Talk:Klondike Gold Rush/Archive 2

Peer review September 27, 2011
The following version was reviewed: []. Soerfm (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Pictures for lead
Suggestions. Soerfm (talk) 13:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I'd vote in favour of one with people in it (human interest draws the reader in), plus one that is easily recognisable as a particular sort of event - I'd vote for either the article's current lead image (it looks like miners at work) or the Klondike White Pass image above (it looks expeditionary). The Chilkoot Pass needs some background knowledge about the gold rush to interpret, and so I think might lose some casual readers. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I would probably most of all favor a colored picture of prospectors like the one from the Nome Gold Rush article, but I can't find any. I think I prefer the first picture of the three[pic. 1, 2, 4]; an interesting detail is that the man seems to be the same that Berton uses on his book. The most famous pictures are those from the Chilkoot Pass or the tent camp of Lake Bennett, but we already have plenty of them in the article. Soerfm (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) The middle one[pic. 2] screams "Klondike" to me. The one on the left is sort of a generic prospector. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I would have thought the middle one[pic. 2] was most representative of the rush. The other two[pic. 1, 4] could be anywhere. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Thank you for your opinion. I have added a Chilkoot picture that gives a close look at the prospectors as well as the steps. Soerfm (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I like that one - it "goes" right to left, which is good for a lead picture, and looks interesting too.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) I like pic 3 best. But I think we should upload the original untouched file from the source, the current file has lots of compresseion artifacts. Iusethis (talk) 10:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Originals can be seen at: 1, 2, 3 and 4. Soerfm (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Any voices against no.3, or do we have a winner? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) I think we will try no. 3 (I have removed the title in Photoshop and cropped it at the sides so it will be bigger in the infobox). Soerfm (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Looks really good - nice work. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Thank you. Soerfm (talk) 15:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Spelling
Canadian English is used with MS Words 2007. Soerfm (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Next steps...
I thought it might be good to set out some ideas as to the next steps for this article. My working assumption is that we should be aiming to get this up to FA standard - this is a major topic, used by a lot of people, and we should be able to get it there with a bit of work.

The steps I could see us going down include:


 * 1) Continue the copy-editing.
 * 2) Complete the content work (there are another 3-4 topics that I know the article needs work on; I've now got the reference material for these through, so can crack on with this)
 * 3) Stabilise the references (we're almost at the stage where all the references are the required "high quality reliable sources"; once we're there, we need to ensure that we keep the article in good shape)
 * 4) Do a thorough scrub against the MOS (e.g. image placement, dashes, quantities, linking, licensing on pictures, level of detail etc.)
 * 5) Do a final ce (ideally using a good copy-editor not involved in the article so far, but they're in short supply)
 * 6) I reckon that a trip to GAR might be a good move next (other's thoughts welcomed though, as this can take time)
 * 7) Deal with GAR feedback
 * 8) Go for a run at FA

What do others reckon? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should go for FA. As it was said in the peer review:"...it could likely achieve GA status with some concerted work."...I think we should be there by now. I will try to make some copyediting and summarizing but I have to be careful since I don't have the books.
 * Points that the article should explain are: (feel free to add)
 * Why it is called Alaska Gold Rush when gold was found in Canada. (Should be OK even though I can't verify the explanation)
 * The difference between the Klondike and the Nome gold rush
 * What makes it so special and why so many people went (More or less OK; could be interesting if we could find explanations from prospectors themselves)
 * The routes and the newspapers role in advertizing them (OK I think)
 * Mining methods and how they evolve from simple to sophisticated (could be improved)
 * Life in the towns and tent camps (OK)
 * Soerfm (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The most important problems in the article is probably the contradiction between the claim that the rush was a result of unimployment at the same time as it is said that many prospectors left a job together whith the claim that heavy mining equipment could not be brought to Dawson at the same time as it can be seen on pictures and that it must have been possible to transport in on a river boat up Yukon River. These claims need to be modified. Soerfm (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The unemployment factor can be expanded out; I'll check the academic sources, but I've a suspicion the explanation was the effect of unemployment on wages (i.e. unemployment = lower wages = desire to move to find gold). Without a job, you couldn't travel to the Klondike anyway, due to the costs. I've got a good text on the mining sector now; I think the earlier sources weren't nuancing this enough (but I've got a chapter to read through on this, so will comment and cite further when I've done so). Hchc2009 (talk) 13:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good...another point by the way: "There was...only two springs for drinking water...", it may need to be clarified why they couldn't drink water from the river. Soerfm (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Will do. Will be a reference explaining how muddy and unpleasant it was... 17:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At last!! - every single reference is now a high-quality, reliable source for the item being cited (I think!). Obviously a few more bits to explain/explore, but at least the back-log's now cleared. That's it for tonight though, I'm knackered. (Hchc2009 collapses...) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Location in bibliography...
I'm thinking we should add publication location to the bibliography entries (will make things easier at FAC). I'm happy to do this, but it is technically a change to the citation style, so needs consensus. Are folks happy? Hchc2009 (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone would disagree. Soerfm (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Soapy...
Bunco, I've changed the text slightly because while I think I can see what you're getting at - Skagway grew considerably during the rush, and Soapy arrived early on - nonetheless like Dyea it did exist as a port for several years beforehand, and so I think it would be confusing to talk about the town's "founding". I've reworded the bit on his activities, as while he is most famously known as a conman, his gang also simply stole from people as well (see pg. 151) which we need to communicate. Does this read ok to you?

How strong does Jeff Smith think his control over Dyea was, BTW? Most of the sources I've read suggest he had control, but less so than in Skagway, because the population was transient. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hchc2009, Although William Moore had a cabin in what he called "Mooresville," it was not a port, nor was it on the maps. "Skagway" was founded in July 1897 when the captain of the steamer Queen asked to drop off his load of miners on the beach.

I am Jeff Smith, the author of Alias Soapy Smith: The Life and Death of a Scoundrel. I spent 25 long years researching the true facts about Soapy Smith. My book sites source naming Tom Cady as the underworld boss of Dyea. Cady was a member of Soapy's gang so it's pretty obvious Soapy was in control of Dyea as well. The population was transient in Skagway as well.

Regarding the gang count: Berton is not the best source for Soapy Smith as he simply copied what older biographies had published. My book does not give a number of gang members in Skagway as it is impossible to determine at anyone time because bunco men hired on upon reaching the town, and many proceeded further north or went back to the states. There was a core gang but so many were unknown as members of the Soap Gang. Even now the names of residents in Skagway's history are being looked into by the historical society there. At the time of his death only four of the gang were placed on trial and only nine others were caught and deported out of town. The rest escaped or were never suspected and either stayed on in Skagway or eventually left. Were there 200 to 300 like Berton wrote? That is a really high figure. For the core gang I would guess more in the range of less than 50. It was quality not quantity Jeff Smith (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Pleased to meet you Jeff! Thanks for your work on this so far, and I'm looking forward to collaborating further!
 * I think this is going to be a slightly difficult one to resolve in the short term within the policy guidelines (particularly the "verifiability not truth" tension). I think the other relevant policy is Conflict of interest - the problem will be that by the sounds of it your work challenges previous estimates, which may make it hard for you to then vigorously defend your position here without falling foul of the OR policies. A couple of thoughts on how we might be able to progress this...
 * ...ideally, I'd like to be able to read your book myself, as it sounds really interesting and it would make the debate here easier (!). I can't find it on on my local on-line book sellers though (else I'd buy a copy!). At the risk of being cheeky, is there any way of sharing a couple of the relevant pages (e.g. as a scan or similar?).
 * ...are there any other recent works that support your position? I'm not saying you're wrong, its just obviously easier if we can cite a third historian as well.
 * ...are there any academic reviews of the book? Again, it would make it easier to confirm that the revised position is accepted within the academic community.
 * Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Hchc2009. I have indeed followed the Wiki guidelines and there is no problem in resolving this issue. I gave my sources and pages. Now I give you links to my book as you said you could not find it. The rest is up to you if you wish to go the distance and search out my sources. For verification my book is available on the net at Biblio, Alibris , and from my publisher Jeff Smith (talk) 18:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Cheers - I'll have a look through and see which one does the cheapest deal on the postage! What I'd propose is that for the size of the gang we go for some words like "...whose gang, estimated to be between 50 and 300 strong," and then add a footnote noting the difference in assessments between Berton and yourself (e.g. "Historian Pierre Berton assesses the size of the gang as between 200 and 300; historian Jeff Smith assesses the gang to have been smaller, at most 50 strong.") Would that sound good to you? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine. Jeff Smith (talk) 20:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Great - will add in moment. What page ref should I use for the gang estimate for yourself? Hchc2009 (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I will have to look as I don't recall a "count." Jeff Smith (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead...
On the lead, I've edited it down to four paragraphs, the target length as per the MOS. I've moved the explanation of the different names into a footnote; I've taken out the sentence about the Nome gold rush being a reason for the Alaska name as I can't find that mentioned anywhere else. I've taken out a few points that weren't mentioned in the main body of the article. See what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason for the name Alaska Gold Rush is difficult to explain. The most important thing is to emphasize that gold was found in Canada despite the name. I think the lead as a whole is OK. Soerfm (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't find a decent citation for it, but its worth remembering that for most of the Americans travelling to the Klondike, it was in Alaska; until the borders were firmly defined, "Alaska" could be said to have included the eastern, now Canadian, end of the peninsula as well. As you say, agree that its important we make the Canadian distinction though. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Notice on images...
Just to highlight that the ongoing Good Article review has thrown up some copyright problems with some of the photographs currently used in the article - the issue is essentially that the pre-1923 PD tags only apply to images published before 1923, and all we have for some of the pictures is evidence that they were created before 1923, meaning that there is still extant copyright in the US on them. I'll look to action the results of that review tomorrow evening, but in the meantime if anyone can help with any hard evidence of early (pre-1923) publication for the images noted in the review, please do comment. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand Public domain a published photo is a photo taken by a professional and made available for public sale. Unpublished means a private photo by an amateur. Thereby all our photos should count as published. Soerfm (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Soerfm, Public domain explains that "A work is published when copies of the work are made accessible in some non-ephemeral form to the public at large with the consent of its author or copyright holder." The page also explains how "Many historic photos may thus actually be unpublished works, unless it can be shown that they were published in olden times. Especially items like private letters or family photographs, or photos found in some album, may well be unpublished." I'm not aware of any definitions that include the professional or amateur status of the photographer.
 * The problem is that the photographs discussed in the GAR may not have been published at the time; they may have been simply been taken and stored, or - if a portrait photo simply bought as a single image by a private individual. We need to be able to demonstrate that they were in fact published prior to 1923 - otherwise copyright applies, as described in the GAR discussion. An example might be if they were used as a postcard design, or featured in a newspaper or book. The duty is on us, though, to be able to show that they have been published - otherwise their copyright still belongs to someone else and we can't use them. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Another example might be if we could find a reliable source that helpfully states something like (my words are examples only!) "all of Eric Hegg's 1898 photographs were put on sale to the public during the summer of 1899", or "Hegg ran a photojournalism library using his stock of photographs" or something like that; but, again, the onus is on us to produce the evidence for this. All I've been able to find are statements about Hegg running a photography studio, which isn't quite the same thing. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the only thing I have read was that Hegg forgot some of his negatives when he left Dawson for Nome around 1900 and that they were not discovered before 1950 which is of course not helpful. Soerfm (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From Commons: This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923. Public domain works must be out of copyright in both the United States and in the source country of the work in order to be hosted on the Commons. If the work is not a U.S. work, the file must have an additional copyright tag indicating the copyright status in the source country.


 * Notice: ...(or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1923: Some of Hegg's photos say Copyright 1898, we should be able to use those. Soerfm (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Registering with the U.S. Copyright Office isn't the same as as writing "copyright" on something unfortunately. To register a work with the US CO, you need to to lodge a copy of your photograph (or book) etc. with them, fill in paperwork and (certainly today) pay a fee. There are electronically searchable post-1978 (I've tried, no luck), for pre-1978 you have to either search their card catalogue in Washington, or pay them to conduct the search for you. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC) NB: Unless there's a microfiche equivalent somewhere else? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I got the following email from UW:
 * If it could be confirmed that the photographs were published before 1923, we would know for certain that the copyright (the intellectual rights) had lapsed. We don't know if they were or not.  We do not know of any heirs who currently claim the copyright so while it is likely so, we can't say with absolute certainty that they are in the public domain. Public domain, however doesn't mean you can use them without the consent of the owner of the photographs, it just means you don't have to get the permission of the creator...Nicolette Bromberg, University of Washington
 * Is there no other way than public domain, how about fair use? In the Canadian archives the photos are stated as free of copyrights, does that help or are we only half way? Soerfm (talk). 12:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted in the GAR discussion, to be hosted on the Commons they need to be compliant with at least US law and (probably) Canadian as well in this case. Canadian law isn't a problem though, as it tracks the creation date, not the published date - which is why the Canadian sites can clearly state they aren't copyright under Canadian law. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly which pictures can we use by now, could we make a list? Soerfm (talk) 18:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look at the GAR - I've listed them there and have been updating them.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * (OK about the list) Yet another thing, what about the pictures that we have linked to but not shown (as :File:) are they still OK? Soerfm (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In terms of this article, the links should be fine (the pictures don't form part of this article in itself).Hchc2009 (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay... I still need to do the gallery pictures, I think all the ones in the main body of the article are now properly tagged etc., as per the GAR. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't really need the Dyea route gallery. Soerfm (talk) 20:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Soerfm (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * About the discovery double image: Could we agree to keep one and use the other as a link? (Which one do you favor?) Soerfm (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we use this for Skagway?: