This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/12/donner.party.ap/index.html This article suggests cannibalism did not happen on the trip.
I'd vote that the new studies ( the CNN link doesn't work, http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060109/donnerparty_his.html does) should be noted on the front page, given they are scientific studies and at the very least seem to note legitimate disagreement. -Nate
Cannibalism in the Donner Party is not in question. Ten survivors said they ate human flesh. At the Donner family camp at Alder Creek, the Donners told the First Relief that they were going to start eating the bodies of the dead; when the Second Relief arrived at Alder Creek they saw children eating human flesh and mutilated corpses. Three Alder Creek survivors (Georgia Donner, Mary Donner, and Jean-Baptiste Trudeau) said that cannibalism had occurred at the Donner camp. This is not a legend, but a matter of record. People who are unfamiliar with the historical sources are not competent to dismiss them as "legends." Kristin Johnson, author Unfortunate Emigrants: Narratives of the Donner Party (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1996).
As a little footnote I'd like to add that cannibalism WAS a big part of the story. The website that is footnoted on that sentence shows about 6 episodes of eating people. Some of them ate human flesh for a month! And even the site admits it's a "brief" section of their crazy feeding habits! Donner is forever known for eating others and the fact that it wasn't just 1 or 2 bodies, but like approx. 7-8+? really shows that these people had an appetite for homoerectus! 72.219.137.83 ( talk) 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out they weren't eating homo erectus, but homo sapien. lol. Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 18:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness, I would like to further point out that they were actually eating Homo Sapien's erectus. To my knowledge, this is the only story in American history where a group resorts to eating other members of the group to survive. Supposedly the first to die were murdered for their meat. That makes the cannibalism portion of their journey understandably popular. I would have eaten maybe a shouldercock, but that's it. aupusher ( talk) 16:06, 9 Feb 2010 (Pacific) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.168.177 ( talk)
interesting article, although kind of gruesome
Is it just me or do these numbers not add up?
In mid-December fifteen of the trapped emigrants set out on snowshoes for the fort, about 100 miles (160 km) away. Soon they were lost and their rations ran out. Caught without shelter in a raging blizzard, four of the company died. In desperation, the others resorted to cannibalism. Three more died and were cannibalized before finally, nearly naked and close to death, seven of the fifteen snowshoers reached safety on the western side of the mountains on January 19, 1847.
i believe that the missing members are presumed to have been cannibalized by their companions... -- jonasaurus 23:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
You're assuming that all those who died were cannibalized, which was not the case-- the first person to die, Charles Stanton, had to be left behind when he gave out. The original statement was correct: 15 people = 7 survivors + 8 dead (one not cannibalized). --Kristin Johnson
you also have to take into account that the person telling the story is the leader of the group. in a crisis type situation, where such things as cannabalism is paramount, group sizes and numbers will sometimes not be absolutely accurate. thus, the numbers not adding up could very possibly be a human error. and yes. i realize i sound stupid, but thats my 2 cents worth.
-John "Azzie" Hayes —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.117.95.74 (
talk)
23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The numbers DO add up; the account of the showshoers' journey is based on the statements of multiple survivors, not just one person, and they do not conflict. There is no discrepancy.
The article states the cannibalism as a fact in several places, but IIRC the evidence is not that clear. Some of the witnesses' accounts are clearly false, e.g., there was a statement by a rescuer that he saw a kettle of blood, but it would have been coagulated.-- Bcrowell 15:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I've done some editing to try to make it more NPOV on this point. E.g., on the statement that half of the survivors had resorted to cannibalism, I'm convinced this can't possibly be known with certainty and accuracy; many of the survivors didn't want to talk much about what happened, and if cannibalism did take place, those who did it had a strong motivation not to admit it. (They were huddled in small groups in the deep snow, I believe, so it's not as though everybody would have known whether a particular person ate human flesh or not.)-- Bcrowell 16:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
(Arrgh!) The historical record makes it abundantly clear that cannibalism occurred in the Donner Party. The evidence for cannibalism among the Forlorn Hope snowshoers and at the Donner Lake camp cannot reasonably be doubted; the evidence of it at the Alder Creek camp is not as good, but still strong. There is far too much for me to take the time here and now to rebut the foregoing comments, so it looks like I'll have to set the evidence out on my website. Check New Light on the Donner Party ( http://www.utahcrossroads.org), in about a month or so, I should have it up by then. In the meantime, the previous author is heartily enjoined to refrain from "correcting" anyone else's work on the Donner Party. --Kristin Johnson, author, Unfortunate Emigrants: Narratives of the Donner Party (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1996).
the donner party means that = people who got stuck in the snow on the way to California there were about 70 odd people 30 odd got eaten they wouldn't eat there own families they would label them to make sure
No, they did NOT label "there own familys" -- this is a prime example of why Ric Burns is not to be trusted.
There has been bones found in that area with knife and teeth marks in them. The teeth marks are definatly human, but no one is quite sure about the bones. They are most likly human, but it has not been completely proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.185.230 ( talk) 03:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The forgoing comment is an egregious lie. No bones with human toothmarks have been found at Donner Party sites, and no bones have been identified as human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.152.241 ( talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
We all have a psychological aversion to cannibalism, though structurally human flesh is not that much different from other large mammals. I expect some who fed their families this meat probably told them they had got a bear or moose.
The moral of this tale has to be to think twice before taking others along on an unproven venture. In this case a shortcut that set them back three weeks.
The 'shortcut' was lengthy because of the diffculty corssing the wasatch range, and particularly getting down the last canyon (Emigration canyon) into the Salt lake Valley. The strain on the draft animals was significant. That the Mormons took advantage of the road cut a year before is significant to the Momon pioneer story, but is also worthy of at least a trivia mention in the Donner party article. Rockford1963 00:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the fact that the path cleared by the Donner party was used for 10 more years by others (mostly Mormons) coming into the SLV, should be included. Perhaps this infomration could be included in a new subsection on legacy of the Donner Party? In any case it does appear that the reference supplied is applicable, so I don't know why it was stated to be otherwise Rockford1963 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to Rockford1963's revisions:
Response to Rockford1963's comments above:
204.228.152.241 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
10 or 15 years aside, the fact that the trail was used for years should be mentioned. As to the acuracy of the article cited, please find a better one, but the article does reference the use of the trail by later groups. As for Mormon bias, I see none. It is simply historical cross referencing, thus my suggestion to create a spearate subsection in this article, maybe entitled 'lessons learned', or 'legacy for groups following'. I think the 'last grueling part' includes the entire time cutting through the Wasatch range (12 days), which put a cumuilitve strain on the draft animals and the people, and their equipment - this would have a ripple effect later on (slowing them down, making them even arrive even later in the Sierra Nevada range. This may be part specualtion, but is till worthy of a mention. Dates will be corrected,per your previous posting. Rockford1963 15:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Response:
The information is worthy of inclusion, but to try to meet halfway I created the subsection. The article is still concise, and is not overly long Rockford1963 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Response:
47 people survived not 46. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.26.107.174 ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
Actually, there were 48 survivors. I've corrected the entry.
I'm pretty sure in my history class that 47 survived,but I could be wrong? The Donner Party was a group of California-bound American settlers caught up in the "westering fever" of the 1840s. After becoming snowbound in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846–1847, some of the emigrants resorted to cannibalism.
OK, time to clear things up. The number of people "in the Donner Party" depends on whether you include Luis and Salvador, two Indians who helped bring provisions from Sutter's Fort and were trapped with the emigrants.
There were 87 emigrants, 89 people total if you include the two Indians.
Of the 87 emigrants, 79 were trapped in the mountains, plus Luis and Salvador, for a total of 81 people.
Please, no more tinkering with the numbers. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TammyZ (
talk •
contribs)
14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There were 4 relief parties. It would be helpful to understand how many died between relief parties. The 4th relief party found "Only 1 man left", out of how many that the 3rd relief left?
Was there consolidation between the Alder Creek group and the Donner Lake group as the numbers dwindled or did they continue to struggle seperate? Number-wise this is all a bit fuzzy.
/dɒnə(ɹ)/ or /dəʊnə(ɹ)/? -- 81.158.148.64 ( talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
/dɒnə(ɹ)/, /dɑnə(ɹ)/, or /dɔnə(ɹ)/, but certainly not /dəʊnə(ɹ)/ ! 204.228.152.241 ( talk) 06:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"...some of the emigrants resorted to cannibalism. Although this aspect of the tragedy has become synonymous with the Donner Party in the popular imagination, it was actually a minor part of the episode."
Whilst I may not be totally au fait with the concept of morals, I would think that any occurrence of a human being devouring another (irrespective of timeframe, motive or any other influences to reasoning) is terribly reprehensible and therefore not, in any meaning of the word, minor.
Might I suggest...
"...some of the emigrants resorted to cannibalism. This aspect of the tragedy has become synonymous with the Donner Party in the popular imagination."
No, it is not supposed to be hilarious. It is supposed to alert readers to the fact that there is much more to the story than just cannibalism and to pique their interest. The belief that any cannibalism whatsoever is "terribly reprehensible" is the result of cultural conditioning; the act itself is not inherently immoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.152.241 ( talk) 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems funny to me - if not for the cannabalism, none of us would likely have heard of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.6.171.10 ( talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking to change that last line. Breaking one of the biggest social taboo's is not just a minor part Wardenusa ( talk) 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The full name of the person in question was Johann Ludwig Christian Keseberg. He went by his second name, Ludwig, which in English is rendered "Louis." The early German king Ludwig der Fromme, for instance, appears in English as "Louis the Pious," and Louis XIV of France is called in German "Ludwig XIV." Many similar examples can be found. For the past couple of centuries, educated speakers of English have not used "Lewis" as the equivalent of "Ludwig."
As regards the present case: The earliest historian(s) of the Donner Party spelled Keseberg's first name as "Lewis"; the reason that spelling predominates is because generations of later writers have repeated the practice, not because the practice is appropriate. Various other documents from Keseberg's lifetime do use "Louis." There are, unfortunately, few examples of Keseberg's handwriting, and in the two known instances of his signature, his name appears only as "L. Keseberg." Since Keseberg himself was a person of some education, it seems more likely that he himself would have used "Louis." The fact that "Louis Keseberg" appears in California's Great Register of Voters (various years) provides some evidence that he may have signed his name that way when he registered to vote, while there is no evidence whatsoever that he spelled it "Lewis." --Kristin Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.8.13 ( talk) 01:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
A tally of 19th-century documents other than Donner Party sources strongly favor "Louis" (28 instances) over "Lewis" (6 instances). Documents include newspaper articles (6:4), indices to court records (1:1), Great Register of Voters (3:1), federal census (3:0), tax lists (14:0), hospital death record (1:0). An additional 13 documents give simply "L. Keseberg." --Kristin Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.8.13 ( talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm opposed to unnecessary verbiage, and "California Indians" is a succinct way to describe Luis and Salvador. However, "Indian" is falling out of favor so I'm not going to make a fuss about changing to "Native American." However, "two Native Americans from a California tribe" is undesirable because
1. It's cumbersome. The whole point of the sentence is to clarify the number problem that has plagued the Donner Party entry for ages (see discussions above!), so please let's not dilute its impact with unnecessary words.
2. It's unnecessary. The entry states that they came from Sutter's Fort. Well, Sutter employed California Indians, not Iroquois or Arapahoes or Hopis, so "California" is already implicit in the entry.
3. It's inaccurate, or at least misleading. To say that Luis and Salvador were members of "a California tribe" implies that they were from the same tribe, which is not a given. Although both men were most likely what white folks call Miwoks, "Miwok" is a broad term. I suspect that Luis and Salvador would probably have identified themselves as members of a particular subgroup or band, and they might very well have come from different bands. Just because "we" would say they're from the same tribe doesn't mean that they would have considered themselves members of the same tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.8.13 ( talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This entry presents a brief description of the Donner Party, with references to outside sources for further information. It is not an exhaustive account with all the details about every single event and every single member of the party. Luis and Salvador were relatively insignificant members, they joined the group late, and almost nothing is known about them. Why should their fate be detailed when so much other information about so many other people and events is excluded? Why not the fate of Tamzene Donner? Franklin Ward Graves? Charles Stanton? More details, including the deaths of Luis and Salvador, are given in the Donner Party timeline, so why insist on putting it here? 204.228.152.241 ( talk) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a slight problem with this, from the lead: "The episode has endured in U.S. history as a tragic event requiring the pioneers to resort to cannibalism."
My problem is that nobody is required to resort to cannibalism, it's a choice that some may make. -- Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty reconciling what Waggoner says in his 1931 paper – "The Donner Party was a portion of a great train of emigrants who headed for the Pacific Coast in the spring of 1846. While crossing the plains it was comprised of five hundred and eighteen wagons" – with the account given in the article, which makes it appear that Reed and Donner organised the wagon train themselves. -- Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't quite make sense of this, from the snowshoe party section:
The next morning, Christmas Day. Patrick Dolan began mumbling incoherently, stripped off his clothes, and ran into the woods. He returned shortly, quieter, and died a few hours later. Finally, facing the death of 13-year-old Lemuel Murphy, some of the group cut into Patrick Dolan's body, turned away from each other, cried, and ate his flesh. Eddy held out and refused. So did Salvador and Luís, who built a fire apart from the others and watched. The next morning they were able to strip the remaining muscle and organs from the the bodies and dried the tissue to store for the days ahead, taking care to ensure that no family member had to eat his or her relatives.
"Facing the death of" makes it seem like Lemuel was dying, not dead, and that his poor condition was what encouraged the others to eat Patrick Dolan. It's further confusing when it goes on to say "the next morning they were able to strip the remaining muscle and organs from the the bodies", as until then only Dolan had died and been eaten, so "remaining muscle and organs from the bodies" doesn't seem quite right. -- Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm also a bit thrown that there were 15 members of the party, but only 14 pairs of snowshoes. -- Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned to a couple folks that I was writing the article, and although they--like most everyone--knew the general story of the Donner Party: wagon train gets stuck in mountains and eats people, they didn't know the details of how it all occurred. I've been told that the people in the article are a little difficult to keep track of. I'm concerned that adding too much detail about them will bog down the article, so I'd like to hear from others. There is information on almost everyone in the party, but not all of it should be added. I constructed the article in a way that makes sense to me, but if stuff needs to be added, removed, or changed to make some of the issues, events, and players clearer, then I'd like to discuss it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
So this is my long-winded way of saying that perhaps forgetting the cast is part and parcel of the fact that so many people are involved. Everyone's story is important, and you had to pick and choose what to include here. I don't think it's something you should concern yourself about, since I'm not sure there's much you could do to remedy the situation, anyway. And I'm so sure that you should. Hope this helps. -- Christine ( talk) 04:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
In Chapter 1 of Eliza P. Donner Houghton's account she states that her father George Donner studied a topographical map submitted to congress per Captain Frémont's report. [1] I have located a high resolution scan of the historic 1846 map and on page 5 it indicates a forking route southward to the Great Salt Lake off the main trail. [2] Since the decision to leave the main trail was disastrous for the Donner Party, it seems like a good idea to provide the readers with an image of the same reference source the Donners were using. Let's move the modern summary route map to the top of the "Families and progress" section and add the historic 1846 map near the bottom of the section where the text talks about the Hastings Cutoff. Durova 412 22:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Other illustrations coming. Durova 412 00:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Although it probably can't be said within article space per WP:NOR, the height of the tree stumps appears suggest the depth of the snow. Durova 412 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, can't guarantee that File:Wagon train.jpg is a nineteenth century wagon train. The image has no date and the source isn't the best (Spartacus.schoolnet.UK). Found a couple of substitutes that are definitely mid nineteenth century. [3] [4] Durova 412 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Donner Party initially travelled in a much larger wagon train led by William H. Russell, from which they split at Fort Bridger to follow the Hastings' cutoff. What puzzles me therefore is this: "When the party reached the Little Sandy River in Wyoming on July 21, they stopped to elect a leader of the train." At that point though they hadn't yet reached Fort Bridger, and were presumably still with the main wagon train, so why did they feel they needed a leader? Or am I misunderstanding something? -- Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am going to try to go over the article in detail today from Rarick, and I'll list discrepancies here. Karanacs ( talk) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going through my Rarick notes and comparing against the article. I found more information about the main trail that I thought was useful, and combined this with some of the other trail information (previously in the Families section) into a new paragraph in background. It then made more sense to me to put the info about the Donners and Reeds in the Families... section. (If this doesn't make sense to anyone else, we can discuss that here, of course). With these changes, I think that the initial information about the Hastings Cut-off might also belong in the background section. What do you think? Karanacs ( talk) 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm never quite sure, but "gotten" seems like rather strange archaism to me, as in "gotten lost". Is it widespread and generally considered to be sufficiently formal language for an encyclopedia article? -- Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The past participle of get is either got or gotten. Strang 1970 says that both forms were in free variation in 17th-century English. In British English got has come to predominate, while in North America gotten predominates in some constructions and got in others.
It's totally off-topic here, but if I had my way we would have clear rules to use gotten only in American English and only where in AE it's considered more correct than got. And to use use Oxford spelling for British English. That way we would minimise (that's not Oxford spelling, but this isn't article space) the irritation caused by grammar and spellings people aren't used to. Hans Adler 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this article of a stable enough nature that it can undergo a GA review now; i.e. has the majority of work been completed (I notice some more images and content added in the past few days)? If yes, would the major contributors prefer me to review this article for GA, or to participate in the peer review instead?
Jappalang (
talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my sloth and carelessness... looks like the GAN and peer review were withdrawn in favour for FAC.
Jappalang (
talk)
14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
There are b&w drawings of some of the major players like Reed, Eddy, Keseburg and so on in McGlashan's book, first published in 1880, so well out of copyright. Worth adding any of them? -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
These are probably duplicates of what you have. Note that I suck at image manipulation, so these may need a bit of reworking.
Karanacs ( talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Moni, I saw that you took down the wagon train pic and mentioned replacing it. Might I suggest File:Homesteader NE 1866.png from commons? Its not a train, but it is a covered wagon with a family heading through Nebraska. Or I can look for others. Tex ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I added a few of the pictures above into the article - feel free to take them out if you want. Karanacs ( talk) 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If no one objects the wagon train image I'd like to work on is here. [6] It's from the right period (1859), it's in California, and it's probably the only available image appropriate for this article that could become a featured picture candidate. Durova 412 02:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
67kb of readable prose? Brevity is the soul of wit. And other stuff. :) Awadewit ( talk) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Malleus and I have been doing some copyediting and have cut off about 500 words. We're not done, and can probably get rid of another 200-500, but that still leaves this at about 11,000 words. I think that the three of us may be too close to the material to identify details that may be unnecessary - it was already a huge challenge to get the article down to this length while still leaving enough background for people to truly understand what happened. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of people involved, doing a lot of parallel activites, and we are duplicating information in some parts of the article so that readers don't get lost. I don't think it would be feasible to create subarticles for any of this content, so to get the article shorter we'll have to more ruthlessly summarize. At this point, we would defnitely appreciate advice on how to do that. Karanacs ( talk) 15:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Partially in response to Awadewit's comments on the tone being used in the Forlorn Hope section, I've copyedited and trimmed quite a bit that I thought was not necessary. [7] This is of course my opinion, and if anyone disagrees with the cuts you are welcome to restore some of the text. Karanacs ( talk) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
More trimming, this time in the Rescue section [8]. Karanacs ( talk) 16:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the note about Sarah Keyes's age, and removed reference to her age altogther. I don't see how important it is to know whether she is 70, 75, or even 55. I've also moved a few of the other notes in the body of the article. I would like to remove current Note 12, which discusses Woodworth's role. We don't actually discuss Woodworth much in the article anymore, so the note doesn't really make sense right now. I also think we might want to remove note 13, which has Mrs. Murphy accusing Keseberg of murder. Thoughts? Karanacs ( talk) 16:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to play with y'all. I worked on the introduction; here are my comments on what I did and why.
DPL 06:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyZ ( talk • contribs)
There seems to be some difficulty in resolving the numbers of survivors in the article.
Apologies if I've misadded anywhere, but it certainly isn't immediately clear where the numbers come from. Yomangani talk 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Totting up the numbers from Rarick's Dramatis personae gives 88 excluding Sarah Keyes. Yomangani talk 13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Survived
Died
Hope this helps -- sorry I can't stay. Kristin DPL 23:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyZ ( talk • contribs)
I've made a lot of changes in the First Relief section; sorry if I've stepped on anybody's toes in doing so. I mean well. Some points:
So, I'm getting a tad confused over what all needs to be done here. I was wondering if we could assemble a general list (perhaps it is not nearly as much as I think). Also, that would allow us to explain some of Wikipedia's rules to User:JohnsoKr, which we all know are overwhelming to newcomers! Awadewit ( talk) 16:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This study may be useful. Griffinofwales ( talk) 01:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I inserted the news report that briefs the new study because it is not only highly-pertinent but also reliable. I think it helps the article considerably. I don't believe the Reliable Sources guideline makes a distinction between journals and News Articles stating that if a News Article mentions a future journal article that will expand on the material, the news article is therefore not to be used. In particular, WP:V states that Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. So far, all dismissal of the source above seems to amount to Original Research. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 23:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
[9] http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=115529 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.215.67 ( talk) 09:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please edit the article and remove the cannibalism references? See above and also http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100419/hl_hsn/analysisfinallyclearsdonnerpartyofrumoredcannibalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.135.84 ( talk) 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Per CNN. I don't think this is notable enough to go in the article, other than at the most a mention of Reed's military background. But it's on the main page of CNN so the article will get some traffic. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/12/donner.party.ap/index.html This article suggests cannibalism did not happen on the trip.
I'd vote that the new studies ( the CNN link doesn't work, http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060109/donnerparty_his.html does) should be noted on the front page, given they are scientific studies and at the very least seem to note legitimate disagreement. -Nate
Cannibalism in the Donner Party is not in question. Ten survivors said they ate human flesh. At the Donner family camp at Alder Creek, the Donners told the First Relief that they were going to start eating the bodies of the dead; when the Second Relief arrived at Alder Creek they saw children eating human flesh and mutilated corpses. Three Alder Creek survivors (Georgia Donner, Mary Donner, and Jean-Baptiste Trudeau) said that cannibalism had occurred at the Donner camp. This is not a legend, but a matter of record. People who are unfamiliar with the historical sources are not competent to dismiss them as "legends." Kristin Johnson, author Unfortunate Emigrants: Narratives of the Donner Party (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1996).
As a little footnote I'd like to add that cannibalism WAS a big part of the story. The website that is footnoted on that sentence shows about 6 episodes of eating people. Some of them ate human flesh for a month! And even the site admits it's a "brief" section of their crazy feeding habits! Donner is forever known for eating others and the fact that it wasn't just 1 or 2 bodies, but like approx. 7-8+? really shows that these people had an appetite for homoerectus! 72.219.137.83 ( talk) 08:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to point out they weren't eating homo erectus, but homo sapien. lol. Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 18:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness, I would like to further point out that they were actually eating Homo Sapien's erectus. To my knowledge, this is the only story in American history where a group resorts to eating other members of the group to survive. Supposedly the first to die were murdered for their meat. That makes the cannibalism portion of their journey understandably popular. I would have eaten maybe a shouldercock, but that's it. aupusher ( talk) 16:06, 9 Feb 2010 (Pacific) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.168.177 ( talk)
interesting article, although kind of gruesome
Is it just me or do these numbers not add up?
In mid-December fifteen of the trapped emigrants set out on snowshoes for the fort, about 100 miles (160 km) away. Soon they were lost and their rations ran out. Caught without shelter in a raging blizzard, four of the company died. In desperation, the others resorted to cannibalism. Three more died and were cannibalized before finally, nearly naked and close to death, seven of the fifteen snowshoers reached safety on the western side of the mountains on January 19, 1847.
i believe that the missing members are presumed to have been cannibalized by their companions... -- jonasaurus 23:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
You're assuming that all those who died were cannibalized, which was not the case-- the first person to die, Charles Stanton, had to be left behind when he gave out. The original statement was correct: 15 people = 7 survivors + 8 dead (one not cannibalized). --Kristin Johnson
you also have to take into account that the person telling the story is the leader of the group. in a crisis type situation, where such things as cannabalism is paramount, group sizes and numbers will sometimes not be absolutely accurate. thus, the numbers not adding up could very possibly be a human error. and yes. i realize i sound stupid, but thats my 2 cents worth.
-John "Azzie" Hayes —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.117.95.74 (
talk)
23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
The numbers DO add up; the account of the showshoers' journey is based on the statements of multiple survivors, not just one person, and they do not conflict. There is no discrepancy.
The article states the cannibalism as a fact in several places, but IIRC the evidence is not that clear. Some of the witnesses' accounts are clearly false, e.g., there was a statement by a rescuer that he saw a kettle of blood, but it would have been coagulated.-- Bcrowell 15:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
I've done some editing to try to make it more NPOV on this point. E.g., on the statement that half of the survivors had resorted to cannibalism, I'm convinced this can't possibly be known with certainty and accuracy; many of the survivors didn't want to talk much about what happened, and if cannibalism did take place, those who did it had a strong motivation not to admit it. (They were huddled in small groups in the deep snow, I believe, so it's not as though everybody would have known whether a particular person ate human flesh or not.)-- Bcrowell 16:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
(Arrgh!) The historical record makes it abundantly clear that cannibalism occurred in the Donner Party. The evidence for cannibalism among the Forlorn Hope snowshoers and at the Donner Lake camp cannot reasonably be doubted; the evidence of it at the Alder Creek camp is not as good, but still strong. There is far too much for me to take the time here and now to rebut the foregoing comments, so it looks like I'll have to set the evidence out on my website. Check New Light on the Donner Party ( http://www.utahcrossroads.org), in about a month or so, I should have it up by then. In the meantime, the previous author is heartily enjoined to refrain from "correcting" anyone else's work on the Donner Party. --Kristin Johnson, author, Unfortunate Emigrants: Narratives of the Donner Party (Logan: Utah State University Press, 1996).
the donner party means that = people who got stuck in the snow on the way to California there were about 70 odd people 30 odd got eaten they wouldn't eat there own families they would label them to make sure
No, they did NOT label "there own familys" -- this is a prime example of why Ric Burns is not to be trusted.
There has been bones found in that area with knife and teeth marks in them. The teeth marks are definatly human, but no one is quite sure about the bones. They are most likly human, but it has not been completely proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.129.185.230 ( talk) 03:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
The forgoing comment is an egregious lie. No bones with human toothmarks have been found at Donner Party sites, and no bones have been identified as human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.152.241 ( talk) 01:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
We all have a psychological aversion to cannibalism, though structurally human flesh is not that much different from other large mammals. I expect some who fed their families this meat probably told them they had got a bear or moose.
The moral of this tale has to be to think twice before taking others along on an unproven venture. In this case a shortcut that set them back three weeks.
The 'shortcut' was lengthy because of the diffculty corssing the wasatch range, and particularly getting down the last canyon (Emigration canyon) into the Salt lake Valley. The strain on the draft animals was significant. That the Mormons took advantage of the road cut a year before is significant to the Momon pioneer story, but is also worthy of at least a trivia mention in the Donner party article. Rockford1963 00:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the fact that the path cleared by the Donner party was used for 10 more years by others (mostly Mormons) coming into the SLV, should be included. Perhaps this infomration could be included in a new subsection on legacy of the Donner Party? In any case it does appear that the reference supplied is applicable, so I don't know why it was stated to be otherwise Rockford1963 13:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Response to Rockford1963's revisions:
Response to Rockford1963's comments above:
204.228.152.241 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
10 or 15 years aside, the fact that the trail was used for years should be mentioned. As to the acuracy of the article cited, please find a better one, but the article does reference the use of the trail by later groups. As for Mormon bias, I see none. It is simply historical cross referencing, thus my suggestion to create a spearate subsection in this article, maybe entitled 'lessons learned', or 'legacy for groups following'. I think the 'last grueling part' includes the entire time cutting through the Wasatch range (12 days), which put a cumuilitve strain on the draft animals and the people, and their equipment - this would have a ripple effect later on (slowing them down, making them even arrive even later in the Sierra Nevada range. This may be part specualtion, but is till worthy of a mention. Dates will be corrected,per your previous posting. Rockford1963 15:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Response:
The information is worthy of inclusion, but to try to meet halfway I created the subsection. The article is still concise, and is not overly long Rockford1963 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Response:
47 people survived not 46. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.26.107.174 ( talk) 23:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
Actually, there were 48 survivors. I've corrected the entry.
I'm pretty sure in my history class that 47 survived,but I could be wrong? The Donner Party was a group of California-bound American settlers caught up in the "westering fever" of the 1840s. After becoming snowbound in the Sierra Nevada in the winter of 1846–1847, some of the emigrants resorted to cannibalism.
OK, time to clear things up. The number of people "in the Donner Party" depends on whether you include Luis and Salvador, two Indians who helped bring provisions from Sutter's Fort and were trapped with the emigrants.
There were 87 emigrants, 89 people total if you include the two Indians.
Of the 87 emigrants, 79 were trapped in the mountains, plus Luis and Salvador, for a total of 81 people.
Please, no more tinkering with the numbers. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
TammyZ (
talk •
contribs)
14:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
There were 4 relief parties. It would be helpful to understand how many died between relief parties. The 4th relief party found "Only 1 man left", out of how many that the 3rd relief left?
Was there consolidation between the Alder Creek group and the Donner Lake group as the numbers dwindled or did they continue to struggle seperate? Number-wise this is all a bit fuzzy.
/dɒnə(ɹ)/ or /dəʊnə(ɹ)/? -- 81.158.148.64 ( talk) 15:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
/dɒnə(ɹ)/, /dɑnə(ɹ)/, or /dɔnə(ɹ)/, but certainly not /dəʊnə(ɹ)/ ! 204.228.152.241 ( talk) 06:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"...some of the emigrants resorted to cannibalism. Although this aspect of the tragedy has become synonymous with the Donner Party in the popular imagination, it was actually a minor part of the episode."
Whilst I may not be totally au fait with the concept of morals, I would think that any occurrence of a human being devouring another (irrespective of timeframe, motive or any other influences to reasoning) is terribly reprehensible and therefore not, in any meaning of the word, minor.
Might I suggest...
"...some of the emigrants resorted to cannibalism. This aspect of the tragedy has become synonymous with the Donner Party in the popular imagination."
No, it is not supposed to be hilarious. It is supposed to alert readers to the fact that there is much more to the story than just cannibalism and to pique their interest. The belief that any cannibalism whatsoever is "terribly reprehensible" is the result of cultural conditioning; the act itself is not inherently immoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.228.152.241 ( talk) 22:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It seems funny to me - if not for the cannabalism, none of us would likely have heard of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.6.171.10 ( talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking to change that last line. Breaking one of the biggest social taboo's is not just a minor part Wardenusa ( talk) 18:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
The full name of the person in question was Johann Ludwig Christian Keseberg. He went by his second name, Ludwig, which in English is rendered "Louis." The early German king Ludwig der Fromme, for instance, appears in English as "Louis the Pious," and Louis XIV of France is called in German "Ludwig XIV." Many similar examples can be found. For the past couple of centuries, educated speakers of English have not used "Lewis" as the equivalent of "Ludwig."
As regards the present case: The earliest historian(s) of the Donner Party spelled Keseberg's first name as "Lewis"; the reason that spelling predominates is because generations of later writers have repeated the practice, not because the practice is appropriate. Various other documents from Keseberg's lifetime do use "Louis." There are, unfortunately, few examples of Keseberg's handwriting, and in the two known instances of his signature, his name appears only as "L. Keseberg." Since Keseberg himself was a person of some education, it seems more likely that he himself would have used "Louis." The fact that "Louis Keseberg" appears in California's Great Register of Voters (various years) provides some evidence that he may have signed his name that way when he registered to vote, while there is no evidence whatsoever that he spelled it "Lewis." --Kristin Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.8.13 ( talk) 01:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
A tally of 19th-century documents other than Donner Party sources strongly favor "Louis" (28 instances) over "Lewis" (6 instances). Documents include newspaper articles (6:4), indices to court records (1:1), Great Register of Voters (3:1), federal census (3:0), tax lists (14:0), hospital death record (1:0). An additional 13 documents give simply "L. Keseberg." --Kristin Johnson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.8.13 ( talk) 00:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm opposed to unnecessary verbiage, and "California Indians" is a succinct way to describe Luis and Salvador. However, "Indian" is falling out of favor so I'm not going to make a fuss about changing to "Native American." However, "two Native Americans from a California tribe" is undesirable because
1. It's cumbersome. The whole point of the sentence is to clarify the number problem that has plagued the Donner Party entry for ages (see discussions above!), so please let's not dilute its impact with unnecessary words.
2. It's unnecessary. The entry states that they came from Sutter's Fort. Well, Sutter employed California Indians, not Iroquois or Arapahoes or Hopis, so "California" is already implicit in the entry.
3. It's inaccurate, or at least misleading. To say that Luis and Salvador were members of "a California tribe" implies that they were from the same tribe, which is not a given. Although both men were most likely what white folks call Miwoks, "Miwok" is a broad term. I suspect that Luis and Salvador would probably have identified themselves as members of a particular subgroup or band, and they might very well have come from different bands. Just because "we" would say they're from the same tribe doesn't mean that they would have considered themselves members of the same tribe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.8.13 ( talk) 02:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
This entry presents a brief description of the Donner Party, with references to outside sources for further information. It is not an exhaustive account with all the details about every single event and every single member of the party. Luis and Salvador were relatively insignificant members, they joined the group late, and almost nothing is known about them. Why should their fate be detailed when so much other information about so many other people and events is excluded? Why not the fate of Tamzene Donner? Franklin Ward Graves? Charles Stanton? More details, including the deaths of Luis and Salvador, are given in the Donner Party timeline, so why insist on putting it here? 204.228.152.241 ( talk) 14:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I have a slight problem with this, from the lead: "The episode has endured in U.S. history as a tragic event requiring the pioneers to resort to cannibalism."
My problem is that nobody is required to resort to cannibalism, it's a choice that some may make. -- Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty reconciling what Waggoner says in his 1931 paper – "The Donner Party was a portion of a great train of emigrants who headed for the Pacific Coast in the spring of 1846. While crossing the plains it was comprised of five hundred and eighteen wagons" – with the account given in the article, which makes it appear that Reed and Donner organised the wagon train themselves. -- Malleus Fatuorum 03:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't quite make sense of this, from the snowshoe party section:
The next morning, Christmas Day. Patrick Dolan began mumbling incoherently, stripped off his clothes, and ran into the woods. He returned shortly, quieter, and died a few hours later. Finally, facing the death of 13-year-old Lemuel Murphy, some of the group cut into Patrick Dolan's body, turned away from each other, cried, and ate his flesh. Eddy held out and refused. So did Salvador and Luís, who built a fire apart from the others and watched. The next morning they were able to strip the remaining muscle and organs from the the bodies and dried the tissue to store for the days ahead, taking care to ensure that no family member had to eat his or her relatives.
"Facing the death of" makes it seem like Lemuel was dying, not dead, and that his poor condition was what encouraged the others to eat Patrick Dolan. It's further confusing when it goes on to say "the next morning they were able to strip the remaining muscle and organs from the the bodies", as until then only Dolan had died and been eaten, so "remaining muscle and organs from the bodies" doesn't seem quite right. -- Malleus Fatuorum 16:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm also a bit thrown that there were 15 members of the party, but only 14 pairs of snowshoes. -- Malleus Fatuorum 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned to a couple folks that I was writing the article, and although they--like most everyone--knew the general story of the Donner Party: wagon train gets stuck in mountains and eats people, they didn't know the details of how it all occurred. I've been told that the people in the article are a little difficult to keep track of. I'm concerned that adding too much detail about them will bog down the article, so I'd like to hear from others. There is information on almost everyone in the party, but not all of it should be added. I constructed the article in a way that makes sense to me, but if stuff needs to be added, removed, or changed to make some of the issues, events, and players clearer, then I'd like to discuss it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
So this is my long-winded way of saying that perhaps forgetting the cast is part and parcel of the fact that so many people are involved. Everyone's story is important, and you had to pick and choose what to include here. I don't think it's something you should concern yourself about, since I'm not sure there's much you could do to remedy the situation, anyway. And I'm so sure that you should. Hope this helps. -- Christine ( talk) 04:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
In Chapter 1 of Eliza P. Donner Houghton's account she states that her father George Donner studied a topographical map submitted to congress per Captain Frémont's report. [1] I have located a high resolution scan of the historic 1846 map and on page 5 it indicates a forking route southward to the Great Salt Lake off the main trail. [2] Since the decision to leave the main trail was disastrous for the Donner Party, it seems like a good idea to provide the readers with an image of the same reference source the Donners were using. Let's move the modern summary route map to the top of the "Families and progress" section and add the historic 1846 map near the bottom of the section where the text talks about the Hastings Cutoff. Durova 412 22:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Other illustrations coming. Durova 412 00:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Although it probably can't be said within article space per WP:NOR, the height of the tree stumps appears suggest the depth of the snow. Durova 412 00:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, can't guarantee that File:Wagon train.jpg is a nineteenth century wagon train. The image has no date and the source isn't the best (Spartacus.schoolnet.UK). Found a couple of substitutes that are definitely mid nineteenth century. [3] [4] Durova 412 02:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that the Donner Party initially travelled in a much larger wagon train led by William H. Russell, from which they split at Fort Bridger to follow the Hastings' cutoff. What puzzles me therefore is this: "When the party reached the Little Sandy River in Wyoming on July 21, they stopped to elect a leader of the train." At that point though they hadn't yet reached Fort Bridger, and were presumably still with the main wagon train, so why did they feel they needed a leader? Or am I misunderstanding something? -- Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I am going to try to go over the article in detail today from Rarick, and I'll list discrepancies here. Karanacs ( talk) 15:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going through my Rarick notes and comparing against the article. I found more information about the main trail that I thought was useful, and combined this with some of the other trail information (previously in the Families section) into a new paragraph in background. It then made more sense to me to put the info about the Donners and Reeds in the Families... section. (If this doesn't make sense to anyone else, we can discuss that here, of course). With these changes, I think that the initial information about the Hastings Cut-off might also belong in the background section. What do you think? Karanacs ( talk) 17:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm never quite sure, but "gotten" seems like rather strange archaism to me, as in "gotten lost". Is it widespread and generally considered to be sufficiently formal language for an encyclopedia article? -- Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The past participle of get is either got or gotten. Strang 1970 says that both forms were in free variation in 17th-century English. In British English got has come to predominate, while in North America gotten predominates in some constructions and got in others.
It's totally off-topic here, but if I had my way we would have clear rules to use gotten only in American English and only where in AE it's considered more correct than got. And to use use Oxford spelling for British English. That way we would minimise (that's not Oxford spelling, but this isn't article space) the irritation caused by grammar and spellings people aren't used to. Hans Adler 18:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Is this article of a stable enough nature that it can undergo a GA review now; i.e. has the majority of work been completed (I notice some more images and content added in the past few days)? If yes, would the major contributors prefer me to review this article for GA, or to participate in the peer review instead?
Jappalang (
talk) 14:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Forgive my sloth and carelessness... looks like the GAN and peer review were withdrawn in favour for FAC.
Jappalang (
talk)
14:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
There are b&w drawings of some of the major players like Reed, Eddy, Keseburg and so on in McGlashan's book, first published in 1880, so well out of copyright. Worth adding any of them? -- Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
These are probably duplicates of what you have. Note that I suck at image manipulation, so these may need a bit of reworking.
Karanacs ( talk) 01:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Moni, I saw that you took down the wagon train pic and mentioned replacing it. Might I suggest File:Homesteader NE 1866.png from commons? Its not a train, but it is a covered wagon with a family heading through Nebraska. Or I can look for others. Tex ( talk) 15:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I added a few of the pictures above into the article - feel free to take them out if you want. Karanacs ( talk) 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
If no one objects the wagon train image I'd like to work on is here. [6] It's from the right period (1859), it's in California, and it's probably the only available image appropriate for this article that could become a featured picture candidate. Durova 412 02:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
67kb of readable prose? Brevity is the soul of wit. And other stuff. :) Awadewit ( talk) 21:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Malleus and I have been doing some copyediting and have cut off about 500 words. We're not done, and can probably get rid of another 200-500, but that still leaves this at about 11,000 words. I think that the three of us may be too close to the material to identify details that may be unnecessary - it was already a huge challenge to get the article down to this length while still leaving enough background for people to truly understand what happened. Part of the problem is that there are a lot of people involved, doing a lot of parallel activites, and we are duplicating information in some parts of the article so that readers don't get lost. I don't think it would be feasible to create subarticles for any of this content, so to get the article shorter we'll have to more ruthlessly summarize. At this point, we would defnitely appreciate advice on how to do that. Karanacs ( talk) 15:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Partially in response to Awadewit's comments on the tone being used in the Forlorn Hope section, I've copyedited and trimmed quite a bit that I thought was not necessary. [7] This is of course my opinion, and if anyone disagrees with the cuts you are welcome to restore some of the text. Karanacs ( talk) 16:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
More trimming, this time in the Rescue section [8]. Karanacs ( talk) 16:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the note about Sarah Keyes's age, and removed reference to her age altogther. I don't see how important it is to know whether she is 70, 75, or even 55. I've also moved a few of the other notes in the body of the article. I would like to remove current Note 12, which discusses Woodworth's role. We don't actually discuss Woodworth much in the article anymore, so the note doesn't really make sense right now. I also think we might want to remove note 13, which has Mrs. Murphy accusing Keseberg of murder. Thoughts? Karanacs ( talk) 16:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to play with y'all. I worked on the introduction; here are my comments on what I did and why.
DPL 06:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyZ ( talk • contribs)
There seems to be some difficulty in resolving the numbers of survivors in the article.
Apologies if I've misadded anywhere, but it certainly isn't immediately clear where the numbers come from. Yomangani talk 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Totting up the numbers from Rarick's Dramatis personae gives 88 excluding Sarah Keyes. Yomangani talk 13:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Survived
Died
Hope this helps -- sorry I can't stay. Kristin DPL 23:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TammyZ ( talk • contribs)
I've made a lot of changes in the First Relief section; sorry if I've stepped on anybody's toes in doing so. I mean well. Some points:
So, I'm getting a tad confused over what all needs to be done here. I was wondering if we could assemble a general list (perhaps it is not nearly as much as I think). Also, that would allow us to explain some of Wikipedia's rules to User:JohnsoKr, which we all know are overwhelming to newcomers! Awadewit ( talk) 16:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
This study may be useful. Griffinofwales ( talk) 01:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I inserted the news report that briefs the new study because it is not only highly-pertinent but also reliable. I think it helps the article considerably. I don't believe the Reliable Sources guideline makes a distinction between journals and News Articles stating that if a News Article mentions a future journal article that will expand on the material, the news article is therefore not to be used. In particular, WP:V states that Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. So far, all dismissal of the source above seems to amount to Original Research. Burpelson AFB ( talk) 23:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
[9] http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=115529 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.215.67 ( talk) 09:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please edit the article and remove the cannibalism references? See above and also http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20100419/hl_hsn/analysisfinallyclearsdonnerpartyofrumoredcannibalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.143.135.84 ( talk) 19:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Per CNN. I don't think this is notable enough to go in the article, other than at the most a mention of Reed's military background. But it's on the main page of CNN so the article will get some traffic. -- Moni3 ( talk) 21:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)