Talk:Charley Parkhurst

Mountain Charley?

To my extent of knowledge, Charley Parkhurst was never called "Mountain Charley", but that is the name of another notable woman "Charley".Spicy Banana 23:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First woman to vote

Everything I've ever read about Parkhurst claims that she was the first woman to vote in the US, but this is almost certainly untrue. If we counts votes during the colonial period, Wikipedia itself claims that Lydia Taft was first, in 1765. According to [1], the first colonial woman voted in 1647. That vote was thrown out, but a successful vote was cast in 1655. After independence, New Jersey gave women the right to vote until 1807. There are no records, but presumably at least one woman took advantage of this right. And women in other states were occasionally allowed to vote on special issues. Also, did no other women vote fraudulently before Parkhurst? At best, Parkhurst can only claim to be the first woman to vote in California, and I'm willing to bet against even that. -- Scott e^iπ 23:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Autry National Center included her in its exhibit series, Out West (2009-2010). It said she was the first woman to vote in a presidential election in California, which is more qualified than just voting in an election.Parkwells (talk) 03:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Schizophrenic writing

The article needs a careful reworking to replace "he" with "she" and "his" with "her", except where contemporary sources are being quoted. Since we now know that Charley Parker was a woman, referring to her as a man or "it" in Wikipedia is just plain silly. Moreover, some of the passages are written in a colloquial, unencyclopedic style, as if they were plagiarized from printed or Web sources.—Quicksilver^{T @} 20:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Slightly better grammar in New York

News of Charley's death reached New York and the New York Tribune printed a small article on January 1st. 1880: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1880-01-01/ed-1/seq-1/ . The print is rather blurred but reads : Title: 'SUCCESSFUL CONCEALMENT OF SEX.',-'San Francisco, Dec 31.- A person known for the past twenty-five years as Charles Parkhurst who has led the life of a stage driver and farmer during this time in California died last Sunday, near Watsonville, when it bacame known for the first time that the deceased was a woman.'MZionC (talk) 11:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

TV Movie

I saw a TV movie around the year 2000, can't recall exactly when, that had a plot that was amazingly similar to Charley's life and in fact may have been based on her life. In the movie, the woman dresses as a man because she can't make it out west as a woman. She ends up being a rancher/farmer, hires Chinese make who uses opium, and has an affair with him. In the movie there's no hint she's a lesbian, just dressing as a man in order to make a living. Her gender isn't discovered til she dies. I can't recall the title nor the actress, so I am afraid I can't tell you the name or link to it. If anyone knows the title of this movie, please post here and on my talk page. Tks! BarkingMoon (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Charley's Secret

I myself strongly suspect that Charley was in fact impersonating her brother who had died at the orphanage; he could have been headed for a job tending horses on being legally released from the orphanage, and so this could have been an easy route of escape for her.Glammazon (talk) 03:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

THE BALLAD OF LITTLE JO

The movie is called The Ballad of Little Joe and was originally released in theatres in 1993. The title role was played by an actress named Suzy Amis, and the director was also a woman, named Charlotte Greenwood.Glammazon (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Charley Parkhurst is a man

For his entire adult life, Charley Parkhurst presented as a man to everyone and presumably described himself as male to other people. For his entire adult life, Parkhurst was called by male pronouns. In other words, Parkhurst publicly self-identified as male--not female. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY guidelines, Parkhurst IS a man and should be referred to as one in this article unless we are dealing with direct period quotations. He may have lived in a transphobic society that decided after his death that he was "really" a woman, but that does not make him a woman. This is the 21st century, and in Wikipedia articles, we consider a subject's self-identification when determining their gender; we do not consider other random people's opinions as to what subject's gender "really" is. I've changed the pronouns and certain other phrasing within this article to reflect this. Rebecca (talk) 12:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Women could not live free lives in Charley's time so posing as a man was one way to get free. It does not make the women who chose that life trans. Stop erasing women to suit modern political ideologies ChoppersNick (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's be more careful about ascribing 21st century ideas to 19th century people

Unlike in the 21st century, where women may freely engage in any activity or lifestyle that suits her, openly as a woman, we must remember that people in centuries past did not have that freedom. For those uncomfortable with the roles and activities traditionally associated with their sex, taking on the roles and activities associated with the other sex was never easy and often impossible to do without unpleasant consequences. Such consequences could range from simple ridicule, to harassment, to shunning, to being locked up in an insane asylum, to mention just a few possibilities. So, for any woman who found the roles, activities, and position in society assigned to her sex to be stultifying, and who wished to engage in activities assigned to males and to have the range of choices limited to the men of her time, had to disguise herself as a man to do so and to consistently refer to herself as a man, lest her secret be discovered.

In light of this, I believe that it is assuming facts not in evidence to assume that Charley drew the conclusion and believed that she actually WAS a man simply because she preferred the freedom allowed only to the men of her era and engaged in many activities prohibited to the women of her time. People in the 19th century didn't think like that; to draw the conclusion that she was transgender is to impose 21st century sensibilities on a 19th century person. The only thing we can be absolutely sure of is that she lived her life engaging in activities reserved for the male sex while disguised as a man and referred to herself as such to avoid detection.

I also think this article is placed inappropriately in the LGBT section for the reasons mentioned above.User:Tracy58 (talk) 3:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Tracy, you are very right that women's freedom in the 19th century was even more proscribed as it is today. For example, there's evidence that Mr. Parkhurst voted and that certainly wouldn't have been possible if he had been living as woman. And I think you're right to say that we should be careful not to define Mr. Parkhurst using modern terms. I only refer to him as Mr. Parkhurst and as "he" because that's consistent with how he chose to have everyone refer to him as for the majority of his adult life, so in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I will assume he would've preferred to be referred to in such terms posthumously as well. I also believe that such terminology should be used in the article as it is consistent with Wikipedia's MOS:IDENTITY guidelines, as I explained in my comment two months ago. Beyond that, though, I agree with you that unnecessary commentary on the issue of Mr. Parkhurst's gender should be avoided given the scarcity of sources from the time period discussing it. The article does not currently comment on whether Mr. Parkhurst believed he was a man or a woman, and I think that's appropriate. Also, I'd be fine with you removing Mr. Parkhurst from the category "Transgender and transsexual people" for these reasons that we've discussed. I do think he should still be in the LGBT studies section, however, because regardless of whether he himself could be classified as LGBT, it is certainly true that his article is an "LGBT-related issue" given that many people have any interest in him as a potential LGBT person. Anything that is widely considered to an "LGBT-related issue" IS an "LGBT-related issue." Just my two cents. Rebecca (talk) 01:02, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Rebecca, thanks for your thoughtful response. I agree it's probably a good idea to refer to Charley as Mr Parkhurst when referring to events that happened during his adult lifetime, when living out a traditionally male role, but I think it's speculating to assume what Charley would have wanted to be referred to after death. It's equally as likely that Charley didn't care one way or the other and might have imagined having a good laugh; the last laugh, to see the reactions of those preparing the unexpectedly female body they found for burial. We just don't know enough to speculate. For this reason, I still think "she" is appropriate when referring to Charley in historical retrospect, and that the Wikipedia guidelines you mentioned are best used when referring to modern people who clearly expressed such a preference and have publicly self-identified as transgender/sexual. I do think it's likely, however, that Charley might have wished to have been a man and no doubt thought life would have been much easier to have been born male, but then, so do many modern women who do not identify as transgender. I do agree that historical people like Charley might well be of interest to the LGBT community, as long as it is made clear that one cannot speculate accurately about those who lived before the 20th century who lived non-traditional lives not adhering to stereotyped gender roles. I would remove Charley from "Transgender and transsexual people", but I don't know how, as I'm rather new to this. P.S. Susan B. Anthony did try to vote in 1872 and was arrested! Tracy58 (talk) 06:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Tracy58

Interesting points, Tracy, but. . .I don't know. As far as I can tell, people generally prefer to be remembered posthumously as they were known in life. Since Parkhurst chose to be viewed as a man during life, I see no reason to think he would want to be viewed as something different in death, unless there's some sort of evidence to the contrary. We don't speculate that random cisgender men secretly want to be remembered as female, and I see no reason to speculate about that possibility in Parkhurst's case. In other words, I view myself as the one following Occam's Razor here and you as the one who is speculating without evidence, although I'm aware that you see things in the exact opposite way in regards to that.

But let's take how Parkhurst may or may not have wanted to be referred to out of the equation. The Wikipedia guidelines on what pronouns to use to refer to people whose gender is in dispute are quite clear. Nowhere is it stated in the guidelines that they only apply to transgender people or people from our contemporary time period; rather, they apply to ANYONE whose gender is in dispute, as is obviously the case with Charley Parkhurst. In these cases, the pronouns to use are those that are consistent with the subject's most recent public self-identification. It has nothing to do with a person publicly expressing that he or she is transgender; instead it has to do with a person publicly saying he or she is a man, a woman, or something else. Parkhurst publicly self-identified as a man up until his death according to all available records, so it's clear that according to Wikipedia guidelines he should be referred to as "he" throughout the article. You seem to think that it is Wikipedia's practice to default to someone's so-called "birth sex" when deciding what pronouns to use for them. That is NOT the way it works. The practice is to default, again, to a persons's most recent publicly expressed gender self-identification.

All the same, Tracy, I appreciate you commenting on this article even though you and I disagree on some counts as to the best way to write it. I think you are providing valuable input here. I'll go ahead and remove Parkhurst from the "Transgender and transsexual people" category per the discussion we've had in relation to that. Also, Tracy, interesting fact about Susan B. Anthony! It's incredible how far we have come as women and sobering to think how far we still have to go. In that spirit, I hope you continue to edit here on Wikipedia because we need more female editors. Statistical analyses indicate that 87% of editors on Wikipedia are men. Anyway, keep up the good work! Rebecca (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

New York Times Obituary Quote

I am a little concerned about the obituary quotes in the "Posthumous Revelation" section. I looked in the online New York Times archive and could not find the given quote in the listed article. There was, however, the second quote, supposedly from the San Francisco Morning Call. I'm fairly inexperienced at all this, so I don't feel justified making any changes, but I would appreciate someone looking into it. Here's the link for the archive article I found: http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9502E2D91131EE3ABC4153DFB766838B699FDE CiaraMisaki (talk) 03:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for including the link to the NY Times article - it was a reprint of an obit from the San Francisco Call, as it indicates at the top of the article (Correspondence from the San Francisco Call). Absent a source showing a scanned or transcribe copy of the original SF Call article, I agree with you on concerns, and suggest we use only the content of the Call via the NY Times for any quotes. I found both quotes in that article, except for the end note about a "woman's body, perfectly formed," or whatever it had said, so removed that. They were in different sections of the lengthy article. Parkwells (talk) 03:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources for birth family and name?

I have removed "Mary" as a birth name, as it was not sourced. The sources I have noted say that Charlotte was her birth name. Sources are needed for her mother's name and siblings. Also, statements about Ebenezer remarrying are confusing - hid it. Was he supposedly the father? Some material appears to be taken from fictional works: a fictional memoir and novel. They do not identify their sources. Parkwells (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charley Parkhurst. 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/20110725132507/http://californialegacy.org/radio_anthology/scripts/wheeler.html to http://californialegacy.org/radio_anthology/scripts/wheeler.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 11:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charley Parkhurst. 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/20110714063529/http://www.mcpost.com/article.php?id=1369 to http://www.mcpost.com/article.php?id=1369
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930203707/http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/October/08/local/stories/07local.htm to http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/October/08/local/stories/07local.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Pronoun consistency

Per previous talk between Rebecca and Tracy in sections "Charley Parkhurst is a man" and "Let's be more careful ascribing 21st century ideas to 19th century people", I have edited the article for pronoun and terminology consistent with the fact that Charley Parkhurst most recently self-designated as a man. This is accurate according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If anyone wishes to contest this, for the love of God, at least keep the article internally consistent in terms of pronouns.

Also, for the record, trans people have always existed. Even if the wording was different (or hidden, or sensationalized) in the 19th century, there are examples of 19th century transgender men aside from Charley Parkhurst, such as Frank Dubois, who was publicly outed in Wisconsin in 1883. His wife continually reinforced that he was a man. Read more about him in Emily Skidmore's book "True Sex" if you're interested.

Gatsbythegerbil (talk) 05:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Charley Parkhurst was a woman.

Charley Parkhurst was a woman and it is disingenuous and misogynistic to claim she was trans. Women were rarely in a position to live independent lives at that time and choosing to pose as a man was one way round the rigid sexism. This does not make a woman who chose such a life trans. Stop erasing women. ChoppersNick (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a person who lived their entire life as a man. MOS:GENDERID is clear here. Trysha ^(talk) 23:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

She was a woman and could not have lived her life the way she wanted to without masquerading as a man. How dare you impose your political agenda on history and erase a woman from her own life and time. 86.2.222.37 (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, we are going with MOS:IDENTITY here. I'm not a transgender man, but one could equally make the argument that you are erasing transgender men. But that doesn't matter. The manual of style for the site is pretty clear. Other users above have hashed this out already repeatedly Trysha ^(talk) 00:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

As soon as the protect was removed, this person went back to it. Trysha ^(talk) 20:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

More in popular culture

I first learned of One Eyed Charley while living in Santa Cruz in the late '70s. It was at a popular, hip restaurant that featured his story on the menu. They featured many varieties of most excellent hearty soups, and I'm not generally a soup eater. Soup may have been their specialty. I'm pretty sure it was called One Eyed Charley's, but I can't find it on google. I miss those barley soups! Cheers!
--2602:306:CFCE:1EE0:F433:BE1F:AED0:42D4 (talk) 11:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Doug Bashford

(Minor) gravestone & marker phrasing inconsistencies

This is likely far too in the weeds to bother with, but I noticed the quoted phrasing on his gravestone doesn't match the image of the actual thing. Nor did it match the cited written source, so for the time being I've at least gone ahead and changed it to match that.

On the left is how it looks now, from the written source; on the right is how the gravestone reads in reality. (I've excluded the last two lines of "Erected 1955" and "Pajaro Valley Historical Ass’n", and also written the right hand side with sentence capitalization for the sake of comparison — although a perfectly accurate transcription would have everything capitalized except for "Charley Darkey Parkhurst", "Mt.", "San Jaun", and "Santa Cruz".)

−

Noted whip of the gold rush days drove stage over Mt. Madonna in early days of Valley. Last run San Juan to Santa Cruz. Death in cabin near the 7 mile house. Revealed "one eyed Charlie" a woman. First woman to vote in the US November 3, 1868.

+

Charley Darkey Parkhurst 1812 — 1879 Noted whip of the gold rush days drove stage over Mt. Madonna in early days of Valley. Last run San Jaun to Santa Cruz. Death in cabin near the 7 mile house, revealed “One Eyed Charlie,” a woman. The first woman to vote in the U.S. Nov. 3, 1868

The punctuation (particularly the curly quotes and commas) can be hard to make out on the present image, but there are numerous clearer ones online... none of which appear to be CC-licensed, though.

I can't figure out what WP policy is on whether transcribing the text in an image of the physical object is considered original research, and on whether a not-particularly-reliable-seeming written source automatically trumps such a transcription in any case. Thoughts on whether it's worth changing? (And, if so, on whether it's better to approximate sentence-case text or write it with the exact capitalization used?) 2600:1700:87D3:3460:FD8A:626E:FE50:B33B (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Ditto for the Soquel firebox marker, whose text isn't even cited! There's a photo on here for that too, but one so low quality it's literally impossible to make out a single word. Once again, no easily searchable CC alternatives, but incredibly clear photos of it are available elsewhere online. Same capitalization questions too. As above:

−

The first ballot by a woman in an American presidential election was cast on this site November 3, 1868, by Charlotte (Charley) Parkhurst who masqueraded as a man for much of her life. She was a stagecoach driver in the mother lode country during the gold rush days and shot and killed at least one bandit. In her later years she drove a stagecoach in this area. She died in 1879. Not until then was she found to be female. She is buried in Watsonville at the pioneer cemetery.

+

The first ballot by a woman in an American presidential election was cast on this site November 3, 1868 by Charlotte (Charlie) Parkhurst who masqueraded as a man for much of her life. She was a stagecoach driver in the mother lode country during the gold rush days and shot and killed at least one bandit. In her later years she drove a stagecoach in this area. She died in 1879. Not until then was she found to be a woman. She is buried in Watsonville.

The second "by" should be on its own line, and there should be a blank line between "this area." and "She died", but {{textdiff}} didn't seem to like that. I know the exact wording of two historical markers is the least important part of his article, but try telling that to my copyeditor brain. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:FD8A:626E:FE50:B33B (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

It's been a week, so I've gone ahead and updated the wording of both these blockquotes to match the real things. 2600:1700:87D3:3460:F020:6764:843A:8FD5 (talk) 18:55, 15 August 2023 (UTC)