Talk:Russian colonization of North America

message: Technically Hawaii isn't in the Americas.  I might that part, but that is an interesting fact.  --Kraftlos 02:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawaii isn't in North America... I think that's what I meant by that previous comment... --Kraftlos (talk) 07:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I have removed Hawaii from this article several times now, but it keeps getting readded. I'm not sure if people are hoping to sidestep the issue in order to expand the article's scope. I'm not opposed to adding Hawaii, but I do believe we should adhere to WP:TITLE when possible. Broader titles, something like Russian colonization of the New World, or the more politically correct Russian colonization of the Western Hemisphere, are more accurate, although these titles are not without their own problems. --50.46.252.252 (talk) 08:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaii 

message: I took out all of the following, which is not about colonization but about emigration/immigration; a history of the Russian "colony" in Brazil - a settler colony is not "colonization" as usually meant by titles such as this page has - is very valid and deserves its own article; but it has no relation to Russian America or Fort Ross or the Russian imperial presence; if Russians-in-Brazil were here, then the White Russian migration to the US, Canada, Mexico, etc etc plus Ukrainians, Doukhobors, Volga Mennonites and more recent new settlement of ethnic Russians in the Americas also should be; but that's not t he point of this title, no more than Michael Ignatieff is.  This was the section I took out, and it's badly in need of references, cleanup/wikification, and its own title:Skookum1 (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Russians in Brazil

message: The subsection "British Columbia" currently says: The Russians next expanded and explored into present day British Columbia Canada, forming trading outposts and hunting settlements. Later treaties with the British Empire and the U.S. pushed their boundary north. The word "next" seems to mean after the RAC was founded in 1799, because that is described just before this bit. I have two questions about this. First, I know the Russians explored what is now British Columbia, and I don't doubt they did some hunting there, but I am unaware of any Russian posts or settlements within the borders of present British Columbia. Anyone have any examples or sources on it? Second, the "later treaties" with Britain and the US established Russian America's southern boundary at parallel 54°40′ north. The 1799 ukase that created the RAC specifically describes its monopoly as extending south to the 55th parallel north. This the treaties with Britain and the US pushed the boundary south, not north, although only by a small amount--a tweak more than a push. Furthermore, the 1799 ukase did not limit the RAC to operating north of 55° but merely made that the limit of its monopoly. The RAC was encouraged to extend itself south of the line, and it did (Fort Ross for example). In short, until the 1824 and 1825 treaties with Britain and the US the RAC did not really have an explicit southern boundary. And the treaties specifically did not apply to pre-existing settlements like Fort Ross. Unless I'm mistaken, the treaties did not push the RAC's boundary north but rather made explicit the boundary between Russian Alaska and the "joint occupied" Oregon Country--a boundary which applied only to future activities. Or am I missing something? Pfly (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Columbia 

message: This unsourced paragraph (dribble), appears to be a weak attempt by the anti-Russian camp.
:"In present-day Russian Federation and its predecessor the Soviet Union (USSR) there are periodic mass media stories that Alaska was not sold to the United States in the 1867 Alaska Purchase, but only leased for 99 years (= to 1966), or 150 years (= to 2017)—and will be returned to Russia.[citation needed] However, the Alaska Purchase Treaty is absolutely clear that the agreement was for a complete Russian cession of the territory."
Note: the Moscow Times quoted the following:
:"The objective of the petition is not to bring Alaska back to Russia," said Alexander Zhukov, an assistant to the organization's director, in a telephone interview. "We understand that this is not plausible. Our goal is to show the White House that its petition system is a flawed democratic tool that allows anybody to ask for anything."
Because that's just what we need in this world more hatred and intolerance! TRAJAN 117 (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreferenced source

message: There is no history of colonization outside of North America. The title infers there was colonization of both continents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mangokeylime (talk • contribs) 21:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: America is considered a single continent in most of the world, and the name of the territory was 'Russian America.' 104.246.223.62 (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename this "Russian colonization of North America" 

message: :Russian colonization of North America →  – I didn't support merging "Russian America" into "Russian colonization of North America", I supported merging "Russian colonization of North America" into "Russian America". Most supporters didn't agree to merging into "Russian colonization of North America". I don't see why this was merged OPPOSITE to what was proposed. Aearthrise (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: where was that discussion?—blindlynx 15:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion was on the Russian America talk page: Talk:Russian America. Aearthrise (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see consensus there for this move....it seems that three peopleincluding the closervoiced an opinion and preferred 'Russian colonization of North America'; one explicitly preferred 'Russian America'; and threeincluding youdidn't voice an opinion—blindlynx 21:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This wasn't a move, this was a MERGE proposed on January 10th by User:Beland to merge "Russian colonization of North America" into "Russian America". I wouldn't have supported this merge if I knew we were going to do the OPPOSITE and merge "Russian America" into "Russian colonization of North America", and which was finally executed on October 23rd. Aearthrise (talk) 23:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I get it was a merge, but opinion was at best split about what the title of the resulting article should be. So the merge discussion is not good rational for moving this article—blindlynx 00:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

text: Oppose. The current title much better serves the first naming WP:CRITERION of recognizability.  —Michael Z. 17:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 21 December 2023 

message: The long paragraph that begins "The first landfall..", about what happened in 1741, is completely unsourced, and frankly, confused and confusing. For clarity, see Bering Expedition Landing Site for the first landing location and date. That is the first place in Alaska / Northwest North America that somebody set foot, other than an Indian obviously. -- GreenC 01:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused