# Talk:Klondike Gold Rush

Article has been copyedited according to earlier talk and trimmed. Soerfm (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I just added details on this (undoubtedly little known outside Ireland) autobiography for anybody who might be interested in researching the experience of an Irish emigrant during the Klondike gold rush. The original book was written in the Irish language by Mici Mac Gabhann (1865-1948), who made a fortune in the goldmines, and was published posthumously in 1959. It literally means 'The big wheel of life' but the translation from 1962 was rendered as 'The Hard Road to Klondike'. 79.97.154.238 (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest it is moved to the side article. As a rule, cultural content in this article should be well-referenced and have a stub+ article about both creator and work to ensure notability. Soerfm (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Soerfm, it's been referenced with a secondary source, and there's no policy that I'm aware of that requires sub-articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Does the reference mention it in the same context as London and Service? If not it may be OR, since we give the impression that this work is as important as the others. May I suggest a footnote? Soerfm (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
There's a perfectly strong argument for suggesting that Gabhann's work belongs in the sub-article, as it isn't as prominent in the literature as the other examples such as London and Service. The English version is a good read, by the way! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

See heading of this section. 68.199.192.226 (talk) 03:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. What would you consider to be "long enough"? Mediatech492 (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think I will delete the second paragraph, there is a big overlap compared to the first. Soerfm (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

There are some issues in the Logistics section. First, the headline may not be understood by all and since we can't wikilink it we may want to choose a different (perhaps: Living conditions). The second is scurvy. No matter if we write "fresh food" or "vitamin C" it is likely to be OR (my fault to begin with). Could the sentence be checked against the sources? «» Soerfm (talk) 10:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your concern about the scurvy - the authors in the para mention both vitamin C and fresh food, and the link between two was well known during the rush. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
If it is mentioned by the sources in the same context as here it is OK; however, if we use vitamin C it may need clarification. Why should poor logistics lead to lack of vitamin C? ~ Soerfm (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, with you. Because they couldn't bring in fresh supplies in any volume over the supply routes (the odd barrel, essentially), they had to rely on goods like flour and rice, which had a low vitamin C content. This applied even more so in the winter months (in the long summer days, you can grow lettuce and similar crops in the Klondike, but in the winter, there's pretty much nothing). The few potatoes they had were reserved for the hospitals, where they were grated and given out to scurvy patients. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Vitamins, as such, were not known in 1898, though the effect of citrus fruits to combat scurvy had been acknowledged by nautical authorities. (That's why English sailors were called Limeys.) Valetude (talk) 14:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Re this:

I don't know where to find a cite, or what it's called, but a US shipping law passed in this period was targeted specifically at shutting out Vancouver and Victoria as points of origin for northbound ships in order to help Seattle and other Puget Sound ports.  It required passengers and freight going from one US territory to another to stop at no intervening ports, meaning that if you were bound for Skagway or Dyea you had to leave from a US port, not from a British Columbian one.  This was part of the political and economic pressure put on BC at the time and one of the "collateral" mechanisms of the escalation of the ongoing Alaska Boundary Dispute (ongoing since 1867, and before, really). More could be said about that, as with the fighting that broke out along the Porcupine River (I think on the route east into Atlin, not sure which Porcupine is meant) and also to some in the Atlin area itself; worth noting the bylines in the NYT from those days from Atlin and Whitehorse are styled "Atlin, Alaska" and "Whitehorse, Alaska", indicating the inland extent of American claims.  That's a whole 'nother section, it's the shipping law that I'm really here about; I hope someone knows which law I mean, it's directly related to this issue of Seattle booming (and Vancouver and Victoria being largely shut out of the main stream of benefits from a rush on Canadian soil, though they did boom and tent and awning manufacturing and other outfitting services there got their foundation because of the Klondike rush).  At the onset of the rush, also, a British flag had been flying over the sole occupant's house, which as I recall may also have been a HBC post, but was ignored by the Americans, namely Soapy Smith & Co.  On a side note the other routes in could be expanded on some detail, and Berton's description of what happened to the Tanana and Red River of the Arctic/Mackenzie and Edmonton parties is worth telling.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that Vancouver grew less than Seattle. I found the following numbers from their articles:

Soerfm (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
Vancouver's population growth from 1885-1914 was extremely rapid and ongoing; it's the economy I was meaning.  And as noted it did boom during this period, partly because interest in mining within BC was picked up considerably by "rush fever", but it did not get the passenger/freight traffic to the Yukon it could/should have had the US not passed the protectionist and exclusionary Act I'm talking about.  The CPR was much faster to get across continent than the NPR or Union Pacific were, and it was a lynchpin in the All-Red Route from Asia to the UK until the opening of the Panama Canal.  European immigration into Canada in the 1890s was also at fever pitch, though most of those went to the Prairies; most of Vancouver's population growth were newly-arrived from Britain or from other parts of Canada in this period.Skookum1 (talk) 06:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's because he's not American that he's not mentioned, but if there was a famous name associated with this rush, it's him.  I was very surprised to not see him mentioned at all, which is very odd since his most famous poems, and many of his lesser-known ones, are iconic in the lore of the Klondike and the Yukon.  There are strange things done in the midnight sun by the men who moil for gold... is one of the most quotable bits of modern-era popular poetry, among many others.  He came north as, I think, a clerk, and worked in a bank, not sure if it was the Bank of Montreal or Cdn Imperial Bank of Commerce or which; it's still there, as is his cabin.Skookum1 (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

He's mentioned towards the end of the article in the Culture section. He first came to the region in 1908, about eight or nine years after the Rush finished. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This WP article says that: Gold was discovered here on August 16, 1896 and, when news reached Seattle and San Francisco the following year, it triggered a "stampede" of would-be prospectors.  However, articles discussing the Alaska Gold rush began to appear in the New York Times several month earlier:  

May 4, 1896 -- Evidence that There Are Mountains of Ore in the Mother Ledges. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40614F6395A16738DDDAC0894DD405B8685F0D3
April 5, 1896 -- IN ALASKAN GOLD FIELDS; AN UNPRECEDENTED RUSH OF MINERS THIS SEASON. Not Transportation on Enough for the Men Going to the Yukon, Juneau, and Cook's Inlet Districts -- The Perils and Hardships of the Trip to the Yukon over 750 Miles of Mountain, Lake, and River -- The Cost of Living and the Profits. http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F20B1EFB395A16738DDDAC0894DC405B8685F0D3
Are there any objections to citing April 1896 as the start date for the discovery of the gold and the start of the gold rush? Ctatkinson (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to the change - we'd be into WP:ORIGINAL. The histories of the rush are pretty much universal in terms the dating used in the article. As the article notes, there was mining in the region previously, albeit on nothing like the same scale or with the same media attention, reflected in the newspaper items you've highlighted; Kathryn Morse's book, "The Nature of Gold: An Environmental History of the Klondike Gold Rush", is particularly good on the wider media coverage of gold during the period, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Uh, how exactly is this original research when Ctatkinson has presented published reliable sources?  With this topic, arguably there is no end to reliably sourced information, and published facts and perspectives will vary wildly.  Still, I've observed a pattern with this article of pushing certain ("favored") sources at the expense of others.  I said as much in my comments during FAC. RadioKAOS  –  Talk to me, Billy  11:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:Original notes that article should seek to use "reliable, published secondary sources", such as peer-reviewed journals, books published by university presses, university-level textbooks, etc. Primary sources need to be dealt with care, and all interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source.
To take the first article, it quotes Will Steel, a journalist, who carried out a journey around the area, and believed that probably around 1,000 miners were trying to get up into the Turn-Again-Bay field near Cook Inlet in May 1896. Using this kind of information requires care; a professional historian would have to consider Steel's reliability as a source, his ability to estimate numbers, where he actually went, the commercial interests of the newspaper etc. You could compare it to other newspaper accounts from around the same time that 28 men had been mining the field over the winter, etc., which makes 1,000 sound like an overestimate. Steel doesn't say that the Klondike Gold Rush began in April 1896, and I'd suggest it would be Original Research to use it as a source for the alternative date - it's an interpretative claim.
The second article doesn't have an author listed, and at best it seems to be based on the accounts of others who have been in the region, or at least near to it. The author believes that around 5,000 miners are working across the broader Alaskan region, and that hundreds of miners are looking to travel there. It talks about the excitement around the discovery of gold at Cook's Inlet, which the author believes is easier to work than the more northern Yukon. Again, interpreting the accuracy of the newspaper report is a specialist task. There's no mention of the Klondike, and again, no specific claims that the Klondike Rush starts in April 1896; there's a mention of that the majority of miners are "rushing" to the Yukon basin,  and that there's "an unprecedented rush of miners this season", but that's about it. I'd suggest it would be Original Research to use it as a source for the alternative start date - it's an interpretative claim.
If I was to engage in a bit of OR myself (!), I'd argue that what you've got here are two accounts of the excitement around the "traditional" mining community operating in the region. It is completely different to the mass national hysteria that appears later in the year, or the scale (100,000 odd people being involved in the Klondike Rush, rather than the 100s referred to here). The Turn-Again-Bay field, as far as I'm aware, never took off in a big way, and I've struggled to find any secondary accounts of it in the literature.
Marking the start of a social phenomenon is always going to be a matter of judgement. But older historians such as Pierre Burton, as well as newer ones like Kathryn Morse, Charlene Porsild etc., start the rush in August 1896. So do the webpages of regional museums such as the Washington University. If we were looking to reinterpret the date for the start of the rush, I'd be arguing that we'd need to be looking for reliable secondary sources (e.g. an historian who argues for the April 1896 date), not conducting our own analysis from primary sources.
If you disagree, we could seek additional comment on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard perhaps. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
I understand your concern and I appreciate your thinking it through. I withdraw my proposal that the overall date be changed.  Still, I think the content of these articles needs to be mentioned in the WP article since it shows that a change was taking place in perceptions and interest in gold in the region.  I searched the historical New York Times (NYT) and April 1896 appears to be the first time that a gold rush, albeit smaller in scale, was reported in Alaska.  The April article mentions several locations of interest, including the Yukon, and mentions over 1,000 miners operating in the area. Although this gold rush was much smaller in scale, the fact that the NYT reported on it at all shows that it was significant for the time. It is also clear from the May article that miners and journalists were noticing a big uptick in mining interests in the region.  That neither article lists the name of the writer in the byline is not surprising. Older newspaper articles very rarely list staff writers or editors.  The fact that these articles appear without authors names is actually a plus for their credibility since it means these were written by NYT staff, as opposed to a wire service or a secondary source, and this means they had the full backing of the NYT editors.
I propose that some of the substance from these articles be incorporated into the background section, along with these references. You have already proven your knowledge of the gold rush and done an excellent job with this article, so I would be content leave it for you to make the changes as you see fit.  Alternatively, I would be willing to take a shot at it and to listen to your comments. Ctatkinson (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm still a little concerned that this feels like original research, but I could go for that if we worded it carefully. An alternative to further expanding the background section here, though, would be that we expanded the Alaska Gold Rush article beyond its current redirect status, so that it provides some general coverage of the range of Alaskan Gold Rushes (the pre-Klondike, the Klondike, the Nome etc.). That would start to provide an article that might satisfy some of Radio's concerns about the non-Klondike gold rushes in the region, without further elongating this article (which at almost 11,000 words isn't exactly short). The background section of this article could then point to that as the "main article". Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a good plan. I'll follow your lead with the Alaska Gold Rush article. I'm definitely behind you when it comes to my knowledge of these events, but I am ready to do the the research and to contribute. I'm a much at research than I am at writing, so feel free to copy-edit any of my contributions.Ctatkinson (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like we've a consensus. I'll take a stab at creating a first draft of that Alaska Gold Rush article on Sunday morning. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to have caught a lot of attention at the end of January 2014 due to the release of Klondike (miniseries) by Discovery Channel. Should we include this in culture? — Soerfm (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many historical errors in that miniseries. Keep an eye out for editors using information from the miniseries as non-fiction here. Jeff Smith (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with Jeff. It's risky as a source, and its always worth waiting until it settles into being cited by mainstream secondary sources in the context of the Klondike before adding it to culture. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
OK. — Soerfm (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be restored but I am not sure. Soerfm (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Which bit do you mean? Hchc2009 (talk) 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Jeff Smith's Parlor is being restored by the Klondike Gold Rush National Historic Park. It will be open to the public in July 2016. Jeff Smith (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Cool! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
For those who might wish to see the progress of the restoration, here is a link to 25 posts about the work being done. [1] Jeff Smith (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff! Those moose horns look dangerous. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, rats. I started Discovery Claim after visiting List of National Historic Sites of Canada in Yukon. I should have checked here for content, but go caught up looking for sources. If you like, please put a bit of content and images from here to there. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Anna! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution, Anna. If you want to add something about the sites of the Gold Rush I would suggest that you add it to Klondike_Gold_Rush#Places. As far as I can see your article is about geography and not history, which means that it doesn't qualify as a main article for the discovery section. However, it would probably fit well in the legacy/tourisme section. Soerfm (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Does it bother anyone else that in the Mining Business section, the 1896 conversion to present-day dollars is inconsistent?  For example, in the first paragraph, "a realistic mining operation required $1,500 ($41,000)", a multiplier of (41,000/1,500)=27.3 is used.  In contrast,  in the fifth paragraph, "a wealthier miner could buy a "proved" mine for $50,000 ($40,000,000)" uses a multiplier of ($40,000,000/$50,000)=800!  Then, the next paragraph goes back to "the typical daily pay of $15 ($410)", (410/15)=27.3, the previous multiplier. What are we supposed to believe? -SalineBrain (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like I made a glitch at some point. I'll take a look either today or tomorrow and fix it. Thanks for highlighting the issue! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The inconsistency is still there - for instance, between "Dawson City" and "Logistics" sections and further below. // 23 Nov 2015  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.25.72 (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Should now be consistent with the CPI/share of GDP measures described in the footnotes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
The chapter "Business" still uses a multiplier of 800 instead of around 27 used in other sections of the article. Maikthiel (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

There are some issues with the route section: 

The most important section is only a sub-sub section and it is too big.
There is no headline mentioning Dyea/Skagway and White Pass/Chilkoot.
This is my proposal:  (from 17 April, forgot my signature: Soerfm (talk) 12:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC))

Seems sensible to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
START

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Klondike 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927215511/http://www.skagwaynews.com/072310NPSbuildingRestorationFeature.html to http://www.skagwaynews.com/072310NPSbuildingRestorationFeature.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505213700/http://sciencewriters.ca/2013/10/08/is-there-a-mother-lode-or-is-klondike-gold-an-orphan/ to http://sciencewriters.ca/2013/10/08/is-there-a-mother-lode-or-is-klondike-gold-an-orphan/
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 02:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This line in the infobox has a Twilight Zone, Bermuda Triangle Venn diagram that either swallowed up (or spit out) 70,000 people from of whole cloth: 

Prospectors: 100,000 of whom 30,000 arrived

— MaxEnt 01:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I interpret it as: 100.000 prospectors left their homes towards the Klondike, but only 30.000 actually arrived at their final destination. Many of them turned around during their voyage.
Jurjenb (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I originally posted in the section itself, but perhaps it is better served here. The section of talk named Routes to the Klondike seems to be intended for the article section. Can we simply delete the whole thing from talkj since it appears in teh article as well?Princetoniac (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure about deleting (rather than leaving it for archive) but I've collapsed it to make the page easier to read. Schazjmd (talk) 17:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The game patience in Windows is called Klondike, as it is in OS/2
Wendy.krieger (talk) 08:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Saying that the world was largely unaware of the news of the Klondike discovery until summer 1897 is clearly erroneous. Klondike articles started appearing in October 1896 in Boston, Ottawa, and New York newspapers, and by early 1897 Klondike news appeared with regularity all around North America. As just one example, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported “the rush is on” in their March 12, 1897 issue as hundreds of stampeders started making their way north. One of the most respected chroniclers of the rush, Tappan Adney, wrote in his book The Klondike Stampede that news of the discovery was “common property” as early as January and February 1897 (page 298). 
The idea that Ottawa ignored the Klondike discovery is also false, as the government was quick to rush NWMP reinforcements to Dawson in spring 1897, and issued a comprehensive guide to the Yukon District in early June. That report noted that close to 2,000 people had already stampeded in to the new diggings. Ruthiegirl9 (talk) 03:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Ruthiegirl9, I think you're questioning this sentence in the Discovery (1896) section: The outside world was still largely unaware of the news and although Canadian officials had managed to send a message to their superiors in Ottawa about the finds and influx of prospectors, the government did not give it much attention., yes? It's cited to pages 68-69 in Pierre Berton's book Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush 1896–1899. I've requested that book from the library as well as Adney's.  Do you know if Adney's book discusses Ottawa's actions? Or do you have another source for those? Schazjmd (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello, 
The report of the Mounties being sent to the Klondike in spring 1897 can be found here: Report of a Trip to the Yukon, by Inspector W.H. Scarth. Found in the Yukon Archives, Whitehorse, 351.740 62 IVOR. 1894-1903, North-West Mounted Police, Annual Report of Commissioner L.W. Herchmer.
Ottawa’s response to “numerous calls from the public” concerning information about the Yukon and the recent gold discoveries there resulted in the June 8, 1897 publication: Information Respecting the Yukon District, from the Reports of Wm. Ogilvie, Dominion Land Surveyor, and From Other Sources, issued by the Department of the Interior. Maps of the “Thron-diuck River” and its tributaries as well as Dawson City were included in the report for anyone inclined to go. 
I’m aware that it is Berton who said that the world was largely unaware of the Klondike before the arrivals of the two treasure ships in July 1897. What he missed is that there was both Canadian and American mail service to the upper Yukon River during the winter of 1896-97, and that Dawson was not nearly as isolated as he supposed. Hundreds and hundreds of letters came out of the Yukon drainage that winter, alerting friends and family of the bonanza, which is why a few thousand stampeders were already on the move by spring 1897.

Ruthiegirl9 (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

While it is true that women may have constituted 12% of Dawson’s population by the end of 1898, that number is skewed by the large number of men who had departed the Klondike by that time. According to two NWMP censuses, one taken in July 1898, and another in November 1898, the population of Dawson cratered by more than half during the last half of the year, from 16,560 to 4,236. 
At the peak of the rush in summer 1898, the male:female ratio in Dawson City was likely 30:1 or higher. According to a July 9 report in the town newspaper Klondike Nugget, the official register at the NWMP post at Tagish showed that by mid-June 3,850 boats had been cleared coming down the river, containing 11,374 men and 240 women, a 47:1 ratio. Approximately two months later, in August 1898, Martha Black reported that she was the 631st woman to pass the Tagish post, along with 18,000 men, a 29:1 ratio. 
Only at the end of the year, after many dispirited men had already left Dawson because of limited opportunities, or went out to the creeks to work on the claims, did the male:female ratio in Dawson finally fall to around 8:1.
Numerous anecdotal reports from the summer of 1898 report Dawson’s female population at about 500, with the majority working in the entertainment industry, primarily dance halls, because of no opportunities elsewhere. Ruthiegirl9 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

In this Klondike article the population of Dawson City at the height of the rush in 1898 is is given as 30,000, with the main reference being Kathryn Winslow’s book Big Pan-Out, published in 1951. Caution is advised here. Big Pan-Out was Winslow’s first book she ever wrote and there is no source given for her population number. 
Meanwhile, the number of primary sources that suggest a lower population number for Dawson in 1898 are plentiful. The main one would have to be the July 19, 1898 census of the city conducted by the North West Mounted Police. On that day officers visited every single cabin, tent, and boat in the town and counted 16,560 people. This number would later be published in official Canadian government reports. 
One of the town newspapers, The Klondike Nugget, confirmed this 17,000 population number in their August 13, 1898 issue, as well as did a local chamber of commerce type publication issued in August by John Mattler, titled Guide to Dawson and the Yukon Mining District.
Journalists and writers of the day also agreed with an 1898 population estimate for Dawson of around 17,000 people. They included Tappan Adney in his book Klondike Stampede (page 386); Angelo Heilprin in his book Alaska and the Klondike (page 49); Sam Steele in his book Forty Years in Canada (page 321); M.D.K. Weimer in his book True Story of the Alaska Gold Fields (page 100), and A.A. Hill’s article “The Klondike,” published in the February 1899 issue of Munsey’s Magazine (page 731).
There are more supporting references, but one of the most interesting ones is the 1899 Canadian Guide Book, published by D. Appleton & Co. of New York. Not only does this publication vouch for a Dawson population of 16,000 in 1898, it also says that the population of both Victoria and Vancouver exceeded 25,000 people (pages 306-309).
This calls into question Pierre Berton’s oft-repeated alliteration that Dawson during the gold rush “was the largest Canadian city west of Winnipeg and north of Seattle.” According to who? Berton in his books never provided sources for his Dawson population numbers; he just claimed that notwithstanding NWMP censuses, “it was really impossible to estimate the true population [of Dawson] at any given moment,” thus allowing him to make specious statements such as Dawson “dwarfed both Vancouver and Victoria” and that Dawson was “only slightly smaller than Seattle.”
Writers and historians are going to have to make a choice. Do they use the numbers of the time period, compiled by the people who were actually there, or do they use the unsourced numbers from writers from the 1950s, who had every reason to exaggerate to promote book sales? In other words, do citations matter anymore - or not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruthiegirl9 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 27 February 2022 (UTC) 

I would have liked to read about that, but the closest I could was just “the huge amounts of gold…” somewhere in the Dawson City subsection. Boscaswell talk 01:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

In the article I saw things like "$1,139,000 (equivalent to $1 billion at 2010 prices)" and "$150 ($4,050) while during the winter 1897–98 the fare settled at $1,000 ($27,000)". I am assuming that in the second and third cases the figure is also the 2010 equivalent. If so it should be made clear. However, using {{Inflation}} it gives that US$1,139,000 is equivalent to $43,050,000 in 2024 or equivalent to $29,855,000 in 2010 (and I'm guessing that the figures are US$ rather than CA$ which should be defined in the article) both of which are much less than $1 billion. In the other two cases we get US$150 equivalent to $6,000 in 2024 or equivalent to $4,000 in 2010 and US$1,000 equivalent to $38,000 in 2024 or equivalent to $26,000 in 2010. Those are not so different from what the article has but using the template without a finishing date would ensure that the figures stayed slightly more current that 12 year old numbers. That is use {{Inflation|US|1,139,000|1897|fmt=eq|r=-3}} rather than {{Inflation|US|1,139,000|1897|2010|fmt=eq|r=-3}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 03:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm interested in drafting an article that explores the early days of baseball in Alaska circa 1890s-1940s. As I am not finding any existing articles exploring the topic beyond the Alaska Baseball League and Western Baseball Association (1967–72) articles I thought there could be the opportunity to introduce the sub-topic in this article in the Boomtowns sub-section. There are some terrific sources to be mined including; Baseball in Alaska (exhibit and collections) from the Alaska State Historical Collections, Baseball in Skagway (Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park, Alaska. National Park Service) and the book The Golden Days of Baseball: The Story of Baseball Played in Frontier Alaska and the Klondike. I've also added this to WP:Alaska. Shackpoet (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)