Talk:History of Alaska

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Alaska article.
Article policies
Former featured article History of Alaska is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2005.
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Alaska Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve Alaska-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] one of the best articles?

This article is full of jumps and gaps caused by editing errors. Take the mention of the Good Friday Earthquake in the first section: it gives no year or date. The story of the quake then resumes down at the Native American section. This is just one of many, many editorial issues this article has. It needs some serious revision, and I must go to work now so I cannot do it.TKE

Hi, I wrote most of this article. I'm really sorry, but it appears User:Reddi had completely reorganized the article without discussing it on the talk page at all. I have reorganized the article in places where Reddi's reorganization made the article inconsistent, and hope that future editors will keep this article flowing chronologically, as is Wikipedia's intention on most history articles. Bits and pieces of this article were lost throughout all the vandalism---I had to restore the entire pre-history section myself---and I haven't been able to keep up with all the reverting as much as I should because of other pursuits. Toothpaste 19:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Thanks for your fast response, the article is much much more coherant now. I hadn't thought the author screwed it up, it's just one of the drawbacks/advantages of the wiki format. Good job. Oh, but you should have mentioned Northern Exposure :)TKE

[edit] the first sentence: problems with "history" and "Alaska"

"The history of Alaska dates back to the Paleolithic Era"

That's prehistory by definition, isn't it?

"Alaska" is a political decriptor - it is not a natural geographical unit, as should be clear from the shape of its eastern border - and as such did not exist in the Paleolithic. -- Danny Yee 01:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Something like "the history of the region that is now Alaska" would fix the solecism, but it's pretty clunky so I'm reluctant to make that change. -- Danny Yee 01:43, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
history doesn't 'date' to anytime. the present solution is preferable. Baad 07:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Yee. I suggest that the word 'history' does imply a date, even according to Wikipedia itself. Under wikiarticle 'history', we note
"Historians limit their study to events that have been recorded since the introduction of the"
"earliest known written and historical records, notably the Narmer Palette of circa 3200 BC."
"Events before then are called prehistory, a period informed by the fields of palaeontology"
"and archaeology."
For this reason, that Paleolithic first sentence sounds inconsistent with what we academically and casually define as history. There are many other indicators that the word 'history' implies a connection with written records or archaeological records: for instance, when we say 'ancient history of china', we don't talk start by talking about its paleolithic era, but instead about state formation in Chou dynasty.Wilgamesh 14:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
It'd be good to be careful with the use of "history" (though there'd be no confusion writing about, say, "the history of the pre-Cambrian Earth"), but I was more concerned about the implication that some entity "Alaska" existed that far back. Is "the Alaskan peninsula" ever used? -- Danny Yee 05:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It says that the first european contact was with russian explorers, but it seems likely that the russian explorers would have been Asian.

"The history of Alaska is as long and varied as" is a terrible cliche, and conveys no information at all. One could argue that Alaska has the *longest* history of any part of the Americas, but that would be just as silly. And is Alaska's history more or less varied than that of Florida, or of Tibet? Unless there's some way of deciding that question, stating an answer to it is just empty. -- Danny Yee 05:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

We could go with something like "The history of Alaska, as part of the United States, began in 1867, but settlement of the region dates back to around 12 000 BC". Alternatively, something like "The name Alaska dates to XXXX, when..." - but when was the name first used? -- Danny Yee 06:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"The name "Alaska" is most likely derived from the Aleut word Alyeska, meaning great country, mainland or great land." I think that's one of those questions you can't really answer without going back in time, really, and I like the first suggestion much better, too. Toothpaste 10:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I like the suggestion also. It looks pretty good, and by leading into the next sentence about the bering strait crossing, it conforms to the rest of the article since later on we get more details on the prehistoric migrators. I'll just edit Yee's suggestion in.Wilgamesh 18:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is this Accurate?

This page says that the first people from Asia came to North America around 16,000 to 10,000 BC. I believe that their are archaeologists who believe that they probably came as early as around 100,000 BC.

Leon Trotsky 20:52 25 October 2005

12,000 BC or thereabouts is the clear consensus. Anyone arguing for 100,000 BC is pretty fringe. Danny Yee 07:02, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
see also Image:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg; 100,000 BC there were no homines sapientes anywhere outside Africa and maybe the Middle East. Baad 07:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seward's Folly

Nice article. I noticed that there was no discussion of "Seward's Folly" and some of the political fallout from the purchance. I'm hesitant to add it myself, so as not to disrupt the current narative flow of the main author(s). 172 | Talk 05:40, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. I'm sorry, but the seven textbooks and fifteen websites I used in this article seemed only briefly to mention the political turmoil caused by Seward's Folly, and after moving information from this main article into subarticles, I forgot to make sure it was mentioned at all, which I have now. Toothpaste 09:33, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting. I know hardly next to anything about Alaska history, never having read any specialized texts on the subject, and only geting bits and pieces from stuff on presidential administrations and the Cold War. I assumed that it would get more attention in the Alaska history literature because general U.S. histories often mention "Seward's Folly" whenever they bring up the Alaska Purchase. Perhaps that's a sign that it didn't have much of an effect on Alaska's development in the end. Thanks for the response. 172 | Talk 11:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
You got it, 172. That's one of those things that is put in high school history texts because you can remember the popular name for the purchase at the time. Overall, the political fallout from the purchase was minimized by the Yukon Gold Rush of 1896. TKE

bvj

[edit] External websites

I hope you do not mind me adding a section for external websites. There are some nice ones out there that should be included. I only added mine about Soapy Smith. Soapy 22:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Soapy Smith website link probably belongs on the Soapy Smith page - remember wikipedia is not a collection of links. Welcome to wikipedia. Megapixie 23:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

The maps on this page are geting out of control. One map of reasonable size should suffice. The map that excludes "southern Alaska" (southeast) is like a map of california, cut in thirds, not showing southern California. The southeast section cut from the map, also contained the capitol of Juneau. LOL. Soapy 05:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion no state needs maps more than Alaska. They are packed with information and should be kept. Rjensen 05:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Then get better, complete maps! Soapy 05:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

the 1895 map is one of the best ever made of Alaska. If you want perfection, try Encyclopedia Britannica. Rjensen 05:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not one of the better maps I have seen of Alaska. On this page, it's too big, and you still can't read it. What good is it? We already have a map that shows the shape of Alaska. Soapy 05:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've reduced the size of this and a few other images; as they're all thumbnails, they don't need to overshadow the text since clicking on the image allows the user to see the image full-size. I'd like to see better-quality maps as well, but these will have to work within the article until such time as they can be replaced.--Lordkinbote 06:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good! Now let's see if someone can get a complete map to replace the other Alaska map that cuts out the southeast part of Alaska. It may not seem like much if you have never been there, but this is the part of Alaska that most visitors visit!Soapy 14:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and it nearly lops off the current capital as well as the original one! --Lordkinbote 15:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)==

Sitka! Soapy 16:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAR

Just letting all interested parties know that I've put History of Alaska up for a Featured Article Review, because of the virtual lack of inline citations. Please do comment on the review (here) and help with improving the citations, if you can. Thanks! --Miskwito 00:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I may be wrong but from going to the actual FAR page it appears to me that Miskwito really wants this article removed. Please go to Featured Article Review then scroll down to History of Alaska (1.13) and leave a comment there if you wish to keep this article going. This article was created because it was too large to have on the Alaska article. Soapy 05:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Just a note (which I've put on the FAR page too) to clarify that this isn't the same thing as the article being up for deletion. It's to try to fix problems with the article or, failing that, remove the article's status as a featured article. Nothing more. I mean no offense! --Miskwito 22:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I was wrong in my assumptions on Miskwito's part. There is no movement to "delete" this article. Only to "remove" it from Featured Article status if it is not cleaned up. The word usage and definitions on the FAR page need to be cleared up by Wikipedia. Soapy 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph locations

Is it possible that someone might relocate the photographs to their proper spots? The Department of Alaska covered 1867 to 1884 but the photograph is of the 1898 Klondike gold rush. The District of Alaska covered the years 1884 to 1900 but has a 1916 photograph. The Alaska Territory years covered 1900 to 1958 but has an 1895 map. Soapy 02:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Soapy 16:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added to the Alaska article

This was added to the Alaska article by a user who also added a long rant about how the court system in Alaska is currently unconstitutional. I'm suspicious of its truthfulness, and it's definitely pov regardless. I'm pasting it here in case anyone wants to try to salvage it. Calliopejen1 10:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

After Alaska was purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867, it became a military district. Posts were established at Wrangel and Sitka. For 17 years Congress neglected Alaska. In the first 15 years since it was purchased, 25 bills were introduced in Congress to provide Alaska with a civil government, all were became buried in committees. The fortieth Congress passed a customs act, 15 Stat.240, creating a customs district which meant that foreign goods were subject to the same duties in Alaska as elsewhere in the United States, extending to Alaska the laws regarding commerce and navigation and prohibiting the importation and sale of distilled liquors.

In 1873 the act was amended to prohibit the sale of liquor to Indians. The forty-first Congress made the Pribilof islands a reservation and enacted into law a twenty year exclusive concession of their seal fisheries to a private company (Alaska Commercial Company) based in San Francisco. These two acts comprised the only legislation for Alaska that was to be enacted by Congress for 17 years. During that period, no hopeful settler could acquire a title to land; no pioneer could clear a bit of forested wilderness and count on the fruits of his toil, or build a cabin with the assurance that it was his; no prospector could stake a mining claim with security for his enterprise; property could not be deeded or transferred; no will was valid; marriage could not be celebrated; no injured party could secure redress for grievances except through his own acts; crime could not be punished.

What semblance of government as there was, was exercised without legal authority by the commanding general of the troops stationed at Sitka. When there was an uprising of the Nez Perce' in Idaho the troops were withdrawn and even their shadowy authority and potency ceased to exist. There was left one collector of customs, M.P. Berry as the sole federal legal authority in charge of Alaska's destinies. He was taken ill and left Sitka for medical advice in Victoria B.C. It is suspected that a contributory factor in his departure had something to do with his telegraph to the treasury department that "unless a vessel were dispatched at a very early day to Sitka, its people would have been handed over bodily for slaughter to the Indians".

Some of the facts here seem to be true, but needs sourcing to be sure. And most certainly a change of tone per WP:NPOV. --Yksin 16:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese occupation during World War II

The article now states:

During World War II, three of the outer Aleutian Islands—Attu, Agattu and Kiska—were the only part of the United States to have land occupied by the enemy during the war. The battle became a matter of national pride, defending the nation against the first foreign military campaign on U.S. soil since the War of 1812.

Alaska was not a state when the invasion occurred. Other US territory invaded and occupied by the Japanese were Wake Island, Guam and the Phillipines. The present text needs clarification or deletion-- it seems too fine a point to include given the editing which it would take to make it accurate. Kablammo 22:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now revised it, and also removed the statement that the battle was the first foreign military campaign on US soil. Pancho Villa's forces invaded New Mexico in 1916; whether that was a "foreign military campaign" may depend on one's point of view. Kablammo 12:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)