Talk:Fort Ross, California

message: There should be a way to avoid/exclude meaningless insertions/deletions such as recently accomplished by 50.0.108.38Федоров (talk) 15:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Meaningless insertions/deletions

message: Can reach B class without a lot of work. needs more setting detail (eg ecology and land use) and needs more references. Anlace 23:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial Assessment under wiki proj california

message: I have placed this into its own section, the title of which I have my doubts about so I invite anyone with a better idea to change it.  In the future, can we please add this kind of information in an orderly fashion rather than any old place in the article you feel like typing?
I fixed the link for the FRP so it no longer points to a dab page and so that it's a more normal style (full name first, then common acronym), but frankly I think this will be a redlink forever -- or if not, its non-redlink status will probably be strictly temporary. I don't think such a group meets Wikipedia standards for notability. (It might stick around anyway if it's sufficiently interesting, so go for it.  Just don't get your hopes up too high.)
I also removed the "See also" link since there is no article there and may never be; most of the relevant information is right here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that the FRP article has already been up and deleted. I cut the paragraph here entirely since it didn't seem to be of sufficient general interest.  TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New local information

message: I have rearranged these articles so that the redirect points to Fort Ross, California and added  to that article to point back to the dab page.  As it was, there were two dozen articles linking to Fort Ross that would have needed disambiguation to Fort Ross, California, and none at all to Somerset Island and Fort Ross.  It seemed fairly clear that Fort Ross unqualfied generally meant the California site. (It is indeed a historical site of international importance.) This seemed the best solution. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Thanks, David Kernow 08:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding my thanks as well - Introvert ~? 09:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've split apart Somerset Island and Fort Ross to Fort Ross, Nunavut and Somerset Island (Nunavut). --Rosiestep (talk) 02:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect and disambiguation

message: I was just there.  Why is it called Fort Ross?  Ross isn't a Russian name.  Ross = Rus = Russian?
XPav 00:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the best guess. I include it if I could remember where I read it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, here we go.  http://www.parks.sonoma.net/rosshist.html - The name "Ross" is generally considered to be a shortened version of "Rossiya," the Russia of Tsarist days. XPav 19:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the source says, but I have no idea why they say it that way. There's nothing particularly Tsarist about "Rossiya"; it's just a transliteration of the Russian word for "Russia", "Россия". TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's true -- "Rossiya" means "Russia". It's possible that the author was saying "Tsarist days" because after the revolution of 1917 (which overthrew the Tsarist rule) Russia became known as the Soviet Union. So the name "Rossiya" is from the Tsarist days (I think it's officially called Russian Federation now). Python 07:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is very funny! Official name Russian Federation or Russia (tr/ Rossijskaya Federaciya or Rossiya) learn Russian Language, it is useful.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.19.98.136 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a reference with a source claiming that the name of the fort is indeed from "ros" or "rus". Worth noting that the Spanish/Mexicans in California always referred to it as "El fuerte Ruso" -- the Russian fort. babbage (talk) 08:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks, but that does not seem to solve the problem. Россъ does not seem to mean anything in Russian. A back formation from Fuerte Ruso seems better, but I have no evidence. (I could not get to the web site without a password.) Benjamin Trovato (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I do not comprehend how Mr. Trovato can ignore all of the above explanation, including the rather authoritative note that Fort Ross is what the Russians themselves name it.  To Russian speakers "Ross" clearly is an adaptation of "Rossiya" used to name this place.  The most simple answer most likely is usually the correct one.  These have been far too many words devoted here to a trivial issue.Moryak (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: In his "Europe: between East and West" Norman Davies quotes someone else's book that between 1/4 to 1/3 of fort Ross inhabitants were Poles (exiled from Poland after Kosciuszko Uprising). Hence I have introduced "Poles" intro the list of nationalities inhabitating fort Ross. Szopen 08:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Norman Davies and fort Ross

message: In the intro passages, that is; the impression given so far is that it was part of Russian America, but it was definitely in New Spain and then in Mexico and there were agreements governing its presence....can someone lay this out clearly please?  i seem to recall it was established at first without Spanish say-so but terms were quickly reqched, and there were later disagreements with Mexico.  Note also I changed the phrasing about "the southernmost in continental North America" as "continental" is redundant, unless others had been posts in, say, the Santa Barbara Islands or the Isla de Guadelupe; the only other settlements were at Sitka (on an island) and Kodiak (on the continent), other than those in the Aleutians etc.  I also took out the nonsense about there being Russian settlements in this period in BC, Washington and Oregon, which there just weren't (regional history might have been very different if there had been); apparently this is popular mythology in Russia about Russian America, but it's nonsense.  Another big quibble is the claim that all ethnic groups of the Empire were present in Fort Ross - that would have been a lot of employees if that were the case....would somebody please bring this article up to "historical snuff"??Skookum1 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Terms of lease/arrangement with New Spain and Mexico needed

message: I'm not up on switches for "article issues" as I should be; by "refimprove" here I mean the need for item-cites, not just additional sources, but specific cites for specific statements.  As for advertising, this still reads a bit like a brochure rather than a proper history, and the volunteering section, which was inappropriately in second place, I've put down after the weather; this shoudl not be a recruitment page.  Cleanup's not so bad except maybe for section-formatting but all articles could use cleanup :-) ; some sloppy history/almost peacock stuff has been purged from the article so I didn't bother with the peacock tag....Skookum1 (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: refimprove etc

message: The ref tags in use should be using "rename" and the references given in what is now the References section should be integrated so they display as outcomes of the use of refname/ref tags; "Notes" and "References" here are the same section, really, and should be combined.Skookum1 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Refname/notes/references

message: If you double click on this the two lables contradict.Benjamin Trovato (talk) 07:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sloboda image

message: I have removed the sentence "The Russian American Company’s primary mission in California was to hunt sea otters for their fur. Eventually, the otter population declined and in order to maintain the colonies up north in Alaska and at Fort Ross, the windmills were built" because it clearly contradicts information contained in paragraphs two and three under History:Russian-American Company which states the Company's purpose in establishing Fortress Ross was for agricultural purposes - not sea otter hunting. The author of the windmill section should have consulted the footnote (no.3, Dmytryshin, Basil; Crownhart-Vaughan, E.A.P.; Vaughan, Thomas (1989). The Russian American Colonies 1789-1867. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. .) which contains the quote " The main administration of the Company reports the start of a new [Russian American] settlement in 1812, some 40 versts from the port of San Francisco in a small bay called Bodega. This settlement [Ross] has been organized through the initiative of the Company. Its purpose is to establish a [Russian] settlement there or in some other place not occupied by Europeans, and to introduce agriculture there by planting hemp, flax, and all manner of garden produce;" (page 33, After December 16,1813: A report to Emperor Alexander I from the Russian American Company Council, concerning trade with California and the establishment of Fort Ross) 
I have not corrected the rather poor grammar of the article Ltkizhi (talk) 04:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Windmill information

message: I have removed the names of the two archeologists because it seems unfair to mention their efforts without mentioning the other archeologists involved in over three decades of archeological investigations at Fort Ross State Historic park (not to mention early attempts at amateur archeology carried out before 1906) 
In addition, a decades-long controversy, still unresolved as of this writing (2012) surrounds the "restoration" of the Fort Ross cemetery by California State Parks. Led by a scholar from the Russian Academy of Sciences, a diplomat from the Russian foreign service, former directors of the Fort Ross Interpretive Association and numerous members of the northern California Russian-American community, the controversy surrounds the uniform placement of the 131 simple "temporary" wooden orthodox crosses placed  by an "ad-hoc" committee and Russian Boy Scouts as being historically in-accurate and carried out without proper scholarly oversight. Ltkizhi (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cemetery information

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fort Ross, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100713005230/http://www.fortrossinterpretive.org:80/orchard.php to http://www.fortrossinterpretive.org/orchard.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fort Ross, California. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114222214/http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=143&ResourceType=Building to http://tps.cr.nps.gov/nhl/detail.cfm?ResourceId=143&ResourceType=Building
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that :File:Russian chapel at Fort Ross (2016).jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for November 5, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-11-05. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page.  If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured picture scheduled for POTD 

message: The section Earliest People says
:The first people who lived at the site were there during the Upper Archaic period (1000 B.C. - A.D. 500) and the Lower Emergent period (A.D. 1500 - 1500)
Archaic Period (Americas) does not support using the term for such a late period for any part of the Americas, there is no wikipedia article on an Emergent period, and the paren "(A.D. 1500 - 1500)" is clearly mistaken.--Nø (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archeological periods 

message: Wandered across news relating to Fort Ross (and Alaska and Antarctica): Oleg_Matveychev#Alaska_commments, and Snopes did article. --EarthFurst (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian politician wants Fort Ross back 

message: The statement "the first vaccination in California history was carried out by the crew of the Kutuzov, a Russian-American Company vessel arriving from Callao, Peru which brought vaccine to Monterey in August, 1821" is simply false.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaspina_Expedition
Please correct that mistake. 184.23.218.242 (talk) 22:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:   First vaccination in California history