Talk:California Gold Rush

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California Gold Rush article.
Article policies
Featured article star California Gold Rush is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 14, 2007.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia The spoken word version of this revision (diff) of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles being read aloud. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to contribute.


Peer review This page has been selected for the release version of Wikipedia and rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History. It has been rated High-Importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] Opening line

"...(1848–1852) began in January 1845" Which is the start date, '45 or '48? It would sound better to pick one and stick with it at least until the end of the sentence.--dsws 23:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I recently left a warning on User talk:Yahoooo123 talk page because he blanked some of this article.Wiki-wikify 22:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)