Talk:California gold rush

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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."

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)

Negative impact edits

I have fixed several grammar and cohesion problems in the negative impact section.

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)

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)