This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mining, a collaborative project to organize and improve articles related to mining and mineral industries. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, or visit the project page, where you can see a list of open tasks, join in the discussion, or join the project.MiningWikipedia:WikiProject MiningTemplate:WikiProject MiningMining articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
Sorry to say that the presence of gold in California was established long before it being found in Jackson so effectively gold was not discovered there otherwise every site at which gold is found would be another "discovery" "discovery" discovery" when it has already been established that it appears in the State of California long before in the Southern California region. A discovery should be used for something that is rather unique and yet another finding of gold really is not that unique. To describe the amount of gold is unique but then that is not a discovery but a mining output. Even when it comes to the first evidence of gold in the United States that would go to the southeast US rather than Jackson. And then there are the ethnocentric implications of a Jackson "discovery" just as the statement that Gaspar de Portola "discovered the Golden Gate Bay when thousands of indigenous people and many generations were aware of it long before Europeans "discovered" it. The Europeans "discovered" the cinnabar deposits in California? When the indigenous people had long been mining them before the appear of Europeans? Discovery is such a loaded word that really needs to be examined when it is used to attribute an action. Can you really discount that absolutely no indigenous people knew about gold in California before it being found by Europeans? If you want a Jackson "discovery" to persist instead of a being found then I guess you can hold on to a flat world with dragons and creatures just beyond the edge.66.74.176.59 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s see how “discover” is used in professional geological publications. One good example is US Geological Survey Professional Paper 610, an authority on this very subject:
“The initial discoveries, in 1849, of gold-quartz veins in Mariposa County at the southern end of the Mother Lode soon led to discoveries in Amador County, …“ (page 58)
“Gold was discovered in Calaveras County in 1949...” (page 59)
“The first lodes discovered in the county were on Carson Hill, …” (page 60)
“The discovery of gold in El Dorado County in 1848 by James Marshall …” (page 60)
“Gold was discovered in Kern County in 1851 …” (page 64)
I could give hundreds of similar examples from the professional literature, but enough.
Of course if you have a source that anyone knew about the gold at the Argonaut Mine before that pair of prospectors who staked their claim on it, then please add your citation. Otherwise, “discover” is an accepted and correct usage here. Plazak (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
