Talk:Timeline of mining in Colorado

Article quality

I have been following the edits made by a significant contributor to this article - as I've found that other articles about Colorado have:

• adding information that did not come from the source (i.e., original research)
• made assumptions about the meaning of the text (i.e., taking a general term and assigning it to a specific place or activity)
• enters "by the way" kind of information that is peripheral, but not directly related to the topic
• enters wrong information, I assume in good faith, but wrong nonetheless
• many of the sources are from the 1800s or early 1900s, so also need to verify with contemporary sources
• making some of the information sound more important (e.g., a quote that said "also about the first really important discovery..." was truncated to "the first really important discovery"

So, I'll pick away at this article, starting from the bottom and working my way up. Based on experience, everything needs to be verified.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing approach

There are quite a number of sources from the late 19th century about mining - but for the historical info I'm having a hard time finding contemporary sources. So, my approach has been to try and find the most recent of historical industry sources + back them up with recent sources, which are generally historic books.

If there's a better approach, though, I'd love to hear it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be a bit careful with some contemporary sources, especially those written by the town amateur historian, and made up of 8.5x11 sheets folded in half, and stapled in the middle. Every mining town likes to exaggerate its past glories, and sometimes these local myths find their way out of the barroom and into print. For instance, there are at least two small towns in Colorado where people erroneously believe that their town nearly became the state capitol, but lost by one vote.

I myself prefer to go in the opposite direction: to the older references. Especially good are the old US Geological Survey Monographs, Bulletins, and Professional Papers, which were written by experts, and have a wealth of historical detail. They are also not copyrighted, so they are downloadable for free at the USGS website or Google Books. In fact, anything before 1922 is now free of copyright, and can be downloaded for free on Google Books. If you want to cite sources easily accessible to the reader, cite the old stuff, and link to the work on USGS website or Google Books. Regards, Plazak (talk) 04:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol! Point taken.

When I've wanted to back something up with a contemporary source, I've been using: Caroline Bancroft (1 January 1959). [Colorful Colorado: Its Dramatic History.] Big Earth Publishing. p. 35. ISBN 978-0-933472-13-6.

...and I've not found a discrepancy yet - it seems to me to be well-written and accurate. I do like the idea of the Professional Pagers by USGS, Bulletins, and others by experts and use them when I find them... but you might know better than me whether I'm missing some opportunities. So far, I've either reviewed existing citations / source - or changed them for events from 1867 or earlier (citation numbers 75 to 103). Of those, I have 2 town / area books: Boulder and Gilpin County.

Let me know if you see any problems with the Bancroft book or anything else between 75 and 103 - it's great to have the input!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Single richest placer gold strike?

There's an uncited sentence that I removed that said that about  1861, the single richest placer gold strike during the Pikes Peak Gold Rush occurred in / near Leadville on the Arkansas River.

However, I'm not finding a good source for this. Is there any information about what has been the richest placer gold strike in Colorado? during the Gold Rush? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone had called Oro City (discovered in April 1860, near Leadville, but on California Gulch, not on the Arkansas River) the richest, but that is dubious. on p.17 of Gold placers of Colorado, Book 2 we read about Oro City:

"The total production of the placer claims is generally stated at from $5,000,000 to $10,000,000, but a more conservative estimate places it at from $2,500,000 to $3,000,000." (Ben H. Parker Jr., "Gold Placers of Colorado, Book 2," Colorado School of Mines Quarterly, Oct. 1974, v. 69 n.4 p.17)

I suppose you know that gold was fixed at $20.67/troy ounce. Anyway, Book 1 of the same work says that the Summit County districts were the richest in the state, with a total placer yield of $15,643,483, of which: "Nearly all this production came from the Blue and Swan Rivers, French Gulch, and their tributaries." The book translates into ounces, and lists the top 3 counties for placer gold:

Summit 739,375 oz

Lake 358,569 oz

Park 342,183 oz

(Ben H. Parker Jr., "Gold Placers of Colorado, Book 1," Colorado School of Mines Quarterly, July 1974, v. 69 n.3 p.26, 126)

If we regard "the Blue and Swan Rivers, French Gulch, and their tributaries" as all part of the Breckenridge mining district (as does USGS Professional Paper 610, "Principal gold-producing districts of the United States," p.116), then Breckenridge mining district must be the largest. If "almost all" means more than at least half the gold in the county, then Breckenridge mining district placers (discovered sometime in 1859) made more than the total placer production for any of the other counties in Colorado, and must be the richest placer district. I hope that this helps. Regards, Plazak (talk) 02:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It does, thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Edits done here  Done--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Clay?

I removed the following item

1866

clay

Clay of the Dakota Group was discovered around Golden (pressed/ornamental brick was being made by 1882; and Canon City, Colorado, clay was developed in 1900.)

for the following reasons:

• it would seem to broaden the scope of this page significantly
• how is this noteworthy considering that Native Americans had created pottery for hundreds of years before this (i.e., clay not a novel finding): Outline of Colorado prehistory - archaic and post-archaic periods
• isn't this more of an aggregates discussion than a mining discussion, which is primarily focused on metals and rare material?

If I'm missing something, though, that would be good to know.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Districts

I think I've confused the use of the column for district... I started adding locations when the field was blank. How important is this column?

Would it be helpful to have a column for district (which I guess would sometimes be blank) and another for location (which would almost always have a value, i.e., not prehistoric events, etc.)?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)