This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/GulagWrangell.htm
Though it's spelled wrong it's no doubt it's the very same island...
Anyone around here ever heard of this? I'll try and find the details; during the anti-Soviet Wars of the 1920s Canada's share in the "encirclement" of the communist menace was the completely useful task of seizing and holding Wrangel Island. Why, lord knows, and how long they stayed, I can't remember; but I'll find out and be back. Skookum1 04:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Wrangel Island is not claimed by the US. The US State Department says that the island was never claimed by the United States ( http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/20922.htm). This is the official position of the United States government.
Of course, those familiar with John Muir might remember that he was part of an 1881 expedition by a predecessor of the Coast Guard that claimed the island for the United States ( http://www.sierra-club.org/john_muir_exhibit/frameindex.html?http://www.sierra-club.org/john_muir_exhibit/writings/cruise_of_the_corwin/ -- see Chapter 15). Four decades later, small groups of fur hunters from Canada and then the United States set up camp on the island for one year each. But for one Inuk Indian, the Canadians perished of the cold. The Americans were evicted by the Soviet Navy. They were awarded compensation for their lost furs by an international court in 1959, some 35 years after the incident.
Despite these, in December 1984, the State Department found that the United States government had never made any formal claim to the island. The United States has maintained this position since that time. For that reason, Wrangel Island was not addressed by the 1990 US-USSR Maritime Border Agreement.
There is misinformation regarding the status of Wrangel Island being disseminated by a right wing faction that calls itself State Department Watch. The State Department web page linked above is the record of fact. Competing assertions of fact by the Wall Street Journal and SDW are simply wrong.
In sum: The United States does not claim Wrangel Island. The State Department claims that the United States has never claimed Wrangel Island. The 1990 Maritime Border Agreement did not specifically address the status of Wrangel Island. Wrangel Island is in the Russian maritime zone. The US Senate has ratified this treaty. The USSR and Russian Federation provisionally accepted the treaty without ratification. The United States considers the agreement to be in effect and to control US-Russian relationships on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyokyo ( talk • contribs) 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Text of http://www.statedepartmentwatch.org/FactSheet.htm was copied & pasted here. Replaced with link by Reuben 00:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Posted by Carl Olson —Preceding unsigned comment added by OlsonCarl ( talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 August 2007
This island is spelled Wrange"ll" too. I will go to work with the change as soon as I can. CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 20:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
"The island has also been spelled Wrangel and Vrangel. The U.S. Board of Geographic names, by resolution named 29 July 1901 determined that Wrangell Island, Alaska, in the Arctic Ocean should be spelled with two l's. The island was named in tribute to Ferdinand Petrovich von Wrangell who spelled his own name with two l's when he wrote in the Roman alphabet." CharlesRobertCountofNesselrode 02:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
"Wrangell" is spelled with two L's because Baron von Wrangell spelled it with two L's. "Wrangel" with one L is a Russified spelling. The double L spelling is correct, because it was given by Americans who discovered and claimed the island for America in 1881. Actually, Captain Calvin Leighton Hooper wanted to call the island New Columbia when his ship Thomas Corwin landed on it, but he was over-ruled by his superiors in Washington. There are extensive reports to Congress on this terrific addition to America. (Carl Olson)
The article is not clear on this point. What evidence of the Krachaians (Yuit Eskimos?) did Stepan Andreyev find in 1764? Ancient spear points? A Krachaian hunting camp? The article seems to imply that Wrangel was abandoned by the time of the Stefansson expiditions (1914-1921). Were the Eskimos that were persecuted by Konstantin Semenchuk in the 1930's transplants from Chukotka? I will try to find clarifying references, but some help would be appreciated. -- Sungmanitu ( talk) 18:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems that Wrangel Island was one of the most frequently-addressed areas in State Department Cablegate leak, with almost 7.000 records. Why is the island discussed so extensively? -- Petri Krohn ( talk) 20:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I dont think this is the correct translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.10.185.16 ( talk) 21:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I added a {{ dubious}} tag after the assertion that the Island's enclaves with milder micro-climates was "unique in the high arctic". Ellesmere Island also has enclaves with milder micro-climates. Geo Swan ( talk) 13:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
http://www.cbc.ca/hamilton/news/story/2013/03/18/hamilton-reviving-extinct-species-in-reach.html
Hendrik Poinar claims that the most recent surviving mammoths died about 3000 years ago, not 4000-4500 years ago, as stated in the Wrangel Island article. (added 10:07, 6 June 2013 by user:Nickleus)
The "British, American and Rusian expeditions" section has an insert which says "The German whaler, Eduard Dallmann, landed on the Island in 1866", which is repeated from the source ( here, p240). However the source also states this is "not widely known", and it turns out the source for that assetion is Dallman's own account. So I've edited the claim in the text accordingly. I trust that is OK with everyone. Xyl 54 ( talk) 23:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Evidence for prehistoric human occupation was uncovered in 1975 at the Chertov Ovrag site.[15] Various stone and ivory tools were found, including a toggling harpoon. Radiocarbon dating shows the human inhabitation roughly coeval with the last mammoths on the island c. 1700 BC. Though no direct evidence of mammoth hunting has been found, today this is not considered as a valid observation to discard any hypothesis.[16][17] The presence of mammoths on the island of Wrangel more than 5000 years after their extinction on the mainland, and its coincidence with the arrival of man, is considered as a strong evidence that the climate change hypothesis as the cause of the quaternary extinction event is not consistent with the survival of woolly mammoth on this island and the island of Saint Paul, so many authors today argue that the most likely cause of extinction of the mammoth was excessive hunting.[17][18]
This is a very absurd logic isn't? Then we must consider the 'lack of proof' as the 'proof'? What does it means? The Chertov site C14 talks about 3,000-3,300 yrs ago. The Mammuth were NOT coeval with this, atleast we can find only 4,400 yr young mammuth bones. I know that it's a very difficult thing to determinate the effective dates through C14, but the question is cleary absurd. We are talking about things that we frankly don't know, but there is the 'Clovis(and friends) wing' that decided about the human induced extinction. Without proof, just conjectures.
So how so if there is a new article that claims the mammouth as 'seriously weakened' in DNA because the interbreeding? This is: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170302143933.htm#
While it doesn't proof nothing about the extinction, it notes that mammuth werten't healty at all in their last years. And this wa a fact, not bubbling. 62.11.0.22 ( talk) 21:56, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: |first1=
missing |last1=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Wrangel Island. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
We read:
Dead link, but I suppose that the Wayback Machine could dig up such an article.
"Activists" could perhaps be reexpressed here as "conspiracy theorists". After all, the website's top stories -- even now, in mid 2017! -- include one on the alleged faking of Obama's birth certificate.
Suggestion: Cut any mention of this allegation unless it is described, even briefly, in a reality-based news source. -- Hoary ( talk) 00:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
The claim is made "Forest occupies about 15% of the island's area." There is no citation for this. Given the cold climate, it would be surprising if there was any forest on the island. Does anyone know for sure? 110.145.170.78 ( talk) 04:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC) Deleted as unsourced. Dankarl ( talk) 03:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi X1\ Thanks for the suggestion. I am not aware of any Finnish readers working on this article. Could we interest you in joining us? or if not, could you put a list of the points of difference on the talk page, preferably along with the reference numbers from the Finnish article? Dankarl ( talk) 02:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Information to add to this article: Wrangel Island was not an island during the last ice age, during which time sea levels were 400 feet lower than they are today. Wasn't it part of Beringia (the Bering Land Bridge)? 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 05:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
The last map inside the infobox shows a blank area of ocean, with no island in it. Paulmlieberman ( talk) 15:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)