Talk:History of Alaska

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

History of Alaska received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

first sentence is confused

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

history doesn't 'date' to anytime. the present solution is preferable. Baad 07:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]