Talk:Bodie, California

Untitled

Some of the text in this article was derived from http://www.parks.ca.gov/default.asp?page_id=509.

Why is this the most authentic

"Bodie is now the Wild West's most authentic, intact ghost town"

I call shenanigans, why is it the "most authentic" ghost town. Most of the Western United states is littered with the remains of towns that failed for one reason or another. They were all authentic towns, they are all now authentic ghost towns. I'm not sure if there is a standard scalar for authenticity is, here can someone explain?
Wonko the Sane 18:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would call most a weasel word which will be replaced. Favored rewrite an authenic ghost town. Ronbo76 18:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Bodie is the West's most authentic, intact ghost town because almost every other historic western town suffered one of two fates. Either they crumbled and were vandalized into oblivion, leaving little more than foundations, such as Aurora and Rhyolite, or they were restored, becoming phony tourist traps, such as Virginia City, Tombstone, and Deadwood. Bodie is one out of maybe two surviving western towns from the 1800s that were actually abandoned, then preserved in their ghost town state.

Michael H. Piatt http://www.BodieHistory.com

ADD TO PIATT'S RESPONSE: I want to added to Michael Piatt's response as an architectural historian who has studied and presented on mining towns here in the West as well as completed a thesis on Bodie and its architecture. Bodie buildings were considered "construction materials," and were picked up regularly and moved to other mining or non-mining towns, and there is oral history that Bodie buildings exist in Bridgeport. The high-desert climate of Bodie has no forests for lumbering, hence why construction materials were commodities. Aurora, Nevada, suffered this fate and was moved brick-by-brick to the Los Angeles area. Primary research is sketchy here because there is little to no primary paper documentation, however, is a vernacular tradition here in the West and in mining towns. So in addition to pure neglect of buildings abandoned to the elements, there is human resourcefulness. (Corri Jimenez)

Regardless of the URL cited, you are dealing with a superlative word that is referred as a weasel word here on Wikipedia. Weasel words should not be put in articles because unless the claim can absolutely be verified, the weasel words cause edit wars. There are probably more than just two authenic ghost towns out there and part of the Ghost Project of which I am a member on this wiki. Ronbo76 00:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE: The only other true ghost town that competes with Bodie is Bannack, Montana. Like Bodie, Bannack is preserved as a ghost town (neither restored, nor allowed to disintigrate) by the State, but I do not believe it has as many historic buildings. If you know of other authentic ghost towns with more intact buildings than Bodie, please list them.

Michael H. Piatt

That isnt the point ronbo was making...you cant say it is the most authentic, because in this case the degree of authenticity and which town is the most authentic is a subjective thing. Even if you could provide a million reasons why it is then you cant say it is. HOWEVER, i believe you could say something like "Bodie is held by some to be the most authentic wild west ghost town, however this is a subject of much debate" (thats assuming that it is a subject of much debate and that there is significant numbers of people that believe bodie is the most authentic, of course). I am going to delete the current statement because the way it is written is against wikipedia policy, but i hope someone with knowledge of Bodie will re-write it in a more neutral way.Trottsky 20:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Oh wait, i see it doesnt say that anymore, could have swarn it did...*sigh*

Reasons it became a ghost town?

Why not give reasons as to why the town became a ghost town? Im sure any readers are wondering this

Yeah... Ashibaka tock 03:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed! I was very disappointed by this. I can't understand why a thing that should be so obvious to have in this article, is missing. --Lo'oris (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Or the year? Saccerzd 19:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Bodie was advertised by California period newspapers as being the next Virginia City, Nevada (see Sacramento Daily Union, Jan. 15, 1879; Daily Alta Californian, June 16, 1879. A second reliable source is Grant H. Smith History of the Comstock Lode, 1850-1920 (Reno: University of Nevada, 1943: 191-200)). Nevada's Virginia City is a keyplayer to Bodie's boom, rivaling the title away from the rich silver capital. Advertised in the Virginia City Territorial Enterprise, "Bodie has taken from us some good men, and that is not good for us" (January 24, 1878).

Bodie boomed from November 1877-June 1881 (see Smith, H.L. “The Bodie Era: The Chronicles of the Last Old Time Mining Camp.” Unpublished manuscript of newspaper documents from The Bodie Daily Standard, The Bodie Free Press, The Bodie Chronicle 1877-1883. Sacramento: California State Library, c. 1933). The first signs of a decline appeared in June 1880 and were more apparent in October-December 1880 as promising mining booms were being advertised in Butte City (MT), Tombstone (AZ) and in Utah (See Smith, "The Bodie Era," 133-134). The get-rich quick, single miners who originally came to the town in the 1870s moved on to these other booms, which eventually settled Bodie as a family-orientated community. Two examples of this settling is the construction of the Methodist Church (currently stands) and the Catholic Church (burned in the 1932 fire) that were both constructed in 1882. With the population dwindling, the mines were flourishing, and in 1881, Bodie ore production was recorded at a high of $3.1 million (see Chesterman, Charles W., Roger H. Chapman, and Clifton H. Gray, Jr. Geology and Ore Deposits of the Bodie Mining District, Mono County, California Bulletin 206, Sacramento: California Department of Conservation/Division of Mines and Geology, 1986: 32). Also in 1881, a narrow gauge railroad was built called the Bodie Railway & Lumber Company, bringing lumber and supplies into the town from Mono Mills at Mono Lake.

In 1891-1911, Bodie had a short revival seen in industrial achievements in the mines that continued to support the town. In 1910, the population was recorded at 698 people, which were predominantly families that decided to stay in Bodie instead of moving on to other prosperous strikes.

The first signs of an official decline occur in 1912 with the printing of the last Bodie newspaper, The Bodie Miner. In 1913, the Standard Consolidated Mine closed. Mining profits in 1914 were at a low of $6,821 (see Chesterman, Geology and Ore Deposits of the Bodie Mining District, Mono County, California : 32). James S. Cain was buying up everything from the town lots to the mining claims, and reopened the Standard mill to former employees, which resulted in an over $100,000 profit in 1915 (Piatt, Bodie: "The Mines are Looking Well...", 244). However, this financial growth could not save time town's decline. In 1917, the Bodie Railway was abandoned and its iron tracks were scraped.

The first label of Bodie as a "ghost town" was in 1915 (see Charles Van Loan, “Ghost cities of the West: Bad B-a-d Bodie,” Saturday Evening Post September 21, 1915: 18-19, 55.) In a time when auto travel was on a rise, many were adventuring into Bodie at these acclaimed Wild West towns via automobiles. The San Francisco Chronicle published an article in 1919 to dispute the Post article entitled: “Bodie Not Dead, Says Camp Representative,” (San Francisco Chronicle, January 28, 1919: 6. This Chronicle article is Bodie's last punch as it strived to hold on to its title as a thriving town. In 1920, Bodie's population was recorded by the US Federal Census at a total of 120 people.

Corri Jimenez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.197.133 (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Bodey, Body, Bodie or Bode

I understood that the founder was a German named Waterman (Wasserman?) Bode, pronounced bow-duh. If he was, the named was anglicized quickly to other spellings, as above, since most people would call him Bodey or something like that. I did hear the story that the town was named by an errant signmaker "Bodie", which spelling stuck to the city's name. Mr. Bode probably also assumed the English name William (was he a Wilhelm?) This story is derived from a book written on the history of Bodie, not a bunch of copy cat web sites. Magi Media 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

RESPONSE: In 1879, Bodie's first historian said the discoverer was "W.S. Body" from Poughkeepsie, New York. One of the discoverer's former partners said he was "William S. Bodey" from Poughkeepsie. The New York Times in 1879 printed "Waterman S. Bodey" from Poughkeepsie. The trouble is, records in Poughkeepse list only "Wakeman S. Bodey" (somethimes spelled "Body") Nobody said he was German. For more information see Myth #2, http://www.BodieHistory.com/myths.htm

Michael H. Piatt

Bodie rank in 1880

From the 1880 census:

• San Francisco 233,850
• Oakland 34,555
• Sacramento 21,420
• San Jose 12,567
• Los Angeles 11,183
• Stockton 10,282

So, Bodie was hardly 2nd, at most 7th. No census data seems available for Bodie. hike395 06:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE: Despite solid research to the contrary, uninformed writers still repeat two old myths: Bodie once contained more than 10,000 inhabitants, and it was the second (or third) largest city in California. Census takers during Bodie's boom in 1880 counted only 5,416 inhabitants. (A recent researcher inventoried the 1880 census and counted 5,410.) The official total was immediately challenged by local newspaper editors, who claimed the enumeration was too small because they knew people whose names did not appear on the list. These newsmen estimated the population at somewhere around 7,000, maybe 8,000 at the most. (For the latest research see, http://www.BodieHistory.com/population.htm )

Michael H. Piatt

• "Legend has it that a little girl, upon finding out that her family was moving there, prayed one night, "Goodbye God, we are going to Bodie." Oh indeed. Pretty tired old chestnut, I'd say. applicable to many "Wild West" towns. --Wetman 03:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Googling for "goodbye god we are going to" (with the quotes) only turns up Bodie, for what that's worth. Robin Johnson (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, it's such a familiar trope for a "godless town". Where has one heard this story before on the ghost town tours? The bogus sentiment may have made it more memorable to cynical ol' --Wetman 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RESPONSE: It's impossible to know for sure if the expression "Goodbye God, we are going to Bodie" is true or not, but it appeard in an 1879 Carson City newspaper (probably rippped off from another newspaper). Even if the story was invented, it's definately part of Bodie's past. (For more information see Myth #6, http://www.BodieHistory.com/myths.htm )

Michael H. Piatt

Trivia

"Bodie, California" is not a song by Peter Gabriel

Not a song? is that significant? (anon.)

It's by Joyce Anderson, apparently. --Wetman 15:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Arrested Decay

The arrested decay article says that someone has suggested it be merged into this Bodie, CA article. But I don't see any support for the merge in this talk page or arrested decay's talk page. If anyone wants to pursue that, do so on Talk:Arrested decay. Otherwise, I say the template be removed from the arrested decay article. LeSaint 21:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The idea is nonsense. Arrested decay has potential to be expanded and improved. There is no reason to wind it back. SmokeyJoe 23:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The rise and fall of Bodie

The articles does not say why the town was deserted. I guess it was because there was no more gold, but it does not tell. // habj 14:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep! It should be written, it's not a trivial thing! --Lo'oris (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

last few miles out were unpaved / pretty bumpy

I was thinking of adding a qualifying phrase to the last paragraph in the article about the road out to the town:

the last 3-4 miles of which are unpaved, and rough driving even in good weather

but that would be too much original research, since I can't remember having seen it printed anywhere. It was definitely worth seeing and of historical value but the degree of workout for the old automotive suspension was an unpleasant surprise after the first 15 miles out. I doubt it did my car any good. Some people might mind less than others. Probably no coincidence that there is no plan to change that--mother nature's speed bumps. -Onceler (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrected images

As part of my general mission of correcting images of buildings on WP, I have swapped some of the images out for perspective corrected versions. I am not for one second knocking the artistic merits of the originals, indeed one is a Featured Picture, but this is an encyclopedia and the images should reflect closer what the eye sees. The corrected versions correct nothing but perspective distortion, as any architectural photographer would when photographing a building with the intention of accurately capturing the structure. Mfield (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

• The BodieMask image: The mask is a stylized pigs face novelty item sold from 1950's to the early 1970's. They are usually glazed brown and have red ribbons attached to small holes on the side of the mask as a functional way to hang them on a wall. One of the holes for the ribbons is visible in the high res photo but someone has strung a rusty piece of bailing wire through the hole. The rusty bailing wire adds to the illusion that this piece of mass produced pottery is indeed an antique - a rare child's mask from the pioneer days! Heh, hardly. Dutyfree (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• These novelty masks were produced with no eye-holes and glazed with white and black for the eye itself OR with eye-holes for plastic eye inserts. I used to buy sealed boxed-lots of goods at auctions and these fugly curio masks were in every third box. The BodieMask photograph is well composed - some might claim it was included for the sake of its sheer artistic quality. Not a big deal nor worth raising a stink over (pig pun?) Dutyfree (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

the Curse

"Local legend holds that the town is haunted by spirits and everything in it is cursed. Anyone who takes an object from Bodie suffers bad luck, so they say. Many people who have taken objects, have sent them back by mail after a rash of bad luck (believed or real)." -- This article was removed because it was deemed "unconstructive". I think it is constructive. Local legends are a part of the character & culture of a town. The people who work at Bodie (to guard and preserve it) tell this legend to visitors. Bodie featured on the TV series Scary...But True. 76.93.80.45 (talk) 03:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Some needed attention

So I was watching KVIE today (not something I ever do), and Bodie was the subject of at least 10-15 minutes of the show ViewFinder. I was quite intrigued and looked up the 'pedia page. I'd like to help this page out. In my opinion there are too many pictures versus content. Or at least in the way the pictures are situated currently it makes it look like an eye sore. Any comments on that? I'm hoping others have this page watchlisted.

Also, there are many books listed in the references section that don't include inline citations. If anybody here has those books (or if you were the one who added it to the list), if you could place inline citations for facts, that'd be great.

And what about putting the historic district infobox directly underneath the city infobox? I know that could be confusing, but I think the historic district infobox is too far down the page. Any comments/input would be appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 05:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Identity of anonymous editor?

Dear Mr. Anonymous editor [68.1.171.155 (Connecticut), 170.63.96.108 (Boston)]: by any chance are you Michael H. Piatt, who previously registered as User:Bodiehistory? Mr. Piatt has previously edited this talk page (and signed his name), leaving references to his book and web page in the article, and has argued against the name "William S. Bodey" in a web essay.

If you are Mr. Piatt, thank you for contributing your expertise to this article. However, Wikipedia has to be careful about experts citing their own work. There are two relevant Wikipedia guidelines:

1. WP:COS says that an author can cite his own work as long as it was published in a "reliable publication". This precludes citing to essays at http://www.bodiehistory.com in support of reverting William S. Bodey back to W.S. Bodey: a self-published web essay is not a reliable source. We would need to find another source that explicitly says William is incorrect.
2. WP:SELFPUB says that self-published books are not acceptable sources: only third-party publications are acceptable. I'm uncertain about the status of "The Mines are Looking well..." It was published by North Bay Books, but I cannot find any information about other books published by that publisher --- was the book reviewed, refereed, or edited by a third party?

Thanks again for the care that you've put into this article. Looking forward to working with you in the future! hike395 (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Its actually quite aggravating. I did a bunch of citing and cleaning up of the article and those IPs undid it all. I trust Cal State Park information more than a self-published book, but my edits were reverted (twice!). Killiondude (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Report the controversy

Instead of engaging in a slow-motion revert war, let's follow the lead of WP:NPOV and report the controversy of the facts about Bodie, rather than trying to choose one set of facts.

Looking through the anon edits, I can see some conflicts where both sides can be reported:

• Correct name of W.S. Bodey
• Why town name was changed from Bodey to Bodie
• second largest city in 1880 (in fact, this is probably wrong: I looked up the 1880 census and it isn't even in the top 5, see above)
• origin of the timber
• value of 1880 census

I think these can be easily reported as controversial facts and our readers can decide. hike395 (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. That sounds good. If I added the info about the second largest city, I'm sorry; I didn't read the discussion above. I may have pulled that info from the California State Parks brochure. Killiondude (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE

Yes, I am Michael H. Piatt, author of Bodie: “The Mines Are Looking Well….” Who is Killiandude? And Hike395?

I’m frustrated too. I have difficulty manipulating Wikipedia’s site, and I apologize for my lack of computer savvy. I’ve made a mess of the source notes. I hope I’m responding correctly to the query at hand. Some of my edits are clumsy, but I’m always interested in finding real answers and discussing Bodie’s history. My aim is to present the most accurate information possible. You are right to be cautious, but my corrections are backed by primary sources i.e. eyewitness accounts, period documents, official records, and historic photographs.

I understand why you are frustrated --- if you have made a long study of a particular topic, and perceive that inaccurate edits were added to a WP article on that topic, it must be frustrating, especially during an edit dispute. hike395 (talk)

The trouble with Bodie is that it inspires lots of tall tales and junk history. I peruse Wikipedia’s Bodie site because inaccuracies creep in from time to time.

I think we all agree by now that the U.S. Census of 1880 proves Bodie was never California’s second (or third) largest city. Yet, despite easily accessible census documents, the falsehood reappears on Wikipedia, introduced and reintroduced by well-meaning contributors—most recently by Killiondude, who admits he isn’t sure where he read it. All this demonstrates the shortcomings of both the Internet and Wikipedia. Anybody can insert misinformation at any time.

I think that WP:NPOV solves the problem for us: instead of stating what is the truth, we merely report on who says what : e.g., the California park brochure says second largest, but the 1880 census itself contradicts this. hike395 (talk)

But, neither park brochure states that Bodie was California's second largest city. This not-so-historical tidbit should be dropped. MHP

Nobody can be absolutely certain of W.S. Bodey’s first name. Some writers have said he was William S. Bodey, others say he was Waterman S. Bodey. Every one of them copied earlier writers, who copied someone else. None of them undertook scholarly research and cited supporting documents. First to study the discrepancy was Warren Loose, who wrote Bodie Bonanza: The True Story of a Flamboyant Past (1971). Loose concluded on pages 13-18 of his book that W.S. Bodey was neither William nor Waterman. Since Bodie’s discoverer was probably from Poughkeepsie, NY (all 1879 eyewitnesses agreed upon this point), he must have been Wakeman S. Bodey. Loose consulted Poughkeepsie records and his book is amply source noted. When I quoted Loose and cited his book on Wikipedia, the citation was immediately replaced by a link to Fredric L. Quivik’s technical article about the Standard Mill. Fred’s expertise is in historic ore reduction methods, not the identity of Bodie’s discoverer. William, Waterman, or Wakeman? Nobody can be sure. Sticking with W.S. Bodey is safest. Perhaps the staff at Wikipedia should set up a “W.S. Bodey” page, where all three names can be given equal weight.

You've got it precisely right, I think --- given that no one can know for sure, we should use the initials and present all three possibilities, with citations for each. hike395 (talk)

The story about an Aurora, NV, sign painter who first lettered “Bodie” was told by Mono County pioneer, Judge J.G. McClinton in the October 29, 1879, edition of the Daily Bodie Standard. Until more reliable information is discovered, there are no other versions. Loose quoted the newspaper on pages 26-28 of his book. Again, when I cited the original newspaper column along with Loose’s book, my Wikipedia corrections were quickly displaced by undocumented information from two park brochures. It’s important to understand that neither Bodie State Historic Park brochure provides source notes, so we don’t know the statement’s origins. The most recent brochure is currently undergoing revision to correct historical inaccuracies. Because the brochures are easily accessed online, unwary readers may miss solid information found elsewhere. So far, Bodie’s most authoritative sources are not available on the Internet.

Again, we can report the controversy and solve the problem: if we report both sides, then people will hopefully not mistakenly revert one for the other. If the brochure is revised, we can drop the he said/she said style.

Hike395 asked about my book. Bodie: “The Mines Are Looking Well . . .” (2003) was not self published. North Bay Books anticipated producing a series of California history books, but has gone out of business. Among the manuscript’s editors were Robert E. Stewart, author of Aurora: Nevada’s Ghost City of the Dawn (2004) and Stanley W. Paher, who wrote Nevada Ghost Towns & Mining Camps (1970). The most prominent reviews were published in Mining History News: Newsletter of the Mining History Association, The Journal of the Society for Industrial Archeology, and Wild West magazine.

Great! That makes it a valid reference for this article.

Thanks for the detailed response. I'll take a stab at revising this article (and William S. Bodey) along these lines, sometime in the next day or two. hike395 (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I just got a chance to read the discussion above. I agree that citing the information from all angles is a good way to go. From looking at the article history, it seems I pulled the "second largest city" (at one point) fact from this employment flyer from the California State Park people. I must say, at first I trusted the State Park's information (as a whole), but more and more I'm becoming aware that they might not be the most reliable source. I'm sorry that I didn't look at that portion of the talk page, and for getting upset when my edits were reversed. My bad. Killiondude (talk)

RECOMMENDED READING

Perhaps this is a good time to post a bibliography of historically accurate books about Bodie. Anyone seriously interested in the town’s past should be aware of these titles.

Warren Loose, Bodie Bonanza: The True Story of a Flamboyant Past (1971). Loose was first to write Bodie’s history based on scholarly research. He culled period newspapers and other documents to chronicle events through 1882, portraying Bodie during its excitement. The book is amply footnoted and corrects many tall tales. But despite meticulous study, Loose failed to notice that Bodie’s population began declining precipitously in late 1880, and he titled Chapter VII, “The Heyday Rolls On—1881.” Otherwise, this it the best account of Bodie’s boom era.

Roger D. McGrath, Gunfighters, Highwaymen & Vigilantes: Violence on the Frontier (1984). McGrath studied newspapers and other historic documents to examine violence in the Wild West. The first half of his book centers on Aurora, Nevada, during its silver boom early in the 1860s. The book’s second half is about lawlessness in Bodie during its gold rush, 1877-1880+. McGrath’s thorough research, supported by abundant footnotes, delivers top-notch, accurate narratives about George Daly and the Jupiter vs Owyhee claim-jumping gun battle, Bodie’s 601 and its vigilante lynching of Joseph DeRoche, plus shootouts, stagecoach holdups, and saloon brawls. McGrath is a Ph.D. historian recognized for informed appearances on the History Channel. This work corrects many popular notions about violence in the Wild West, proving that Hollywood’s six-shooter heroes belong more to myth than to history.

Emil W. Billeb, Mining Camp Days (1968). Essentially Billeb’s memoir of life in Bodie after his arrival in 1908 as an employee of the railroad. The book’s strength is an exceptional collection of photographs with captions based on first-hand knowledge. Unlike most books that focus on Bodie’s boom era, Billeb provides a highly detailed eyewitness account of the town during its final years. Billeb undertook no research, so his statements about Bodie’s early days are based on local tradition, but the photographs are worth the price of the book.

Michael H. Piatt, Bodie: “The Mines Are Looking Well . . .” (2003) Exhaustively researched with generous source notes, this book covers Bodie’s history from beginning to end by following developments in the mines. Relying on abundant quotations by eyewitnesses, the text is aided by more than 160 historic photographs, maps, and sketches.

MHP

Thanks! I just looked at my local library's catalog online, and they have the McGrath and Billeb books. I'll check those out. Killiondude (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I addecd Billeb and Loose to the reference list of the article. hike395 (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Some stuff

"Bodie's mines produced gold valued at more than $34 million"

I found a source that says that the mines produces both gold and silver that valued $34 million (in 1880s dollars). I found this source through ProQuest, and it is a scanned version of an article that appeared in Sunset. Now, as to which Sunset periodical, I'm not sure. It could be Sunset (magazine) but ProQuest labels it as from a "Research Library". So I'm not positive. But in any case, could whoever added the reference on the page please double check to see what the reference that is cited actually says? I know this may seem miniscule, but I'd like this page to be as widely covered as possible (given that there's so many conflicted facts in publications about this topic). Killiondude (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Be very cautious about believing articles in magazines such as Sunset. These publications print light history, likely to be poorly researched with no way of knowing the author's sources. As we have seen above, there's lots of junk history about Bodie that gets cycled over and over. The same misinformation reappears as fact, even though it's been challenged and corrected. Occasionally somebody makes up something new. The statement that Bodie yielded "$34 million in 1880s dollars" makes no sense, because the mines produced until 1942, and nobody converted back to 1880 dollar values. The figure (actually $33,954,919.29) is from Table 6, page 32 of Geology and Ore Deposits of the Bodie Mining District, (California Division of Mines and Geology--Bulletin 206) by Chesterman, Chapman, and Gray, who tabulated yearly yields and said nothing about 1880s dollars. The mines reported production each year in dollar values for that year. It's no more complicated than that. MHP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.171.155 (talk) 13:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I haven't forgotten about the "junk history" facts that were discussed above. I think the fact that this article is in ProQuest gives it some credibility. I believe the statement "in 1880s dollars" was meant to convey that the sum was not adjusted to account for inflation (i.e. not adjusted to "today's dollars"). So the $33.95 million dollars that is listed in the source you cite above, that is the total value of stuff mined from the beginning of mining in Bodie until the 1940s? Killiondude (talk) 18:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

On another note, what do you guys think about taking the information in the last section ("Authentic ghost town") and putting it in the "History" section? It might be best to keep chronological history stuff all in the same place. I wanted to add a referenced fact that in the 1940s, a family that owned much of the land the town is on hired caretakers so that it wouldn't get vandalized or looted. I couldn't figure out which of those two sections it should go in, which led me to wonder if the "Authentic ghost town" one should just be merged into the other. Killiondude (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there should be a big history section (including the "authentic ghost town" section), perhaps with subsections about the phases of history, or about topics. Michael's response about the ghost town, above, has a lot of potentially good stuff for the article. hike395 (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Great. I like what you've done to the page. Feel free to reword or relocate any info that I've added to it (not much, but still). Killiondude (talk) 08:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I found this: Oct. 1936 Roseclip Mine reopened; 1942 Roseclip Mine closed; town abandoned from this book. I haven't read anywhere else about "another" mine opening in Bodie... what do you think Michael? Killiondude (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement is accurate, sort of. You can learn more about Roseklip at Bodie in Billeb, page 205, photos pages 220-221; and Piatt, pages 262-264, photos pages 261, 262, 265. MHP

Split town & historic district?

At Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NRHP_articles_needing_attention, there is a proposal to split this into two articles, Bodie, California and Bodie Historic District.

OPPOSE. Bodie is a ghost town. All the remaining historic buildings (sfaict) are included in the Historic District and the State Park. Splitting would result in two near-identical articles. Redirects (as now) are the appropriate solution. --Pete Tillman (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for bringing that to attention here. I used to have WP:NRHP watchlisted, but it got annoying (too many changes, too fast!). This article should remain as titled, without splitting the town from the historical district. Killiondude (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Tillman: there's no town separate from the historic district. —hike395 (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Population figures

Hello. I noticed a slow revert war occurring over the population figures. I personally favor the US Census figures over the picture from some textbook, and I personally looked through the scanned US Census pages to get those figures. Now, I know this isn't a town any longer, but according to WP:USCITY, the guidelines for US cities/towns, US Census figures are preferred over any other source. "The US Census should be the primary source of demographic data. If census estimates or other reliable sources of demographic data are included, the additional data should supplement -- not replace -- the most recent available data from the decennial census." I see that the new data supports the US Census figures for the years 1890, 1900, 1910, and 1920, but the figures are very different for 1880. Also, per WP:V, we need to know the actual book this new information is coming from so we can evaluate how reliable it is. Your cooperation is appreciated. Killiondude (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking up the guidelines, Killiondude. My main objection was, indeed, based on WP:V. Another question I have is: what is "Rate" in the population table? I don't understand that column at all. —hike395 (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey if the user who introduced the new material doesn't respond within the next day or so I'm going to revert to the former infobox. Killiondude (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has now identified that the scans are from brochures or some publication directly from the State Park people in Bodie. If memory serves correctly, they haven't always had the best (most reliable) information regarding this area's history. Perhaps we could just use the Census figures (that we know are correct, because of the scanned data from the US Census Bureau for those years) as the table data, and then perhaps use this other data in the actual article, but state that figures vary according to source (because they do)? Killiondude (talk) 20:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Without citations for each number, the chart posted under "Population" is unreliable and should be removed. There were no official counts for Bodie during 1860, 1876, 1877, 1878, 1879, 1881, 1882, 1887, 1888, 1921, 1926, and 1932. Most of these figures are estimates (demonstrated by flagrant rounding off) from varous publications. Others are obvious errors. We know there were more than two miners at Bodie in 1860, because its inhabitants organized a mining district. The 1880 population of 10,000 (sometimes more) is a tradition that has been repeated so many times it's often accepted as fact, yet the figure is not supported by eyewitness accounts nor by the U.S Census, whose enumerators counted only 5,416 people. MHP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.69.98 (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The same thing can be seen on the article Silver Reef, Utah, except there are a couple citations. I voted that that one be removed, too. So I think we should remove the population table. OldWestHistorian (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)