Talk:California gold rush/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Thank you to everyone

Thank you to the dozens of people, who made material contributions and suggestions for this article - a well-deserved round of congratulations for all the hard work that resulted in Featured Article status.NorCalHistory 02:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

We are now off the air ... Thanks to all!

Well, the article survived its time on the Main page . . . Thank you to the editors who made contributions to the article while it was up in such a public place, but mostly thank you, thank you to the many dozens of editors who tirelessly reverted edits that didn't belong in the article. A few editors in particular were there for many hours (you know who you are), and they deserve special thanks! Now, we'll keep heading forward to continue improving the article! NorCalHistory 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Lawless" adverb

I am re-adding the adverb "peculiarly" to describe the legal rights in California during the early Gold Rush. Stating that it was simply "lawless" is not accurate, as there were some laws and regulations undergoing rapid modification. The adverbs "unusually" and "uniquely" are not accurate as they could be construed as merely amplifiers of "lawless." The state of the law was indeed "peculiar" - it was an an unusual and unique mixture which changed over time. NorCalHistory 19:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Map

Sorry, I don't know the protocols here. There are a couple of wonderful maps on the David Rumsey Map Collection showing routes to California. We just used on in particular as a primary source on my sons 4th grade assignment. Drill down on the following for a really wonderful description.

Map With Text Description

Having not done much on Wikipedia, I wasn't sure how best to include this information or to cite this source. But it's really a fanstatic piece showing different routes including the Mexico route that I just added. There's another map:

Map Showing Overland Routes

That shows the overland routes as well.

Again apologies for being a newbie on these. Akarrer 00:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)akarrer, June 6, 2007

Government Sponsored Genocide of Indians

Years ago there was a PBS documentary on the Gold Rush, and it stated that county seats offered $100/head of each Indian, no matter if man, woman or child. Furthermore it stated that the counties were reimbursed by the state. Question: who put that policy in place? 71.114.163.55 10:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any such "policy" - perhaps an isolated instance (and I'm not aware of anything along these lines either). Anyone else have any info about this? NorCalHistory 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hydraulic mining by Romans?

If anyone has a cite for claimed hydraulic mining by Romans, please provide it, before that part of the material is re-added to the text. Thanks! NorCalHistory (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few references for hydraulic mining by the Romans (all of which are taken from Wiki articles such as Las Medulas, Hydraulic mining, hushing and Dolaucothi etc:
  • Jones G. D. B., I. J. Blakey, and E. C. F. MacPherson, Dolaucothi: the Roman aqueduct, Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 19 (1960): 71-84 and plates III-V.
  • Lewis, P. R. and G. D. B. Jones, The Dolaucothi gold mines, I: the surface evidence, The Antiquaries Journal, 49, no. 2 (1969): 244-72.
  • Lewis, P. R. and G. D. B. Jones, Roman gold-mining in north-west Spain, Journal of Roman Studies 60 (1970): 169-85.
  • Jones, R. F. J. and Bird, D. G., Roman gold-mining in north-west Spain, II: Workings on the Rio Duerna, Journal of Roman Studies 62 (1972): 59-74.
  • Lewis, P. R., The Ogofau Roman gold mines at Dolaucothi, The National Trust Year Book 1976-77 (1977).
  • Annels, A and Burnham, BC, The Dolaucothi Gold Mines, University of Wales, Cardiff, 3rd Ed (1995).

Their use of water power for placer mining by the Romans is well proven at many different gold mines and other metal mines in the Roman empire. Peterlewis (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2008 (utc)

Note to Peacepanda

Dear Peacepanda: Thanks for your efforts in editing this article. Judging from your contributions, these are your first attempts at editing here at Wikipedia. Welcome! Wikipedia is a grand place and I hope that you have many enjoyable years of contributions here!

However, the etiquette here would be to discuss your proposed substantial edits here on the Talk page first. We encourage your efforts, but before you undertake such a large amount of editing on a stable Featured Article such as this one, it would probably make more sense to discuss those proposed changes here; I'll leave this same note on your talk page Again, welcome to Wikipedia! NorCalHistory (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I agree with Mangostar; virtually all of the external links could and should go. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 14:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll take a refresher look at the WP policy, I guess. NorCalHistory (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, deleted a few, moved a few to refs. The rest (museums, PBS, parks, etc.) seem like they're within the policy.NorCalHistory (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Revisions

I’ve prepared some revisions that I think would benefit the article. Specifically, I would like to add a section on women in the gold rush, which I have prepared after extensive research. The revisions involve adding a new section about women and a few minor additions to existing sections to relate the surprising impact women had on the Gold Rush and subsequently on California. As the article stands now, it is full of rich information, but it leaves out this important aspect of the Gold Rush. I feel the addition of a women’s section would complement the existing article and provide a more complete picture of such a fascinating time in America’s and California’s histories.

Additionally, I noticed that for a long time there were specific section titles, such as “Forty-Niners”, “Routes to California”, etc, which have recently been deleted. In my opinion, the article was clearer with the section headings, which allow readers looking for something specific to focus and facilitates the article’s user friendliness. So I was wondering what was the reasoning behind their consolidation into an “Overview” topic?

Peacepanda (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If this represents your research (unpublished?) then please see WP:OR. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No it does not represent my research. I have spent many weeks reading a variety of books from a variety of viewpoints in order to compile a comprehensive section on women in the California Gold Rush. If you use the history page to see the revisions I am proposing, you will see that the section is well cited with academic sources. Peacepanda (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Peacepanda - thanks for bringing this to the Talk page. I thought that the topics of your proposed contributions were quite interesting. Can we take this a step at a time? Which change would you like to focus on first? Also, you're probably going to find that your proposed contribution will likely undergo a substantial shortening and re-writing.
What you may want to consider doing is creating a new WP article which focuses on the role of women in the Gold Rush; I think that theh topic is very interesting, and in my view would support a valuable new article on its own! As the initiator of a new article you would likely have much more latitude to include all the details that you would like to include, and would have more latitude to phrase things the way you like! The condensed substance of that new article would be incorporated here, along with links from here to the new article. Any reaction? NorCalHistory (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not opposed to a new article; however, I began this process with the hopes of bringing women's contributions into the main picture, not segregating them as a side topic. So if it is to be another article, I would appreciate the consensus on making a few very small interventions that allow the possibility of women in the California Gold Rush, as well as a condensed section on women with a link to the new article.

As far as my question about the section headings, I am still curious as to the reasoning behind their deletion. If anyone can enlighten me I would be appreciative. And I would like to say again that I am impressed with this article as a whole and admire all the work everyone has put into it, but I think adding women into it (even in a small way with a link to another article) would make it even better.

Peacepanda (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The nice thing about Wikipedia is that you can have the best of both worlds - there can definitely be a nice integration of the substance of the work in the main article, plus an extended discussion in a separate article. One of the interesting parts about writing these articles is that a goal is to achieve proportion and balance. The amount of text in the article should match in some way the actual importance in the real world. No question the current article is missing the quite interesting contribution of women during the Gold Rush, so the trick is to include a proportionate amount of information here, plus there can be a extended article (which is linked here) so that any interested reader can get all the details. Would you like a hand in setting up a new article? It's pretty easy, and there's no reason to delay getting that done.
About the section headings, I guess I've just lost track of those, and that does sound like it needs taking a look at. NorCalHistory (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I just added back in the "Forty-niners" heading. I went back to the version that was on the front page in February 2007, and have matched those headings. It sounds like theres another version as well that you found helpful. Perhaps if you could point out the version you have in mind, that would be helpful! NorCalHistory (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement and advice, and for adding the "Forty-niners" heading back in (I think it really helps)! I'll get started on the new article right away.

Peacepanda (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

PeacePanda - very nice additions, thank you. I'm going to touch up some of the technical parts (you'll see what I mean). Over the next few weeks/months there will likely be edits to the text - as it says on the page when you added the material, the edits may be done "mercilessly" (!). Thank you again for this quite interesting (and overdue) contribution! NorCalHistory (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

There is apparently a first and second ed. of the Moynihan work. The second edition is dated 1998, and perhaps the first edition is dated 1990 (?). Which were you relying on? In general, it would be better to rely on the most recent edition. Let me know, and I'll conform the cites. NorCalHistory (talk) 06:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also - for the Johnson/Roaring Camp work, would you be kind enough to add the page cite, as you helpfully did for the other cites you added? NorCalHistory (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to be a part of such a great article! I used the first edition of the Moynihan piece because that's the one I could get my hands on. The information I took from it, however, is supported by many other books, but the Moynihan offered the most succinct citation/information. The first edition was published by UP Nebraska in June 1990, ISBN: 0803231342. And the Johnson page numbers should be 164-8. I'm so sorry for the confusion, and I would be happy to provide any other information you need.
Peacepanda (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Packer

What exactly is a packer ? Is there an article devoted to the Gold Rush in fiction (literature or films) ? --Anne97432 (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A mention of the first gold found in California

No mention of the first gold being found in California that of the gold nuggest found on the bottom of some wild onions pulled up by a vaquero near a Rahcho in Southern California, a Sr. Lopez. This was years beofer the discovery of Gold in Northjern California! Thanks! PINEAPPLEMAN (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Nearly 2,000 ounces of gold in 1843

Gray Brechin, geographer at UC Berkeley, writes that nearly 2,000 ounces of gold were mined near Mission San Fernando and taken to Washington DC in 1843. Thomas O. Larkin wrote to presidents Tyler and then Polk about California's mining possibilities in the period 1843–1848. The point is that Sutter's discovery was more of a public revelation of the existence of gold than a total revelation. Brechin's book, page 29. Binksternet (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

That's detailed in the Rancho San Francisco article. It could probably stand to be mentioned here, however, that the Gold Rush was not the first documented discovery of gold in the state. howcheng {chat} 03:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

First recorded gold discovey in California

Responding to the prior two comments, actually, there is a reference in the "History" section, to the first recorded gold discovery in California in 1842 near Mission San Fernando in Southern California. NorCalHistory (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Bodie ghost town

According to the Bodie, California article (and supporting materials), gold was first found (apparently in a very small amounts) in 1859 - which is after the end of the Gold Rush in 1855. However, even this initial discovery led only to a small mining camp. The well-known "ghost town" buildings date from Bodie's boom time, which began in 1876 - more than 20 years after the end of the Gold Rush. There is already a reference to Bodie in the article (fn. 25) explaining that it is not a Gold Rush-era ghost town. Unless someone is able to come up with dating that the Bodie ghost town dates from the actual Gold Rush era (1848 - 1855), then I propose removing the See Also link. NorCalHistory (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

New section

While RJensen is certainly an experienced editor, this section strikes me as (a) somewhat duplicative of some existing text, and (b) the part that is not duplicative is too detailed and "jargon-y" for this general article. I propose shortening the contribution, and moving the most detailed parts to a footnote. Suggestions? NorCalHistory (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

good point, so I merged the new material, and sent text that was not directly related to the gold rush to a new article on Calfornia Dream. As it stands the article has a lot of extraneous stuff only weakly related to the gold rush (like discussion of dot-com in 1990s). Text that does relate should be included even if it covers difficult material for peopleunfamiliar with mining or literaary criticism.Rjensen (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
I redirected the new article back here. It really doesn't make any more sense as its own article than it does as a section here, where at least it doesn't feel like it's trying to assign non-existent meaning to the phrase "California Dream." I'd work on repairing the section, rather than just creating it as a new article. My two cents. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Rjensen removed the redirect and added a number of useful sources and citations. All looks good to me now! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

49ers versus 48ers

Many reliable sources for 49ers will be found versus 48ers. Next, there 50ers, 51ers, 52ers, 53ers, 54ers, and 55ers. Cites probably can be found for all. The more common term became the 49ers. --Morenooso (talk) 15:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, but I am not trying to rename all of the 49er gold rushers, I am just trying to re-establish the term "forty-eighters" as has been used to describe the earliest of the so-called "forty-niners". You are blowing up the issue beyond what is intended—it is just a short note to the reader that another term has been used for the early birds. The article has had this term mentioned briefly, just as I restored it (adding a cite to cement it), at least since late 2006 when it was peer reviewed, GA-ed and FA-ed. None of the 2006 reviewers thought to question the term; I have to assume all of them were familiar with its sometime usage. Nobody has used the terms 50ers or 51ers, so that is a straw man argument. The only term under discussion is "forty-eighters", also appearing as "48ers" and "'48ers". It is clear from the following reliable sources that the term "forty-eighters" has often been applied to early gold rushers:
  • Caughey, John Walton (1975). The California Gold Rush. University of California Press. p. 37. ISBN 0520027639. "An ounce a day is mentioned over and over as the average of the forty-eighters..." Also: "Meanwhile, in the diggings the forty-eighters had set a pattern in claim law."
  • "Gold in California". U.S. History: Pre-Columbian to the New Millennium. Philadelphia: Independence Hall Association. "Before the 49ers there were 48ers who came from as far away as Chile and China."
  • "The Discovery of Gold". Early California History: An Overview. Washington, D.C.: American Memory, Library of Congress. "It was no accident that few of the immigrant 'forty-eighters' came from the United States."
  • Belli, Anthony M. "The Chilean Crusade for El Dorado". Legends of America. El Dorado County, California. "...many of the initial Chilean 48ers came from well-to-do families..." Also: "...the American 49ers quickly targeted those from Chile who by now had taught the 48ers all they needed to know..."
  • Belli, Anthony M. (2005). "Mining El Dorado – The Greenwood Mining District". Stories in El Dorado County's History. El Dorado County, California. "For those 48ers who arrived a year before the tsunami of 49ers..."
  • Nolte, Carl (June 21, 1998). "The San Francisco '48ers: We all know about the Gold Rush of 1849, but those guys were a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies. Before that, as word of gold spread, fields were left half plowed and houses half built". San Francisco Chronicle. "Among the '48ers was Peter Burnett, who came from Oregon City and within two years was the first governor of the new state of California."
  • Walker, Dale L. (2003). "The '48ers". Eldorado: The California Gold Rush. Macmillan. p. 114. ISBN 031287832X.
  • "Minorities During the Gold Rush". Learn California. Almost 700 Chinese miners had responded to the earliest rumors of gold in '48, accounting for roughly a seventh of the 48ers.
Note that none of these sources confuse early 48er gold rushers with the European Forty-Eighters who were active with or aligned with revolutionary forces seeking to topple European governments in 1848. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That was the gist of my post. Yes, an editor can find references and citations for the term. But, it is not the universally accepted one. Wait for WP:CONSENSUS on the matter. You are forking this article and placing undue weight on a term that you want introduced or coined. --Morenooso (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You do not understand what is going on here. I am restoring the term, not introducing it or coining it. An anonymous editor took it out here, on May 5, and I am restoring it. The IP editor, writing from a terminal in a library in the state of Maine, did not leave a reason for changing "forty-eighters" to "forty-niners"; and nobody caught it until I noticed a week later. All that is going on here is that I am returning the article to its FA-class condition, but with a new cite directly following "forty-eighters" to (hopefully) prevent future removal of the term. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
And, you don't understand. I don't agree with its inclusion period. --Morenooso (talk) 16:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet is correct. The term "forty-niner" is used generically to refer to all the people who arrived between 1848 - 1855. However, the term "forty-eighter" is used to refer to a sub-set - specifically to those very earliest people who arrived during calendar year 1848. It is appropriate to use this term because of (a) its common usage at the time and in the scholarly writings since then, and (b) as a recognition that this earliest sub-set took the biggest risks and (typically) reaped comparatively larger gold discovery rewards. NorCalHistory (talk) 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced material - perhaps to be placed in a footnote?

The following is unsourced (very detailed) material placed here from the main text. Perhaps it can be edited to npov, and re-added in a footnote if someone can provide an appropriate source:

"In 1850, there were 52 mining codes in existence, which contained 18 attributes (such as, claim size and specific work requirements). All Mining codes did not contain the same attributes, and often the area’s mining code limiting the rights of the incumbent miner. By 1857, there were 115 codes in place, and many contained precise definitions to avoid disputes, which reflected the changing environment in California.[citation needed] Such a significant rise in rules and codes over such a short period of time shows that it is possible to have "order without law", wherein individuals can learn to govern themselves over time without the presence of an official mandated court. Another particularly interesting change that occurred in mining codes over those 7 years was that out of the 52 codes in 1850, only 12 (or 23%) allowed a company to claim a piece of land for mining, whereas by 1857, 72% of the 115 mining codes allowed claims to be made by a company. This significant increase can be attributed to the fact that rapid technological advancements in mining technique made it possible for individuals to form companies with one another in an effort to utilize new technology to more efficiently and effectively mine for gold in these areas.[citation needed]"

NorCalHistory (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Material moved here from main section

The following unsourced material is moved here from the main text. It does not appear completely correct; as the material below notes, the American military had moved in and was in effective control of California in Jan. 1848, although California still remained technically part of Mexico. It is also more detail than really needed for this Gold Rush article purposes, and would have to be edited for npov.

"At the time gold was discovered, California was under the control of the about 9,000 Californios who lived in California who had finally had enough of the Mexican government and seized control of the territory of Alta California. California was quickly captured by the 400-500 U.S. Navy's marines and bluejacket sailors of the Pacific Squadron and the volunteer militia of the California Battalion and was under U.S. control by January 1847. The Texas boundary questions were settled and the sparsely settled territory that would eventually include several new states was ceded to the U.S. after the end of the Mexican-American War with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848 and the payment of $15,000,000."

NorCalHistory (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Polite request for review of Klondike article

Dear contributors for the California Gold Rush. The contributors of the Klondike Gold Rush would very much like to hear you suggestions for improvements of our article, we hope to be able to make it as good as yours. Soerfm (talk) 20:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Small problem in the History section

I believe there is a small typo where someone accidentally wrote that JOHN Marshall instead of JAMES Marshall found the gold at the mill. Just a small change so people do not get confused, especially since his boss JOHN A. Sutter is also a often written about figure. Thank you!

Spencer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.225.14.190 (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Strange Australian Architecture

"Australian prospector Edward Hargraves, noting similarities between the geography of California and his house, returned to Australia to discover gold and spark the Australian gold rushes."

This guy found enough gold in his house, that he never noticed before, to prompt a gold rush? -masa ♫ 10:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Who and how many profited from Gold Rush

The short version of the answer to the question of who and how many people profited from the Gold Rush (as explained in the main text) is that it is impossible to tell how many of the gold-seekers made how much. The experts don't agree, and there are many factors and subjective elements. Accordingly, in the lead section, the original phrasing about this issue used the words "some" and "others" to describe two of the possible outcomes - these two words were carefully calculated not to convey the implication of an amount or ratio of people. Recent edits have suggested using the words "few," "many" and "most" - words that convey the implication of a number or a ratio. Given the indefinite nature of the topic, I believe that the more indefinite words "some" and "others" are preferable to the (somewhat) more definite "few," "many" or "most." Does anyone have any reactions? NorCalHistory 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

the article talks about a total find of somewhere around '10 billion modern-day$'. when you compare that to say, worldwide gdp (70,000 billion) it is really not all THAT much: kinda the equivalent of the proverbial 'small african country' (nice to be the dictator there, but in no way a big player in the international economy). my point being: was the effect on the world-wide economy really as big as suggested in the article? or was something else going on: a big pr-offensive meant to draw settlers to these newly-acquired usa-grounds, with the promise that 'you can just pick up the gold from the ground' (which might also explain the haste with which the whole state-hood thing was arranged: not arriving from self-organization from new settlers, but rather pushed on them by these same scheming politicians) Selena1981 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

A Miner in His Cabin

This image was just added by me to the Commons, and is illustrating the new article on Henry Walton (American painter). its a pretty nice color image of a miner done by a contemporary artist. I have not added an image to a featured article before, so I imagine such a move should be discussed first, esp. as this article does have a good number of images.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2013

Regarding reference to [Life amongst the Modocs: unwritten history]:

Please change

On-line version of book

to

On-line version of book

because the Google links seems to be advertising only copyleft scam as there is no document available for free.

Goldrussh (talk) 08:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your note! Binksternet (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2014

Correction to sentence - "Once the gold-bearing rocks were brought to the surface, the rocks were crushed, and the gold was separated out (using moving water), or leached out, typically by using arsenic or mercury (another source of environmental contamination)" gold cannot be "leached" out by using arsenic or mercury. and arsenic has never been used in the treatment process. The gold is separated by AMALGAMATION with mercury (not leaching)- it forms a solid solution to produce gold-mercury amalgam which is then smelted to recover the gold. Arsenic was never used and cannot separate gold - the confusion seems to be with the fact that arsenic is a natural component of the gold ore (usually as the mineral arsenopyrite. Therefore the added mercury and the naturally occurring arsenic end up in the crushed sands after treatment, and both form environmental contaminants. Suggestion "Once the gold-bearing rocks were brought to surface, the rocks were crushed and the gold separated either in a crude manner using separation in water, using its density difference from quartz sand, or by washing the sand over copper plates coated with mercury (with which gold forms gold-mercury solid-solution, called amalgam). Arsenic occurred naturally in the gold ore as the mineral arsenopyrite, and this and any of the mercury lost from the plates during the amalgamation process now form environmental contaminants in the heaps of waste sand after treatment". 27.32.208.15 (talk) 08:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the error. I deleted the reference to arsenic. When people talk of arsenic being used for gold recovery, they are usually confusing it with cyanide, which today is used to leach gold. Cyanide treatment, however, was not used in the US until about the late 1890s, and so is not pertinent to this article. For the time being, I have left out any reference to arsenic contamination to the environment from gold-rush era mining, but if you have a reference, please let me know. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Already done This appears to be already done by Plazak. — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2014

In the fifth paragraph of the "Forty-niners" section, I propose to add an additional statement regarding the generalities of immigrants. The existing first sentence of the fifth paragraph is: "Forty-niners came from Latin America, particularly from the Mexican mining districts near Sonora." After this sentence, I suggest adding: "In fact, there were more immigrants from Mexico and Chile than any other Latin American countries.[1]" This change does not detract from the content originally provided and can further allow a reader to put more value and understanding in how many or which types of Latin Americans were immigrating.

In the last paragraph of the "Forty-niners" section, women immigrants are introduced and described. However, only the roles of the women were outlined. There is no data that can give insight as to how many women immigrated or what the ratio of men to women was regarding immigration. I suggest the following: "In a Sonoran newspaper from April of 1850, emigration information of five Sonoran towns was presented. Of approximately 6,000 total emigrants, only 100 were women. This gives insight as to how much more common it was for men to immigrate than women.[2]"

In the "Profits" section of this page, there are really only two examples of people who made a fortune during the Gold Rush. These people are Samuel Brannan and Levi Strauss. I propose adding at least one more example at the end of the second paragraph. I think this would be valuable because with only two examples, it seems as though extremely few people made out with a fortune, when that wasn't the case. I suggest adding: "Another example of someone who made a fortune was John William Mackay. Mackay used his wealth to start the Commercial Cable Company that would later be acquired by Postal Telegraph and Cable Corporation.[3]" Reztism (talk) 00:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Johnson, Susan (2001). Roaring Camp: The Social World of the California Gold Rush. New York: W.W. Norton. p. 59.
  2. ^ Johnson, Susan (2001). Roaring Camp: The Social World of the California Gold Rush. New York: W.W. Norton. p. 59.
  3. ^ "Mr. C. H. Mackay". The Times. London, England. 14 November 1938. p. 14.
Very good suggestions, altho Mackay may not be a good example for this article, because he made his fortune on the Comstock, rather than in California. Plazak (talk) 04:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Another possible candidate to be used would be John Studebaker. He originally traveled to California seeking gold, but ended up making wheelbarrows instead. Initially, he was unsuccessful, but he eventually saved up $7,000 and (with his brother) organized the Studebaker Brothers Manufacturing Company. The company would go on to produce millions of dollars in annual sales.[1] Reztism (talk) 05:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pryor, Alton. "Wheelbarrow Johnny – The Story of John Studebaker". County of El Dorado.
Studebaker certainly has a very interesting story, but the automobile age was much later than the gold rush. We should include people who made their fortunes in, during, and because of, the gold rush itself. Two candidates who come to mind are banker William Ralston and miner George D. Roberts, although I see that Roberts has no Wikipedia page. Plazak (talk) 13:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm confused as to how William Ralston would be applicable here. Most of his fortune came to him after 1855 (to my understanding), and the scope of this article is 1848-1855 (as spelled out in the introduction paragraph to the wikipage). Or am I mistaken? Reztism (talk) 20:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

FINAL REQUEST:

In the fifth paragraph of the "Forty-niners" section, I propose to add an additional statement regarding the generalities of immigrants. The existing first sentence of the fifth paragraph is: "Forty-niners came from Latin America, particularly from the Mexican mining districts near Sonora." After this sentence, I suggest adding: "In fact, there were more immigrants from Mexico and Chile than any other Latin American countries.[1]" This change does not detract from the content originally provided and can further allow a reader to put more value and understanding in how many or which types of Latin Americans were immigrating.

In the last paragraph of the "Forty-niners" section, women immigrants are introduced and described. However, only the roles of the women were outlined. There is no data that can give insight as to how many women immigrated or what the ratio of men to women was regarding immigration. I suggest the following: "In a Sonoran newspaper from April of 1850, emigration information of five Sonoran towns was presented. Of approximately 6,000 total emigrants, only 100 were women. This gives insight as to how much more common it was for men to immigrate than women.[2]"Reztism (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Johnson, Susan (2001). Roaring Camp: The Social World of the California Gold Rush. New York: W.W. Norton. p. 59.
  2. ^ Johnson, Susan (2001). Roaring Camp: The Social World of the California Gold Rush. New York: W.W. Norton. p. 59.
Not done for now: When you have concluded your discussions and have a clear edit request, please change the |answered=yes to |ans=n and someone will be by to make the changes. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} (t • e • c) 14:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Partly done: I have done the first half, but the second bit seems to be covered in the subsidiary article. --Mdann52talk to me! 14:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Marking answered --Mdann52talk to me! 14:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2014

can i edit it

Williamblum (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request.
Alternatively, you may make specific requests in the form of "please change X to Y", providing any necessary sources, and someone will implement these changes for you. Once your account becomes autoconfirmed, you will be able to edit through the semi-protection yourself. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 17:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Portal peer review

I have submitted Portal:San Francisco Bay Area to peer review. i would welcome any comments. i believe it is fully ready for featured portal status, but i have been just about the only editor there for a while.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

see also

can Klondike_Gold_Rush be added to a see also section as many would conflate and confuse these 2 19th century gold rushes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.158.89.193 (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2014

more of a comment for editing the current article than a submission of proposed text. References to "discovery" and the 1848 disregard that gold in California had been established with early explorers along Colorado River & near Mexican era Los Angeles in 1832 so existence of gold in California was only confirmed not discovered n 1848 altho the find was reason for the 1849 Rush, the latter the unique part of incident.66.74.176.59 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor 66.74.176.59 has been going from article to article arguing his own eccentric definition of “discover.” In fact, there were multiple discoveries of gold in California, as is easily demonstrated by a look at the professional literature. From the California Division of Mines and Geology “Gold Districts of California” (page 5):
“1775-80 The first known discovery of gold in California was made in the Potholes district …”
“1835 The placer deposits in San Francisquito Canyon, Los Angeles County, were discovered.”
“1848 Gold was discovered at Sutter’s mill …”
“1851 Gold was discovered at Greenhorn Creek …”
From USGS Professional Paper 610, “Principal Gold-Producing Districts of the United States”:
“The initial discoveries, in 1849, of gold-quartz veins in Mariposa County at the southern end of the Mother Lode soon led to discoveries in Amador County, …“ (page 58)
“The discovery of gold in El Dorado County in 1848 by James Marshall …” (page 60)
“Gold was discovered in Kern County in 1851 …” (page 64)
This is not just American usage. From the Canada Department of Mines and Resources, “Canadian Lode Gold Areas.” All examples below are in British Columbia:
“In 1928 much interest was aroused by the discovery of gold in talcose seams in serpentine …” (page 21)
“On Queen Charlotte Islands was made the first lode gold discovery of British Columbia, in 1852.” (page 27}
“In Tatla Lake district some lode gold prospects have recently been discovered …” (page 27)
“In Lilooet district quartz veins on Cayoosh Creek have attracted attention for many years, following the discovery of rich placer deposits at the mouth of the creek.” (page 27)
As shown by the above examples, the current usage of “discover” in this Wikipedia article is consistent with professional publications on gold mining. There is no need to change. Plazak (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2014

really a comment about the current text than potential replacement: the impetus for the rush occurred in 1848; the rush started when people left their homeland wherever it was to get to Cal. 66.74.176.59 (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014

replace: "Within a few years, there was an important but lesser-known surge of prospectors into far Northern California, specifically into present-day Siskiyou, Shasta and Trinity Counties.[1] Discovery of gold nuggets at the site of present-day Yreka in 1851 brought thousands of gold-seekers up the Siskiyou Trail[2] and throughout California's northern counties.[3] Settlements of the Gold Rush era, such as Portuguese Flat on the Sacramento River, sprang into existence and then faded. The Gold Rush town of Weaverville on the Trinity River today retains the oldest continuously used Taoist temple in California, a legacy of Chinese miners who came. While there are not many Gold Rush era ghost towns still in existence, the remains of the once-bustling town of Shasta have been preserved in a California State Historic Park in Northern California.[4]"

With: "In 1851, gold found at Yreka brought large numbers of gold-seekers up the Siskiyou Trail[2] and throughout upper Northern California, specifically into Siskiyou,[3] Shasta and Trinity Counties.[1].

Settlements of the Gold Rush era, such as Portuguese Flat on the Sacramento River, sprang into existence with the working of the gold fields and then could fade in intensity with the gold. The Gold Rush town of Weaverville on the Trinity River today retains the oldest continuously used Taoist temple in California, a legacy of the Chinese presence. While there are not many Gold Rush era ghost towns still in existence, the remains of the once-bustling town of Shasta have been preserved in a California State Historic Park in Northern California.[4] 66.74.176.59 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Bancroft, Hubert Howe (1888), pp. 363–366.
  2. ^ a b Dillon, Richard (1975). Siskiyou Trail. New York: McGraw Hill.pp. 361–362.
  3. ^ a b Wells, Harry L. (1881). History of Siskiyou County, California. Oakland, California: D.J. Stewart & Co. pp. 60–64.
  4. ^ a b The buildings of Bodie, the best-known ghost town in California, date from the 1870s and later, well after the end of the Gold Rush.
If you're replying to Plazak's comment, add you comment in the same section rather than starting a new request please. Stickee (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Negative impact edits

I have fixed several grammar and cohesion problems in the negative impact section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregapan (talk • contribs) 01:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bad description of lode gold deposition

The first sentence in the section "Development of gold recovery techniques" describes the formation of volcanic-strataform gold deposits. The problem is that the Mother-Lode deposits are low-sulfide quartz veins, very different from strataform deposits. I suspect that the cited source is being misrepresented here. Does anyone care to replace this description with an accurate one? I'm not an expert on this, so I hope that someone else, more knowledgeable than I am, can correct the description. Thanks. Plazak (talk) 05:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on California Gold Rush. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2015


The link to the Swedish novel the settlers should point to: The_Settlers_(novel)

Jockepocke88 (talk) 11:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead is no longer FA material

On Sept 16th, an edit of the lead by prinsgezinde greatly affected the quality of the lead, and I don't see much discussion on it. The quality of the article as a whole suffers when the lead goes too far into individual topics. This isn't an article about genocide or discrimination resulting from the gold rush; it is an article about the gold rush. I believe both topics are important and can even be mentioned, but they should not comprise 50% of the total text of the lead. The way it reads now we learn a little bit about the basic history in P1, we learn more history and socioeconomic facts in P2, with an introduction on racism sufficient to have readers look for this in the text of the article, but P3 is superfluous and changes the tone of the article. There is an entire section on this topic below, and there should be. In fact, there should probably be an article on this topic. But a single sentence in the lead is needed to introduce it, not an entire paragraph. Mrathel (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps it's too much, but I had to work with a very POV lead prior to that. I realize that today's Americans (and of course others) mostly want to hear about the craziness and interesting times of the gold rush, but there is quite evidently a lot of darker material that seemed to have been left out of the old intro. There was practically nothing about what the article mentions on the devastating effects it had on the native population, and what's more, it instead contained information that was never mentioned again in the article. To me it seemed more like a nice anecdotal prologue than a quality introduction, to be honest. It was for that reason that I decided to be bold. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the lead needs to paint it in any light at all. The lead can mention that bad things happened, and it should, but it isn't a requirement that every article about the past spend 50% of its lead talking about the atrocities and oppression associated with the subject in order to avoid POV issues.
After all, the lead on the article about the Beatles doesn't have a paragraph about sexual assault at their concerts; the article on dogs doesn't even mention the horrors of dog fighting in the lead! The article on Education in the United States has no mention what-so-ever of the Columbine massacre in the opening.
I just came to this article looking for a brief description of the California gold rush, and before I got out of the lead I had to check to be sure I had not clicked on an article titled "Discrimination and Prejudice in American West." 206.113.15.122 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Your comparisons are completely off, almost to the degree of being offensive. The genocide is inherent to the topic of the gold and is a significant part of adequately describing the topic. That is not the case in either of your examples. The lead needs to describe the genocide of california natives that was a part of the consequences of the gold rush. Whether it should be 50% or 25% depends on how much of the article is dedicated to covering the genocide, which in turn depends on how much the topic of the genocide makes up in the literature on the california gold rush.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Reading the Lead as it is now, I think it does clearly give too much space to the genocide. It should probably be no more than one of four paragraphs. There are other aspects covered substantially in the article body that gets no coverage at all.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I would have thought my examples were enough of a hyperbole to avert a factcheck.org-style analysis, but I am glad you went back and examined the lead anyhow:) I think we could combine the last two paragraphs, giving weight to the obvious socio-cultural effects of the mass migration while still keeping the lead predominantly about the attempt to remove minerals from the earth.Mrathel (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree about combining the third and fourth paragraphs into one. And also on having an article about the Genocide of Native Americans in California and Oregon.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
It's not just the lead; much of the article is suffused with unsourced editorialising. DrKay (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, some sections of the "Impact on Latinos" section are particularly problematic. As well as being unsourced, they are very essay-like and there is a definite POV coming across. The whole section is relatively new and is not anywhere near up to current FA standard (it probably was not even up to 2006 FA standard when the article was promoted). I tagged some of it a week ago hoping that that would provoke a response, and DrKay has just tagged it more extensively. The whole section is a relatively recent addition. I suggest that it is either removed in its entirety or stubbed down to a sentence or two (assuming that much can be sourced). SpinningSpark 01:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest spinning it out to a daughter article instead living a paragraph in situ. The use of the term "latino" seems anachronistic in itself, and probably should be replaced with something more historically accurate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Creating a new article with unsourced POV material is actually worse than leaving it in place here. It is a really bad idea to do that just to save the FA star of this article. Wherever the material is, it is going to need dealing with. I am not even willing to copyedit it while there are no sources - that could just end up making false information look more convincing. SpinningSpark 09:37, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2016

James Marshall first notified Elizabeth Jane "Jennie" Wimmer who had experience in prospecting about the gold and then told John Sutter 108.66.5.56 (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 07:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

bla bla bla bla bla bla get your facts right bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bl abla cmon get to the point already bla bla — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.110.207.226 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material from main text

The following unsourced statement is moved here pending Wikipedia-quality source(s): "California, apart from legalizing slavery for Native Americans also directly paid out $25,000 in bounties for Indian scalps with varying prices for adult male, adult female and child sizes."NorCalHistory (talk) 06:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-related material removed to talk page

The following non-related material is moved here, in the hopes that a better place can be found for it. Perhaps in the main California History article?

Previous to the discovery of gold, California was the Mexican territory of [[Alta California]]. This region had been under the control of Spanish speaking people since Europeans arrived in California, first under control of the [[Spanish Empire]] before being passed down to Mexican control after a successful campaign for independence. Most large outposts of civilization at this time were located along the coast from [[San Diego]] up to [[San Francisco]] where they were concentrated away from the areas that gold would eventually be found.<ref>Rosen, Fred. Gold!: the Story of the 1848 Gold Rush And How it Shaped a Nation. New York: Thunder's Mouth, 2005.</ref> The majority of non-natives living in Alta California at this time were Spanish speaking [[mestizo]]s from either a Spanish possession or Spain itself. American and European settlers did began moving to Alta California in the years preceding the gold rush, but they tended to settle in these established regions and were a minority of the population.<ref>Richards, L. L. (2007). The California Gold Rush and the coming of the Civil War. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.</ref> Due to the expansive size of the territory and its distance from the central Mexican government located in Mexico, the people living in Alta California had a shaky relationship with the central government powers. This rocky relationship peaked in 1836 when [[Juan Bautista Alvarado]] led a rebellion and took the office of governor, this would happen again in 1845, these acts of rebellion allowed Alta California to have more freedom in their own government in the final years of Mexican rule.<ref>Osio, A. María., Beebe, R. Marie. (1996). The history of Alta California: a memoir of Mexican California. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press.</ref> The revolt and [[Texas annexation|annexation of Texas]] gave Alta California the opportunity to begin its own fight for freedom. With the help of the United States armed forces during the [[Mexican–American War]] American Settlers were able to defeat the Mexican Army and a [[Californio]] militia leading up to the signing of the [[Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo]] on February 2, 1848, less than two weeks after the discovery of gold.NorCalHistory (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

unrelated and redundant material from main text

The following unrelated or redundant material is placed here: "According to [[Washington, D.C.]]'s [[National Museum of the American Indian]], the California Gold Rush was a cause of a major, but little known, [[genocide]] on the [[Native Americans]]. The Native Americans resided in The Great Basin, east of the Sierra Nevada and west of the Rocky Mountains, which supported Native American people for more than 14,000 years.<ref name="si.edu"/> They were resourceful with the barren environment; having to travel long distances by foot to find food, Great Basin Indians developed technologies to sustain their lifestyle throughout the 19th and into the 20th centuries.<ref name="si.edu"/> "During the Gold Rush, miners, loggers, and settlers formed vigilante groups and local militias to hunt Indians living outside the mission communities—a genocide largely ignored by American history. The Native population, estimated at 150,000 in 1845, was by 1870 less than 30,000." <ref name="si.edu"/> This means that less than 20% of the population remained. NorCalHistory (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated material

The following material relates only to the Native American experience outside of California, and the reference does not connect to the California or the California Gold Rush experience. "Native Americans also succumbed in large numbers to newly introduced diseases such as [[smallpox]], [[influenza]] and [[measles]]. Some estimates indicate the death rates to be between 80 and 90 percent in Native American populations during smallpox epidemics.<ref>"''[https://books.google.com/books?id=qubTdDk1H3IC&pg=PA205&dq&hl=en#v=onepage&q=&f=false The Cambridge encyclopedia of human paleopathology]''". Arthur C. Aufderheide, Conrado Rodríguez-Martín, Odin Langsjoen (1998). [[Cambridge University Press]]. p.205. ISBN 0-521-55203-6</ref>NorCalHistory (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Material supported only by dead link

The following material moved here is supported only by a dead link: "According to population historian Russell Thornton, estimates of the pre-Columbian population of California was at least 310,000, and perhaps as much as 705,000. By 1849, due to Spanish and Mexican colonization and epidemics this number had decreased to 100,000.<ref name="California Secretary of State"/> NorCalHistory (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unsourced material from main text

The following unsourced material is placed here. It is likely that disease and starvation resulted in a larger death toll than direct violence. "By far the most destructive element of the Gold Rush on California Indians was the violence against them and their environment by miners and settlers."NorCalHistory (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Unrelated material

Unrelated material (pre-dates Gold Rush) placed here: "Native Americans were also deceived by settlers. Near [[Sacramento, California]] land baron John Sutter built, "a private empire on 50,000 acres of Indian land near Sacramento, kidnapped Natives and forced them to work for him in conditions that were akin to slavery."<ref name="indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com"/> In addition to this, Sutter apparently would pay the Natives who worked for him with insignificant pieces of tin that could only be redeemed at his store.<ref name="indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com"/>"NorCalHistory (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

material moved here supported only by dead link

The following material moved here is supported only by a dead link: "Native American villages were regularly raided to supply the demand, and young women and children were carried off to be sold, the men and remaining people often being killed in genocidal attacks.<ref name="HeizerGen"/>"NorCalHistory (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California Gold Rush. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

gold is gold

its gold — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.76.102.162 (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

209.232.148.93 (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

gold rush caused gold fever

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on California Gold Rush. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California Gold Rush. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California Gold Rush. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

boomtowns

they were called batmentowns instead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.17.33 (talk) 20:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

History of homosexuality does not belong in a history about the California gold rush. It should be deleted. Children (and adults) are not here to read about the history of homosexuality, they are here to read about gold prospecting, and the impetus that created modern California. Readsomescience (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, see NOTCENSORED|this policy. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2018

Remove section labeled "Homosexuality", has nothing to to with the topic of the California Gold rush, and the 49's history, it is completely unrelated to the history of prospecting and gold rush's. Completely unrelated topic that should be edited. Remove this irrelevant text.


Change this:

"Homosexuality The disproportionate number of men to women in San Francisco created an environment for homosexuality and gay cultures to flourish.[63] The Barbary Coast was a district where men went to gamble and pay for sex from female impersonators and women alike.[63] Described as the "city of bachelors" [63] men often went to the Barbary Coast district to pay for prostitution and pleasure with other men.[64] "


To this:

" " Readsomescience (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This text is adequately referenced and the subject is not given undue weight in the context of the whole article (3 sentences), so I am not inclined to delete it from a featured article without consensus. Just because you don't like it or it's offensive to you doesn't mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia; please note that Wikipedia is not censored as you were advised above. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:27, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I found this section interesting as the beginning of the San Francisco red light district, which is logically linked to these event. It is also properly sourced, as stated by Kuyabribri above. Please gain consensus before removing the content. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2018

206.224.253.150 (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Homosexuality

The subject header "Homosexuality" does not belong in an article about the "California Gold Rush".' The context is not historically accurate, the subtopic content is historically wrong. The California Gold Rush ended in 1855... the first gay bar did not open in San Francisco until 1908 (Gangway). Numerous other historical events show that the two time periods, open homosexuality in San Francisco and the California Gold Rush, do not overlap.

The California Gold Rush took place from 1848 to 1855. ‘Gangway” was the oldest gay bar in San Francisco (closed in 2016) after being open 108 years… the first gay bar opened in 1908; so obviously the history timeline is clear that the Gold Rush 1849’rs in San Francisco were not visiting “openly tolerant gay bars”. The first openly gay bar in San Francisco did not open until 1908, almost 60 years after the California Gold Rush ended! [The Gangway was at 841 Larkin St. San Francisco, opened in 1908, [city paperwork cites 1910] closed in 2016. [1] [1]

“Miners Ball” a painting portraying a same-sex dance in San Francisco was engraved in 1891… (again, the California Gold Rush took place from Jauary 1848 to 1855).. Clearly the timeline shows the “Miners Ball” took place almost 40 years after the “Gold Rush” had already ended. [2]

Nan Alameda Boyd, author of “Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965,” (cited frequently above as a reference throughout this section “Homosexuality”), states: “Lesbian and gay history in the East Bay stretches back at least to the 1950s.”... well, the “1950”s is about 100 years after the “1850s” (the California Gold Rush took place in the 1850’s, NOT the 1950’s… so clearly again there is a timeline problem here to say that the California Gold Rush history is related to the openly “Homosexual history in San Francisco”… the timeline referenced in Boyd’s reference is off by 100 years! Even anecdotal and “oral history” cited by Alameda Boyd relates to a history timeline that took place 100 years(!) after the California Gold Rush had already ended… timeline is clear - these histories do not overlap in any way. [3]

The concept that the topic “California Gold Rush” is related to "open homosexuality” has been completely debunked in the historical time-period. The time-lines ("California Gold Rush" / Open homosexuality in San Francisco) do not overlap - any doubts are cleared up by reviewing historical references and comparing the well-documented timelines for the history of San Francisco. "Open homosexuality” did not take place in San Francisco until 60 years (!) after the California Gold Rush ended. [3]

Nan Alameda Boyd, author of “Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965,” (cited above as a reference), also relies upon “oral histories from people living in San Francisco from the 1930’s”... and again, clearly the timeline does not overlap as the “1930’s” took place 75 years(!) after the California Gold Rush time period had already ended. This historical timelines (and even “oral histories”) from Boyd’s reference also do not overlap. [3]

George Chauncey's, "Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890-1940". This book is well researched and clearly proves that there was a thriving gay culture in San Francisco well before the Stonewall uprising in New York… but again the timelines for the “California Gold Rush” do not overlap either… (1890 was 35 years after the California Gold Rush time period ended!, again no overlap in historical context). (The “Stonewall riots” took place in 1969, 114 years after the Gold Rush ended… clearly, again no overlap in historical time period). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots The time period is 1969 when the riots took place, social history needs to be referenced for overlaps, there is none with regard to this and the California Gold Rush. [4]

The topic of “Homosexuality” (when referenced to San Francisco social history) with regard to the historical time period of the California Gold Rush, simply is impossibly to be relevant or related to the California Gold Rush - the two time periods for cultural history do not overlap. The two topics are not related or even relevant to be mentioned with the California Gold Rush history. Historical references clearly show that the two timelines do not overlap at all, San Francisco’s homosexual prevalence did not happen until much later (perhaps as much as 40 to 60 years later! - an entire generation of people had already passed between the two time periods! [3]

It's a false and historically inaccurate statement that the “prevalence of men compared to women in the gold mining communities caused homosexuality to flourish” (as stated above in this same Wikipedia article on the California Gold Rush), it is completely ridiculous and fabricated conjecture - at best - for many reasons. Firstly, before the twenty-first century homosexuality was not an open topic, it was not talked about or openly admitted as it is today. [5] Secondly, there is simply no social history or psychological research to substantiate that open homosexuality was prevalent at the same time-period as the California Gold Rush; in fact the social history (for San Francisco as cited through multiple references) simply did not overlap in any way. [3] [4] [1] [1]

“So it’s difficult to identify gay relatives when most traces of their homosexuality never made it out of the closet, much less into the historical record. How can one draw conclusions about any aspect of people’s lives when all that’s left are names, some dates, and family relationships?”... [5] History and science should be based on facts, history and facts (like business records, documented cultural history) state that open homosexuality did not take place in San Francisco until a much later time-period than the California Gold Rush.

The word “Homosexual” was not even used until 1868! (the California Gold Rush ended in 1855). To claim that the California Gold Rush influenced the prevalence of homosexuality in San Francisco is a ludicrous assumption at best and completely unsubstantiated historically.; the cultural time-lines show the historical events and cultural history. [6]

Historical facts show that San Francisco was NOT openly gay during the "California Gold Rush", and further, previously stated that the topic "homosexuality" has nothing to do with the subject "California Gold Rush" for that reason. I cited references that clearly show San Francisco was not openly gay tolerant until about 1908... there is a big gap there in history... about 40 to 60 years(!) passed before the subject of "homosexuality" was even mentioned regarding the history of San Francisco... so why does the article "California Gold Rush" have a sub-topic of "homosexuality"? its completely off topic, and also historically inaccurate, and not related to the "California Gold Rush". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readsomescience (talk • contribs) 07:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The article does not claim that there is any connection between contemporary San Francisco's gay culture and the Gold Rush city. It says, with sources, that there was a homosexual subculture in the city at that time. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

No, the California Gold Rush article is factually and historically in error; read the "sources" that are used as reference in the article subtopic: - Boyd: (Nan Alameda Boyd, author of “Wide Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965,” (cited above as a reference), also relies upon “oral histories from people living in San Francisco from the 1930’s”... and again, clearly the timeline does not overlap as the “1930’s” took place 75 years(!) after the California Gold Rush time period had already ended. This historical timelines (and even “oral histories”) from Boyd’s reference also do not overlap... the "sources" reference reinforces the historical fact that there was no connection between "homosexuality in San Francisco" and the California Gold Rush, because obviously the timelines do not overlap (the time gap difference is about 75 years after the California Gold Rush ended! - no correlation, no historical connection, as pointed out by even the "sources" used as justification for the subtopic "Homosexuality in San Francisco". So if it is clearly not historically accurate, why is that subtopic there?). [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readsomescience (talk • contribs) 21:39, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

While I do not agree with the tone this discussion has taken I did question the veracity of the Homosexuality in San Fransisco section. As such I read the full text the quoted excerpt came from and this seems to be more a case of misrepresentation of sources. Within chapter 1 of "Wide-Open Town: A History of Queer San Francisco to 1965" called "Transgender and Gay Male Cultures from the 1890s through the 1960s" (including pages 26 and 27) the section starting with "Here, the rough-and-tumble saloons" is preceded by an explanation of the origins of the Barbary Coast area of San Fransisco. This section explains that the rise of dance halls, etc. from the saloons of the Gold Rush created a rather lawless and vice filled area which later proved to be conducive to the establishment of gay clubs. While the opening of the first establishment in 1908 does not exclude the possibility of earlier underground locations open to homosexuals, the chapter and chapter title this is quoted from puts the earliest date for that in the 1890s, not during the gold rush. As such the source is misrepresented. While a vague inclusion could be made that the saloons of the gold rush were conducive to the creation of gay establishments, the current implication seems to be that the gay culture of San Fransisco originated during the gold rush. Something that can not be factually supported by the current given source. Dondville (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
To me, it seems that the second sentence at the top of p. 27 is not inconsistent with the current two sentences (which seems appropriate weight). The gold rush does reach (slightly) into "the second half of the 19th century" and it goes on (in the same sentence) to relate it to the flow of miners, speculators, etc., which was related to the Gold Rush. Should it have its own subsection? Probably not. Perhaps the sentences should be integrated into another appropriate place. It would be good to get a more on-the-nose source and/or check the source(s) that this book cites (not available in the Google book, darn it).
I think this is more a point of interpretation than a clear and indisputable point of fact. At this point both the term Gold Rush and "queer era" (however you would call it) are stretched to create a small bit of overlap. The summary or excerpt from Anna Sommer's 1934 work does not detail an exact era or year. The only year mentioned is 1890 and while we may presume that the previous sentence might indicate an earlier date, we don't know how far we can stretch that and that makes it a rather dubious section to quote. A second quoted year is again 1890 mentioning a Turkish bathhouse catering to men. This quote however is abridged and since my questioning of the currently discussed section of the wiki page was it's abridged section, you might discern my opinion on it's veracity. The entire chapter seems to insinuate an earlier era of homosexuality but seems to be unable to provide any hard evidence. As most of this book is based on oral histories checking of facts seems to have been necessary and it seems that the source checking by Nan Alamilla Boyd did not get to an earlier date than 1890. My current issue with this section is twofold. First of all the usage of these passages to establish anything before 1890 is extremely dubious as it could mean 2 years or 30 years, it isn't clear. The only earlier date mentioned is the 1853 opening of the Montgomery Block Building which did not become relevant until the post WWII era. Secondly the entire Gold Rush article states a date of 1848–1855 with an indication that the 1856 election of a Republican was a clear sign the Rush had ended. The digging of gold is not an indication of the Rush itself and the 1890s are clearly mentioned as a post Gold Rush era in which the only viable method of gold recovery was dredging. Stretching the era so far is kind of ridiculous and while I would love to have a historian go in dept into the gay history prior to the 1890s, this source itself does not present itself as writing about anything earlier than 1890. I think using it for anything earlier is not only dishonest to the history but also to the intent of the author. Otherwise I do think the author would have used a different title for the chapter. Dondville (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for


—105.66.7.75 (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You haven't explained what coordinate fixes are needed or what is wrong with the coordinates currently in the article. If you think that there is an error, please provide a clear explanation of what it is. Deor (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

counties to countries Knshaikh (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Which one? And in any case, it seems to indicate counties in both places, not countries. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 05:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2020

There were many land routes to get to the gold rush in california but only two sea routes from north america that could take 1-2 years 100.1.56.99 (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

What the gold rush attracted.

The California gold rush attracted large quantities of Male Strippers and the Women strippers to because after a long hard day of work you just need a show e — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.164.228.106 (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC) CHICKEN NUGGIES — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.89.95 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

v

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:9770:6F90:34F2:E5A3:E514:E2A5 (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Transportation to California

Here I will be looking into exiting the Transportation to California using two scholarly articles as my references, the first being [1] written by Malcolm Rohrbough. This article supports the lack of knowing what went on behind the scenes, on the routes when traveling to California during the Gold Rush from other places. I plan to add how each person was required to bring a "travel kit" on board which included barrels of beef, biscuits, butter, pork, rice, salt in addition to personal equipment such as clothing, guidebooks, tools, etc. I also plan to emphasize the segregation on the steamships and railroads between the rich and the poor being that the more money you spent the more privileges you would be allowed to have on the ships. A lot of the times the routes that took longer to get to California were taken by those who were less wealthy. My next scholarly article is </ref>"Reverberations of the California Gold Rush"</ref> written by J.S. Holliday. This article supports my wanting to add additional routes taken to get to Califnoira such as going through the Sierra Nevada tunnels and traveling over canyons. The final edit I would like to add is the talking about the Pony Express telegraph that really helped businessmen and immigrants talk to one another without traveling the long distance. All together the I plan to add about 150-300 words in edits and I am very open to hearing other editor suggestions along the way. JustinHurd (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That sounds interesting. I'm not a historian but it seems like more than 50 percent of the population that moved to California for the gold rush went by an ocean-going steamship. (A 50/50 split is mentioned in the article's introduction between ocean and overland transportation.) The only reference I can refer to might be a biography of Vanderbilt that I read once by T.J. Stiles and of course I can't remember the page number, so that's fun. But it discussed, at least briefly anyways, George Law's government subsidized US Mail steamships across Panama and obviously Vanderbilt's lines across Nicaragua, both of which are mentioned in the main article without any traffic numbers.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC) p.s. And this is entirely speculation but... why would hundreds of thousands of settlers trek overland across hostile Indian country in the two decades before the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific and the U.S. Military were there to risk life and limb when they could just pay a ticket price in N.Y.C. and sail over? From what's been available to the lay reader, it also sounded like the Central Pacific and the Union Pacific hired Asian labor to build their railroads because they couldn't find anyone else in the area in the 1860s... Also, Vanderbilt and the Roosevelt family's fortune.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC) p.p.s. And even more interesting is the gold rush occurred right when there were populist peasant uprisings all over Europe, which leads one to speculate that England and her former colonies were trying to find ways to distract their populations with gold and circuses or whatever and make some gold in the process. Woah, man. Oh, and then, even when the railroad to the west was completed in 1869, it was a freight railroad with little traffic, woah.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "No Boy’s Play: Migration and Settlement in Early Gold Rush California"

moved jumbled sentence for further review

This sentence, "Although, in 1986, the railroad route that went through Panama was changed, and it inevitably altered through the Sierra Nevada mountains through tunnels, canyons, and precipices", appears jumbled and has been moved here for clarification and discussion. The sentence appears to contain typos or unintentionally to omit textual material. There would not appear to be any connection between events in 1986 in Panama and a railroad route through the Sierra Nevada mountains. If there is a clearer version of the intended text, please provide it here. NorCalHistory (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

JustinHurd, I think what NorCalHistory is trying to say, is that Panama and the Sierra Nevada Mountains are not like, close, in distance, an stuff, so your sentence is confusing, an stuff.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Errors with History of California links

The Rambling Man had reported at WP:ERRORS that the Jan 24, 1848 was not verifiable in the body by the cited source.[1] Looking at the page's history, it seems like the links to Bancroft's History of California were incorrectly changed to point to Volume XXII instead of XXIII since October 2019.[2] I fixed the links with this edit. I verified that the link in footnote 4 to "Bancroft, Hubert (1888), pp. 32–34" now correctly verifies the text for the Jan 24 date.

I'm not a subject matter expert, so others might want to verify that other citations to that work are correct now. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

New Yorkers relocating to California

No information about the exact numbers of people who immigrated from New York City to California in the 1800's but I am assuming it is 3,000 people moved from New York City to California in order to seek gold. 2603:7000:B901:8500:1C16:C236:D720:C571 (talk) 00:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sources population of California from 1850 to 1900 2603:7000:B901:8500:1C16:C236:D720:C571 (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
https://depts.washington.edu/moving1/NewYork.shtml 2603:7000:B901:8500:1C16:C236:D720:C571 (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

File:CaliforniaGoldRush.png isn't sourced. The rest of the article looks good. A455bcd9 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:California_gold_rush/Archive_3&oldid=1194758054"