Talk:Almaden Quicksilver County Park

California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance

	California portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Unmerged

The town of New Almaden has a history of its own, including the mining. The park's history, current usage, details on trails, wildlife, etc, should be a separate article. The park's Wiki page includes a "See also" link to the "New Almaden" article.Calbookaddict (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

I disagree with the merger. Although the location of the mines is within the park, there's a lot of history surrounding the mine itself, especially with regards to its land title lawsuit, the New York Times having called United States v. Andres Castillero (article not yet written) "one of the most remarkable civil trials in this or any other country". The park article can focus on the park stuff and the mine article can focus on the history. howcheng {chat} 21:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, neat, perhaps this system is working, that a merger gets proposed and then people (howcheng) comes forward with new information. Certainly the new info is helpful for developing the article(s), not sure whether i agree merger is not warranted. But let's talk about the info to add somewhere....

i have access to the historical New York Times literature database from 1857 on. Searching on "Castillero and Almaden" yields 4 hits, all relevant for editing this article:

"The Attorney-General and the New Almaden Mine", Sep 10, 1860, p.5.
"The New-Almaden Mine and the Attorn\ey General", Sep 15, 1860. (This appears to be a letter to the editor about the previous article.)
From California. The New-Almaden Mine, (but not the Adjoining Land,) Confirmed to the Claimants-Judges MacAllister and Hoffman find no Frauds-Notable Sally of State Prison Convicts-Insolvents-Abstract of Gov. Downey's Message-Miscellaneous News. From Our Own Correspondent. San Francisco, Jan. 21, 1861."
"Coast Motorists Can Explore A Quicksilver Mine". by J. Alvin Kugelmass. March 2, 1969.

I am not sure, but is the case referred to a U.S. Supreme Court decision? Among these, does this cover the NYTimes info u referred to? Please comment further. doncram (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is a U.S. Supreme Court decision. The NYT quote I found in a book [1]. (in the last paragraph on page 90). The case was argued before the Supreme Court in 1862 and you can see the documents at [2] (starting page 17). [3] also has a quote from the NYT (page 159). What if you search for "New Almaden" instead of Castillero? howcheng {chat} 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had started searching by "Castillero" yielding 20 hits, and limited it further by adding "Almaden" to yield just 4 hits. Searching on "New Almaden" instead yields 86 hits, including:

"From California. Musical Hall Burned Down--The Chines New-Year--Success of the United States Steamer Saginaw--Judge McAllister Refuses to Dissolve the Injunction in the New-Almaden Mine Case--No Union of the Democracy--Ocean Mails--The Ivich--Last from the Northerner--Instructive Statistics, &c., &c. Correspondence of the New-York Times. (BY OVERLAND MAIL.) San Franciso, Cal., Monday, Jan.23, 1860.
"NEWS BY TELEGRAPH. FROM CALIFORNIA. Proposed Removal of the State Capitol--A Daily Overland Mail Demanded--The Almaden Quicksilver Case." Feb 20, 1860. (This seems to suggest that New Almaden case as important as inauguration of Pony Express, which was pretty darn important at the time, AFAIK.)
"The New Almadne Mines Letter from Mr. Barron. pg 2. signed Eustace W. Barron, New-York Hotel, New-York, Aug 15, 1860.
"California and the New Almaden Case." Sep 15, 1860. pg. 4. (Perhaps a letter in response to the other letter printed the same day?)
"Senator Gwin and the Almaden Mine." pg 8.

That is up to only hit #24 of 86 hits.

Would u be able to do something useful with this material? I would be happy to email these, and more, as PDF files, if you would. Sincerely, doncram (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree, there is much history to be told about Almaden. My relatives lived and worked there, as did other descendants of the workers there. Often their history is not told, which is something I am hoping to change. I have pay check stubs and the like, as well as census records. I think we need to keep this separate to offer a space for information outside of the park itself- where there are very nice people I have met who work there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.191.47 (talk) 11:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is the page about the land, a park or a business? I think there should be two separate articles (park and business) that are both located on the same land, just at different times. 63.249.90.207 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, the mine should be the main article and the park should be part of the mine article. Without the original mine, the park really lacks notability. Dondegroovily (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]