alaska and "not just Alaska", it still needs a separate article, though the two are intertwined; "colonization" tends to mean settlement; "colonialism" may mean something different, please note. Please note also that in the same way that there were no Russian settlemetns on Vancouver Island or in Puget Sound, there were only a few other Russian settlements at all...especially from Yakutat southwards i.e. the alaska Panhandle simiarly was a "blank spot on the russian map" for the most part, i.e. once you got outside of Sitka it was still Tlingit Aani - Land of The Tlingit. Fundamentally, though, there was a legal entity knkown in both Russian dn English as "Russian America". There was NO entity in either languge whose name was "Russian Alaska"; "Alaska" in the fur trade period, if I'm not mistaken, tended to mean from Juneau wsstward and was only part of Russian America...though I don't konw what the Panhandle region may have been referred to as in Russian.....Even if the Russian name had been "Alaska" for the Tsar's possession, it would hav been "the such-and-so of Alaska" i.e. the province of Alaska or whatever; the Russians wouldn't have called it "Russian Alaska"...they did call all their constituted possessions in North America, however, as "Russian America". There's no need for further logic to it, just because it looks (to you) like it's identical to modern Alaska; the boundaries weren't fixed, the economic and missionary activites were more in flux than you realize. There is a differenc,e and more than one....Skookum1 (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposed split-off of "Missionary activity" section

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.

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

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 Stikien....one 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?

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)

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.

checkY 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.

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

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

Biased paragraph

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. 73.170.41.47 (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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_America/Archive_1&oldid=1191061788"