Talk:Women in the California Gold Rush

Nice start!
If you'd like a couple of format suggestions ... the goes snug up against the punctuation mark - like this


 *  she then went home. 

with no space between the punctuation mark and the

- not like this


 *  she then went home. 

Also, there wouldn't be square brackets around the cites in the footnotes (see the main Gold Rush article for format suggestions).

Finally, you thinking about adding headings?!

Nice start, Peacepanda, this is a lot of good work! NorCalHistory (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestions! My main goal was to get the article up and then fuss with stylistic issues later.  I'll definitely take your suggestions into account though.
 * Peacepanda (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

pic
As always, a picture would be nice! And presumably not too hard to find a free one. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * added 3, not perfecct, but all i could find.76.254.33.165 (talk) 05:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Did the women and children work alongside the men or not?
I just fixed a line which said that "the women and children did not worked right alongside the men".

Which obviously doesn't make grammatical sense "did not worked" ...

Since I assume that this is a spelling error or something, and since the rest of the article seems to suggest that the women and children DID indeed work alongside the men they came with, I simply removed "did not" and called it a day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Obhave (talk • contribs) 09:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

American bias
As it stands this article only talks about women immigrating to California during the Gold Rush. There is nothing here at all about native women in California during the Gold Rush, and this is a very important omission, particularly considering the extreme violence afflicted against them during this period.

To give a single example from the June 18, 1860 San Francisco Bullet: In one of the settlements, an aged and feeble chief collected the women around him, when they were about flying on the approach of the human bloodhounds, assuring them that white men did not kill squaws and that they would be safe. But they all perished together. One of our informants saw twenty-six bodies of women and children collected in one spot by the more humane citizens preparatory to burial. Some of them were infants at the breast, whose skulls had been cleft again and again. The whole number slaughtered in a single night was about two hundred and forty.

We have spoken of the authors this butchery as men--white men. So they were. We can invent no logic that will segregate them from our own species. Would that it were possible to do so. The whole number engaged was probably not over fifty or sixty. They were the lowest and most brutal of the border population, such as hang on the outskirts of civilization, and possess nothing of humanity but the form and bestial instincts.

Mendocino county, within a few days' travel of San Francisco, has been the theatre of atrocities nearly parallel, under cover of martial authority. Regularly organized bodies of armed men attacked the settlements of friendly Indians charged with stealing cattle, and murdered them in like manner, except that fire-arms were used and not hatchets. In this case, men, as well as women and children, were massacred. To defray the expenses of this heroic work, enormous claims were presented to the Legislature.

A gentleman who has spent much time in Mendocino county, informs us that the intercourse of the whites with the Clear Lake Indians, as they are called, has laid the foundation for the ultimate extermination of the race by disease, in the manner of the Sandwich Islands. OF five or six hundred squaws, from ten years old and upwards, he was assured that not a solitary individual was exempt. Civilized humanity will scarcely believe it possible for human beings to be degraded so far below savages, as are the filthy wretches who infect the frontier settlements, and commit such deeds of rapine and blood as we have here but inadequately described.

To ignore the massacre of American Indian women in the context of this article is a problem in desperate need of correction. Owen (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ New section added ABF99 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

There were a few grammatical errors found throughout the page, so I suggest going back and revising them. The content seems to be unbiased, but remember to cite all sources, for there were a few paragraphs that had no citations but included information that seemed to be from other sources. Overall, it was an interesting and informing read! Malikaih (talk) 17:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

intro

 * There are many facts in the introduction that are without references. Examples include statistics in the final paragraph of the intro with no citation, references to various stories about how women made money with no citation, and where the term "entertainers" comes from. Efitzpatrick1413 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

layout

 * I was distracted by the large blank space next to the population chart.

Also, the language used in this article is much to colloquial to be in an encyclopedia. It feels more conversational than factual. Efitzpatrick1413 (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)