Talk:Gold Rush (TV series)

Official page worthless, this page is gold

Discovery channel better thank their asses that this wiki is here, be cause their official page is totally baren and void of any info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.27.40 (talk) 06:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

documentary proof

Gold Rush Alaska is a documentary television series that airs [...]

I'd like to see some proof that this was a documentary. some things in the serie just doesn't add up; it seem like another reality show: scripted. Anything scripted isn't a documentary. DynV (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And I would like to see proof that it's scripted and fictional. Don't go changing things without proof one way or the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.107.237.81 (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Try Goldminingrealityshow.com and read Dorsey's comments. He says it's all fake. --69.151.61.24 (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that the date of when season 2 will air should be added. 70.187.185.194 (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Individual scenes scripted or "enhanced"? No doubt. People "encouraged" by the producers to do something or act a certain way? Absolutely. But the entire thing scripted? You've got to be kidding.

I would like those who accuse this (or any other series) of being "scripted" to define what they mean by "scripted". Everything planned ahead of time and the dialog written? Yeah, sure.

You might want to look at my IMDb review of Clash of the Ozarks as an example of a reality series that is obviously manipulated. Edge of Alaska is thematically similar, and there are moments that seem contrived (if not actually scripted). Neil Darish is a malicious creep, the sort of person whose head you want to twist off. He cannot plausibly be a scripted character. (Again, see my IMDb review of this series.) WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

This series is NOT a Documentary about Todd Hoffman, as a gold prospector, at least. It IS a 'reality' genre TV show. That means it is devoid of anything actually similar to real. I just saw the 2015 narration where Todd is credited with making more in this single season than he has in the WHOLE previous 9 years. That is absurd. He has land owners who will not lease to him for business return reasons. He has crew which will not work with him. He has investors who will never invest with him. All of this you can see 'documented' during the various seasons.

He has a personal net worth of LESS THAN his TV income over the years (according to celebritynetworth.com), which means his 'business' does not make him, personally, any net money. It costs him money to run the 'gold prospecting' business.

I recall Dave Turin on a YT video of a radio program he was on, wherein he said Todd is a great guy, which I don't doubt he feels to be true, but he also said the editing is often done to make Todd look bad. I have yet to recall an episode where Todd made himself look good. An example is the decision he made about his wash plant a few seasons ago, while still in Alaska. He ordered a new trommel, at a size and design the manufacturer had never done before, and before the delivery date, he shut down his old wash plant. Then, the new manufacturer had such a bad late delivery, that Todd, and some crew had to go, and help him finish it, then it immediately broke down. Now, I ask any reasonable person. Do you sell your old equipment when you have a future delivery date, with a new manufacturer, who has just over designed something so new to himself he literally cannot fit the equipment into his manufacturing building? Who would do that in the professional world? No one.

I also recall on that radio program that a clear, obvious question occurred to me, which good decision, in which season, and episode, did Dave Turin recall that the editing so completely changed the perception, that Dave immediately was shocked at the TV show depiction, and noted it in his mind as an example of this egregious editing practice that the producers are afflicting Todd Hoffman with?

This in an entertainment show about anything but professional gold prospecting. A professional, by definition, makes his income with the pursuit, not the sideline TV show about the pursuit. A professional makes his living from his expertise and his excellent discipline, and decisions, and designs, he does not dig out other funds to cover up the deficiencies he has in business year after year, as Todd Hoffman does.

I watch the show for the other prospectors, but I never watch the Hoffman excerpts expecting anything good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.20.231 (talk) 15:48, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Doresey Claims

Using a single-source interview with a single person on a controversial subject constitutes a non-NPOV. Please find secondary references confirming claims. 5minutes (talk) 02:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's nonsense. There are many credible sources from single individuals. Where is it stated this is a true undramatized documentary. Nothing is real time and it's obviously scripted. Thats how phony reality shows operate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:NPOV states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered. Dorsey is a Primary Source, which is something WP frowns upon due to potential bias issues. You may agree with Dorsey or Hoffman, but until reliable secondary sources can be provided, the most you can say is that there is a minor controversy regarding the show due to the statements of one of the people who was on it. 5minutes (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be talking rubbish. The interview is just that - not a statement, not a blog post, but an interview published in a publication with the publication asking the questions and Dorsey doing the answering. This article provides reference both to Dorseys interview and Todd Hoffmans "rebuttal". This article does not use Dorseys words to prove that the show is scripted, it reports Dorseys allegations and Hoffmans reply, and makes no further inference. Template removed. Weakopedia (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And you appear to not understand a few basic principles of interacting with people on Wikipedia. The original interview posted as evidence completely lacked any rebuttal from the Hoffmans. Second, multiple edits have been done to the section that have improved the original one-sided claims. Third, as my links above show, WP actually does require secondary sources, not just interviews, as reference sources. Interviews create a he-said-she-said scenario rather than a good reference source. However, as these improvement have resolved the original NPOV issues, I am content to let the removal slide. 5minutes (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I did not fail to assume good faith - you appeared to be talking good faith rubbish. Weakopedia (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And you appear to be trolling. I'm done with you. If you keep baiting me, I will report you. 5minutes (talk) 18:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What kind of source would Fred Hurt be considered? He also made claims about editing and scripting in a couple of posts (on different occasions) on his Facebook page. He later deleted the posts, but not before many people copied one of them. It can be found on many sites including this one: http://www.oregongold.net/tag/fred-hurt/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloria whole (talk • contribs) 22:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Facebook posts by themselves are not considered reliable sources. Posts that disappeared that someone swears they saw are absolutely not considered reliable. Finally, as Fred Hurt is a star of the show, he is a primary source, which again, Wikipedia frowns upon. As such, I am removing your earlier post until you can find a reliable secondary source. 5minutes (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Thank you for the explanation. This is tough stuff to understand. I would have thought that a statement from an cast member saying that he was working from a story line would have been proof enough.

How about comments made by Heather Lende in her blog? Or would it have to be something of her's that was published in the local paper?

From her blog: " ...That's when Roger said, "They made Donny go back and do it again." That's right. Donny drove all that stuff back over the bridge and crossed it again, so they could have more film... Gold Rush Alaska managed to make folks who know better willingly suspend disbelief. (Or perhaps we never believed there was anything "real" about the show except Haines in the first place. Perhaps even the river crossing was as staged as the bridge crossing.) "

http://www.heatherlende.com/node/327  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloria whole (talk • contribs) 22:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC) 

More original research. It would have to be published in a recognized media (like a newspaper), and not just an interview with someone. It would have to be actual reporting. 5minutes (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Thanks again for the reply. I removed an earlier post of mine (and your response)because the person I was quoting was mistaken and my post was running off the page for some reason.

I've looked up Wikipedia's definition of "Reality television" and no longer feel that "scripted and directed" needs to be included here, as it's redundant. Thanks for your patience and help,5minutes.Gloria whole (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC) everyone is doing as good as they can and i am as a viewer of the show glad to see Alaska and the miners and the work done to find gold. The idea of what is a scripted show or not is useless.The show stands as a good show. Why must someone always try to tear down work of Landowners,Miners and film makers? Lets enjoy the shows.Blondeignore (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)blondeignore

Chilkat River/Haines

From the Se01Ep02, the Porcupine Creek area is in the Chilkat Valley. It seems this is the Chilkat River's Valley... so some additions to that article or the Haines article might be in order? 76.65.128.132 (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Se02Ep19 shows that the local town is Haines, Alaska -- 70.24.248.7 (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Dorsey

Dorsey's unwarranted attack on gold rush is his personal attempt to discredit and harm anyone involved , due to his bitterness for being asked to leave for his dangerous foolish attitude and incompetence , he is out for any popularity, attention or wealth he can stir up good or bad , there is absolute proof of this throuout his bitter attempts in many areas , the Discovery Channel will testify there is and never was a script of any kind . That Dorsey didn't write in his mind for himself., this is fact ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.105.194 (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I would hardly say it isnt scripted, notice that when somthing "bad" is happening they always seem to have a camera in the perfect place to catch the "action".....Please..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.2.82 (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dorsey is crazy. Gold Rush is just as unscripted and true as other discovery channel programming like amish mafia. The world is full of greedy and bitter people. If Dorsey wants to prove himself, he should get back to Alaska and dig out more of the glory hole. There have to be millions of dollars in gold down there. Dakota Fred just gave up too soon. 209.163.167.156 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Eliminate "Controversy" Section

I believe the controversy section should be removed. WP:SOAP states that WP is not "a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda". As the controversies presented here are essentially he-said, she-said scenarios with no journalistic or scientific research, since the sources for both of the controversies are incapable of providing a neutral point of view and since the data is not verifiable at this time, I do not believe this section should remain on the page.

However, I would be open to re-creating the section at some point in the future if and when an independent news source performs an investigation and comes to a conclusion. 5minutes (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that this section should be deleted. The only "controversy" seems to be about whether or not the show has scripted elements - hardly a notable issue with reality television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talk • contribs) 04:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I "edited boldly" and removed the "controversy" section.--CJ 04:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talk • contribs)

Removal of the controversy section? This seems to be the only reason for the article to exist in the first place. As it stands this article is simply a mashup of Discovery channel propaganda. Articles that are simply corporate propaganda for a product are usually removed from Wikipedia, so what merit remains to keep this article? Wikipedia articles can't be allowed to simply be corporate propaganda and there's no need for wikipedia to be a replication of "TV Guide".

With all factual information and sources removed there needs to be some of those warnings at the top of this page. This article is not just "incomplete", it's been CENSORED of any real information except for a corporate product description. Someone should consider elevating this issue and adding warnings about the article.--Jakestew (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that. To think that couch potatoes in a certain country dreaming of their past frontier mentality glories take this nonsense seriously makes me LooooL. The bunch of incompetent clowns presented in the series (Rofl the bleached beard hillbilly with the whitened teeth) could no way ever never never ever compete with a commercial mining operation.

Yeehaaa, pour more oil on the fire boys, cos hwen tha ground thaws, ther'll be gold in them there TV-series. Give us back a controversy section!1812ahill (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

If either of you can provide factual information from reliable sources per Wikipedia Guidelines, I'm sure that no one will balk at the inclusion of the information. However, passing along information he-said-she-said quotes and rumor mill material and opinions from unverified sources does not qualify as a reliable source. 5minutes (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There was plenty of well sourced material that was CENSORED. What we have is corporate propaganda vs. actual news stories reported in the media and interviews with material witnesses. It should be common sense which should have more evidentiary value. I've never seen any evidence supporting the corporate propaganda, NOR any credible evidence refuting any of the widely reported material that was censored from this article. In most cases I've never even seen evidence of a denial of those statements by anyone directly involved. So what we end up with is a highly dressed up and one-sided story from the Discovery channel available through mass media and a Wikipedia page censored of any dissent from that story. Again I ask, what is the value of this Wikipedia page then? If the mere mention of a controversy can't even be presented then this wikipedia page has zero value for research and education on the subject. It's just a slightly more useful rehash of Discovery's corporate brochure on the show. When did users lose the right to examine the available information on a subject and decide for themselves what and who to believe?Jakestew (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've got no sled dog in this fight. If there's a genuine controversy worthy of mention that comes from a WP:RS that is also adheres to WP:BLP and WP:POV, have at it. What had previously been purported to be "controversies" were either silly things like whether or not the show was scripted, or unsubstantiated gossipy claims made against people in the show. Nothing that rose anywhere near the level of a controversy, and nothing reported in a reliable source. If you have other stuff that meets WP requirements, post them here for discussion, and include links to the reliable sources. Otherwise, nothing has changed from the initial post in this section of the talk page that resulted in the elimination of the Controversies section of the article. --CJ (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You edited boldly and kept the notion that this is a documentary. This entire show is scripted. In the 2014-2015 season, one of Parker's guys drives off the road and there's a camera placed in the bushes at the exact spot he hits, before he drives there. How did the crew know the rock truck was going to hit at that exact spot? You have removed any mention of the controversy, which rages elsewhere. - J — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.247.133 (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Age of Parker Schnabel

At first one thing: the ages listed in the cast-table don't say anything, because there's no information in which year or season they were this age. Better would be to name their year of birth.

But what I really wanted to ask is: doesn't Parker Schnabel grow old? In season 1 it was said, that he's 17, also in season 2. And now in season 3 they still call him the 17 year old Parker Schnabel. So how could this be? Is goldmining a fountain of youth? -- Lord van Tasm (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

He didn't appear in season 1, and if he's 17 in season 2, it's prefectly possible for him to be 17 in season 3, depending on the start and end of season and his birthday. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Now (episode 10 of season 3) it ist told that he is 18. Wasn't he in season one? I remember having seen him there. It was when the Hoffmans first washed some gold with their washplant and had some problems with adjusting the jig. So they called the neighbour Big Nugget Mine and Parker came to help them with the jig. At this point Parker was introduced into the series. And it was told, that he is 17. Also the table under Gold_Rush_(TV_series)#Cast tells: ″He guest starred and appeared to give advice in Season One.″ That must have been around episode 5. -- Lord van Tasm (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I recently watched the whole season 2, the first episodes mention him as a 16 year old, halfway into the season it changed to 17 year old. It would be logical to assume he had his birthday somewhere during the summer. That would indeed make him still 17 at the start of season 3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.160.72.40 (talk) 17:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikia

so... I've added the Wikia link

• Gold Rush wiki on Wikia, an external wiki

-- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Locations

It'd be nice if someone wrote up articles on these sites... Porcupine Creek , Quartz Creek (Yukon) , Toronto Creek , Calder Creek ; we have an article on Indian River (Yukon) -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

At de:Goldrausch_in_Alaska we have made maps with coordinates of all the claims. I checked them out in the official canadian claim-maps. Maybe you can copy it into the english article. -- Lord van Tasm (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Episodes

The "Episodes" section takes up an awful lot of space. I suggest that the "Episodes" section be transferred to a new page called "List of Gold Rush episodes," or something along those lines.--Philpill691 (talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense and mirrors what is done with other shows. --CJ 01:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubfoot Johnson (talk • contribs)

Agreed. When the show was 1 season, one page made sense. 3 seasons in, and I think it's time to mirror what other shows are doing. Ditto with cast and equipment. 5minutes (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and made a separate page for the episodes. We need people to keep the new article up to date.--Philpill691 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yukon Gold (TV series)

Apparently this show has already inspired a second Yukon gold mining reality show... -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Clones

Seems like this has a passelload of competitors now:

Yukon Gold (TV series), Bering Sea Gold, Bering Sea Gold: Under The Ice, Jungle Gold, Bamazon, Ice Cold Gold

not counting the failed spinoff Gold Rush: The Jungle

-- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Content Removal

Can someone, with more time on their hands than I have, undo the removal of the Gold Rush specials from the episodes page? The user AeroByte made the decision to remove them under the grounds that they don't belong there, and didn't put the information anywhere else from what I can see. As a casual fan of the show, I did go to that page to see what specials had been aired. Same thing with Bering Sea Gold if anyone wants to look into that one too. Thanks! 76.186.154.127 (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

When was that removed? Couldn't find it with a quick look through the edits.--CJ 14:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Was removed with this edit in the episode list article List of Gold Rush episodes. - DVdm (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

List of cast members

WHERE'S RICK NESS???? Super surprised to see that Rick Ness has been mentioned on the list of cast members. It's understandable that every crew member can't be listed, but there isn't a weekly episode without him. He also takes part in most of the Gold Rush: The Dirt and Gold Rush: Pay Dirt. Matter of fact, there is a sentence that mentions Rick - "He [Parker] then stayed and continued mining with Rick and picked up an additional 193, . . ." But that's it. Sad, when if not for Rick, Parker wouldn't have gotten that extra 193 oz. And the ONLY crew member that stuck with Parker after being such a (I'll keep it clean) JERK to his amazing crew last year was . . . Rick Ness (even with the very personal family issues he was having at home). Parker would be toast without him. And he most certainly deserves recognition on the Gold Rush page. That's it. Thanks. DT - December 26, 2015

The list of cast members in the article is now much different than that shown on the Discovery Channel page: http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/gold-rush/bios.Landroo (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not just go ahead and add him to the article?--CJ (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Super surprised to see that Rick Ness has been mentioned on the list of cast members. Apparently he had already been mentioned ;-) PizzaMan ♨♨♨ 21:46, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality of the article?

I love the show, in fact it's my favorite show, but I think that overly biased articles (either way) just stir things up unnecessarily.

I think the description is too far from reality to be credible. An "all stakes gamble" doesn't make sense when there are 4 seasons of spectacular mining failure documented in the series.

It should also be mentioned that the "show" is the driving factor. Were it not for the TV show there would be NO mining by the Hoffmans. Most people realize that you can't fail 4 times at something and keep going, so not mentioning this makes the article look biased and weak.

Before someone jumps down my throat about the mining "failure", it should be noted that I don't see ANYBODY claiming the Hoffmans have ever made a profit at mining. In season 3 they meet their arbitrary goal, but simple analysis should show that it's highly unlikely that this represents a profitable operation.

The fact that all information besides the rehashes of corporate promotional material has been CENSORED from the article seems to be a serious breach of Wikipedia users trust. Warnings about the article should be added to the page until this is straightened out and the article improved.--Jakestew (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm...

While restarting what's been an ongoing project, I came across this listing/source. I take it this is the same John Schnabel? That he was mayor of Haines 60 years ago may be worth mentioning, though probably not relevant to what viewers are following. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 22:24, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Dug a little further. I'm sure there's no cause for confusion now. Anyway, doubt I would have found this through any Google search. This is a Who's Who-type entry from 1955:

SCHNABEL, John J., Mayor of Haines, Gen. Mgr. Haines Lumber Co., Schnabel Apt. Hotel., Box 129, Ph. 209, Haines. Home: Schnabel Apts., Ph. 209, Haines. Born New Almelo, Kans., Feb. 11, 1920. Ed. Sacred Heart Acad., Klamath Falls, Ore.; Gonzaga Univ., Spokane, Wash. Member Lions; Haines Bus. Council. Married Erma DiRe, 1948. Children: Patricia Louise, Deborah Justine, Sandra Lee. Came to Alaska in 1940 from Klamath Falls, Ore., where he worked for Weyerhaueser Timber Co. Served four years with USN Air Corps. Hobby: hunting.

RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Equipment

Oh, boy. This section had a vague relevance when the program began and it was focused heavily on specific equipment. Anyway, the article now contains a gigantic, pointless, non encyclopedic list of equipment on the program that isn't even featuring it any more.

Therefore, that section should be removed. 76.105.131.18 (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Season 9

Season 9 has ended and this section needs to be updated. I don't watch TV so I can't do it.2001:1970:5324:D600:2406:F619:6406:4467 (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Canada

I don’t mind the gold rush crews flying there country flags. They are in Canada, why don’t they respect the country they get their gold and fly the Canadian flag first then there country flag.! 174.93.5.167 (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Gold rush

Gold rush is my social studies project and I want to learn more about it at home SueEmily (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)