This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
General problems
Some comments on sources
Regarding some points discussed below:
204.228.152.241 ( talk) 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson
donnerblog.blogspot.com
about the group. Although a librarian by profession, she's been a researcher of the Donner Party for almost two decades, and compiled–edited a compendium of narratives on the incident published by a university press. I used one of her articles as a reference in a related article about a
flick I created recently, where I spelt her name correctly, because I'm lovely. –
Whitehorse1
22:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for clarifying some of your points. In short, I think you are saying that a) the article should be using Brown's recent book and the new Bagley book, b) the article is (was?) too long and emotional, and c) the article possibly contains some information that is inaccurate. We've tried to put conflicting information in footnotes, because we really shouldn't be hiding it - as editors we aren't supposed to make the determination of what's correct or not, just show what the reliable sources say, even if they are wrong. Are there any other specific points of the article where what is in the main text is incorrect? The article has also recently been copyedited and shortened, which may address some of the issues with the emotional language. As for the other books, I don't know that I can access them easily - are there pieces of the article that you think would change a lot if we had those sources? Karanacs ( talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
An image used at this article is now a featured picture candidate: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/California Trail at Humboldt River.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of the editors here seem to have a problem with indicating in the intro that two Indians were murdered/killed so they could be eaten. It is stated in the article (and references given) that this was so:
William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair. [1] Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them: "...as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns." [2]
Does anyone here believe that killing humans to eat them is worthy of noting in the intro? Or is this bizarro world?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswap ( talk • contribs) 07:17, February 19, 2011
This is the text you propose inserting into the lead of the article. The lead should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."
There are at least three problems with your edit: first, the info is disproportionate in the lead; second, the word "even" introduces POV; third, hopefully you can see the difference between the cited discussion of the killing of Salvador and Luis within the body of the article and a straightforward allegation using the word "murder". Accounts differ, which is why it is explored in the body of the article rather than stated as fact in the lead. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The full, cited text in the article (part of which you excluded above) is:
We don't give undue weight in the lead to one writer's account when others differ; we explore the different sources in the body of the article so as not to introduce POV based on one selective account. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)After several more days—25 since they had left Truckee Lake—they came across Salvador and Luis, who had not eaten for about nine days and were close to death. William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair.[96] Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them: "...as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns."[63]
This edit introduced this sentence: Ethan Rarick describes this as the sole incident in which "anyone was killed to be eaten."
This is problematic edit. Although Rarick describes this as the sole incident, George Stewart virtually accuses Lewis Keseberg of killing William Eddy's son and Tamsen Donner to eat them. So this is more complex than saying this is the only instance of murder to further cannibalism. And I wish someone would explain why it's so integral to make it clear that Luis and Salvador were the only members of the party to be murdered. What is the actual goal that is trying to be accomplished here? -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That was me. Principle of least surprise? I was surprised that killing wasn't in here. It came up in a humorously grisly conversation some while ago, relating to the cold spell. My assertion there that well, there were just some complicated and uncertain allegations of murder...was wrong. I see two being killed out of about forty deaths as significant, but since you all disagree, OK. Novickas ( talk) 05:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone thinks the place in the Sierra Nevada mountains where this took place is in Nevada. It isn't. It's in California. And it must also be stated that, at the time this happened, it was still in California. A rescue party did not arrive from California. They were already in that state! The rescue party came from Sacramento (I believe, Sutter's Fort).
It must also be mentioned that there is much research and citations needed fr this article, which is poorly written. Oh, and I've eliminated some of the commas. Someone went comma crazy while writing this. Gingermint ( talk) 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a mention of the prejudice and religious divisions in the party would be good. It is an important aspect of this story. Gingermint ( talk) 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I’ve got a couple of queries, could anyone clarify?
From ‘Wasatch Mountains’
‘As the Donner Party made its way across the Wasatch Mountains, they were overtaken by the Graves family’ (….) ‘Their arrival brought the Donner Party to 87 members in 60–80 wagons’
Is overtaken correct here? It seems to state that the Graves caught up with and joined them.
From ‘Disintegration’
‘Meanwhile Reed caught up with the Donners…’
This seems to state that the Donners were ahead of the rest when Reed was expelled, but I couldn’t find reference to this is the text. Franmars ( talk) 16:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a new book, Archaeology of Desperation: Exploring the Donner Party's Alder Creek Camp, eds. Dixon, Schablitsky, and Novak, October 2011. I browsed it at the public library, and it seemed to have quite a bit of information not included in the article. There is new archaeological data, and there are also oral histories of descendants of the Washoe who encountered the Donner party. The oral histories describe interactions between the Indians and the Donner party that don't seem to be discussed in the article. Apparently the Indians attempted repeatedly to give food to the starving people, but were chased off by gunfire.-- 75.83.69.196 ( talk) 02:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This article relates Jacob Donner as "Donner's older brother" but it seems to be confusing. In Japanese Wikipedia, it was pointed by a user, who had laboriously translated this article, Jacob been younger than George, as the article of George Donner supports him. Now I guess it should mean Jacob was "the older of George's young brothers" though I don't have any reliable references to hand. Could anyone valid and, if necessary, modify it? -- Kareha ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
They shot and ate native guides, like they shoot and eat animals, some fellows here don't see the notability of it all, it is an amazing world. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, the first paragraph contains: "...many of the survivors cannibalized members of the party who had already died." Is the "who had already died" there to convince readers that people were not biting chunks out of the living, or is it there to suggest that no party members were killed in order to be eaten? This is yet another example of the editors not really wanting to acknowledge that anyone was murdered to be eaten. Whoops, I can't say "murdered" or someone will complain. Let's say "happily killed" instead. Puts a nicer light on things. 66.66.149.221 ( talk) 01:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I firmly reject any suggestion that the alleged killing of Luis and Salvador is any more or less significant than the alleged killings that Keseburg was accused of, so maybe the problem lies at least in part with the statement in the lead that "...many of the survivors cannibalized members of the party who had already died"; that there was cannibalism hardly seems in doubt, and not at all unusual under the circumstances, so maybe we could focus on reworking that sentence as a starter? Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Could we, for instance, simply drop that "who had already died"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum said, "there's nothing particularly unique about the incident concerning Luis and Salvador". I happen to agree with MF, and would like to support his argument that many people have been shot and eaten throughout history. Here are some examples I could think of off the top of my head: "Night of the Living Dead" and "28 Days Later". I couldn't think of any others, but I am sure MF can provide some more. Jswap ( talk) 18:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but this to me looks like abuse of the talk page, we are reading "views" and "commentary" which is what it should not be like, please see talk page guidelines. Sorry about this comment folks. But let us stay on track.
I present the following evidence that disagrees with comments made by Malleus Fatuorum and Moni3.
I am aware that "one swallow doesn't make a summer", but if editors here believe that the sources are UNDUE or FRINGE, they may argue so or perhaps UNRELIABLE. (emphasis in bold above is mine and not in the originals) As far a the three numerous sources note, the killing and eating of the native guides, was notably different from the other homicides in the party. The two were killed as "lame horses" would be killed or as "sledge dogs" are killed. The killing was justifiable as the killing of a "different other".
Yogesh Khandke (
talk)
07:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Once again, discussion has been unnecessarily personalized; I have changed the section heading. Please read WP:TALK, and focus on content, not editors. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Enough from both: Yogesh, you haven't answered a direct question, relevant to the discussion, posed by two editors; that is not collaborative editing. Combined with your personalization in a section heading, this is beginning to look like borderline harassment or baiting. Malleus, please disengage so others can deal with this. Avoid taking the bait. Content not editors. Moni3, who has every source, can address Yogesh's first post. Hopefully by the time she weighs in, he will have answered the question. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday I attempted to review what Jswap wanted in the article. He's blocked now. If Yogesh Khandke is in the discussion, I know you can't tell me what Jswap wanted in the article, but I don't know what the arguments are about if I don't know what changes, if any, are being requested.
This is what is in my sandbox:
During the night Jay Fosdick, who was with the rest of the snowshoe party, died, leaving only a total of seven. Eddy and Mary Graves returned with the deer meat, but Fosdick's body was cut apart for food. The effects of starvation and hypothermia began to take their toll emotionally. They were unable to walk steadily and sometimes the women fell and would sob uncontrollably. They were listless and sometimes apathetic. Foster and Eddy began to fight with each other until the women intervened. Again they ventured forth to try to find the trail, still hopelessly lost. After several more days—25 since they had left Truckee Lake—they came across Salvador and Luis, who had not eaten anything for about nine days, and were hours from death. William Foster, who had recently suggested killing Amanda McCutcheon for lagging behind, took a pistol and shot the Indians, allowing Salvador to say a final prayer, before stripping the bodies of muscle and organs. On January 12, they stumbled into a Miwok camp looking so deteriorated the Indians fled at the sight of them. After a brief return, the Miwoks gave them what they had to eat: acorns, grass, and pine nuts. Eddy was revived after a few days and propelled them forward with the help of a Miwok, although the other six simply laid down in the snow, too far gone to care. Eddy and the Indian walked 5 miles (8.0 km), met another Indian who, with the lure of tobacco, half-carried Eddy to a ranch at the edge of the Sacramento Valley. A rancher's daughter named Harriet Ritchie opened the door to find Eddy, supported by two Indians, and let out a sob at his condition.
The small community, themselves emigrants from the eastern U.S., assembled quickly and found the other six members of the snowshoe party who had laid down, all still alive. They were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, and all of them vomited from gorging. It was January 17 and they had been gone 33 days from Truckee Lake.
Folks I present my final say on the matter for the moment, so that Moni3's queries wouldn't be left unanswered. Though I am a little surprised that they still want to know what my proposed edits are about. I am repeating myself for the umpteenth time. I am also a little puzzled about their comment about SOURCES and COLLABORATION. Isn't that a little allusive, considering that it has seemingly been aimed at the person who has been patiently presenting sources on the talk page while facing what looked like hounding, [8] [9] baiting [10] and abuse. [11]
The hunting of "Luis and Salvador" for their meat a significant event in the travails of the Party. This event ought to;
- have a mention in the lead and
- to have its own sub-section.
In support of my argument I have shared numerous sources that consider the event significant as I interpret them, and thus warrant its inclusion in the lead and a separate section dedicated to it, which could discuss Petrinovich (2000) "Although the Indians had brought mules and supplies to the Donner Party and had served as guides, they were the only ones killed for consumption,as far as is known. To this point there is an orderly pattern of consumption of animals of other species, followed by humans of another race." or that Luis and Salvador were shot after having refused to indulge in anthropophagy.(Durham 1999) Please weigh the sources from various Wikipedia angles to judge their usefulness. I have placed all my cards on the table and that is all from me for the time being. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Having read this article and following along with much of the conversation here a thought occurred to me. As you folks are much more knowledgeable on both the topic and sources, I'll ask you. As this article covers the entire scope of the Donner party migration, do you think there is enough information and resource material to build a separate article around say " Cannibalization of the Donner Party"? Or would that be too narrow in scope for a viable article? — Ched : ? 07:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to do this, we should do it right.
I got the source used to cite this sentence: Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them, "as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns".
It's a 2-page magazine article. King confirms that Luis and Salvador were within hours of death in the sentence immediately preceding the one quoted, so the statement here that he disagrees is inaccurate. King is merely reporting what Sutter said about the Donner Party incident and the loss of Luis and Salvador.
This appears to be a momentarily controversial issue; I would have removed the sentence myself if it hadn't been the topic of conversation recently. The article cannot say King disagrees, so the first part of the sentence should be removed, unless it's to re-confirm what another historian has already said. In that case, why not use it to cite the same fact at the end of the previous sentence instead of reiterating what was already said? That then begs why the article needs John Sutter's remark as if it is a historian's view. So--thoughts... -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
When reading the article noticed there's a strange piece of writing in the chapter Backround. It is located immediately after refrence number 12. It reads kayla sexy. When logging and going to edit and searching it for removal it wasn't to be seen. If in doubt I have taken a printscreen on it. Noseball ( talk) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it isn't there anymore Noseball ( talk) 20:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I got the book and am reading through it. Some interesting points to consider adding to the article:
As for the book's conclusions about archaeological evidence of cannibalism, this is what it has to say (pp. 325-328)
I'm still reading. There is a chapter on the generalities of cannibalism in society and how the Donner Party incident fits into the framework of necessary cannibalism vs. symbolic. I haven't read through it all the way, just skimmed it. I welcome thoughts on any of the issues presented regarding how to improve the article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Posting something here on the comparisons to the Donner Party that are in a book I recently finished reading, called Devil's Gate ( David Roberts, 2008), about the Mormon handcart pioneers.
Those are the only three substantive references from that book. I thought they might be of interest to those editing this article. There is more on how the later history developed for both tragedies, with one becoming very famous and the other less so, but that is more difficult to add to the articles, and I'm not sure whether it is better put at the 'Mormon handcart pioneers' article, rather than here. I do think readers of either article would be interested in the other one, so hopefully there is some sensible way of working in a reference somewhere in this article to other pioneer trail tragedies, including the Mormon one. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The point about reader interest is an... interesting one. When I was in the shop at the 'This is the Place' heritage park, where I bought this book (almost exactly a year ago now), I looked at the blurb on the back and thought 'interesting, another account of a disaster that befell a group of pioneers heading west to new lands, just like the Donner Party'. I then expected to find an article on Wikipedia on the disaster that befell the Mormon handcart companies, but found instead an article covering the handcart movement as a whole (which is fair enough, I guess). Reading these two articles, and having briefly toured the areas in question, piqued my interest in the subject, and what I'm looking for, I suppose, is an overview of pioneer trail history, and why some aspects of the pioneer trail history became legendary and others didn't.
Oregon Trail (which itself only briefly mentions either disaster, and neither are mentioned in the 'deaths' section) may be a good place to start. But I suspect the reading list at the back of the book I have may be a better resource than the various Wikipedia articles in their current states (this one excepted). My point is that reliable sources do compare the two disasters (see here for one example) and they do have sufficient aspects in common (both are companies of pioneers caught by early winter snowstorms in mountains, leading to deaths by starvation) that I would expect both articles to mention the other, even if only in passing, or for them to be in the same template, or the same category.
You may have assumed from what I posted above that I was suggesting that the above be put in the article. That was never my intention. I wasn't entirely sure what was best , and thought it was better to ask first, rather than edit the article directly, though sometimes asking first can be a more painful experience (funny that). I was intending to suggest a link from this article to the handcarts one, and one back here (though a link from that article to this one might already exist), but was not sure how to do it, and didn't want to just add a 'see also' link. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Having thought about this some more, I really don't want to get into a prolonged argument over this. I've already added the Mormon handcart pioneers article to Category:History of the American West, so both articles now have a category in common. There isn't really any category for articles on expeditions caught in snowstorms in mountains (probably too specific anyway, and the only other comparable one I've seen mentioned is the Fremont party, see the John C. Fremont article, the fourth expedition). So the only other thing I would suggest is (ignoring most of what I posted above) to add something about work done comparing the mortality rates in the Donner Party and one of the handcart companies (the last one, the Willie company). I'll post the three sources I have on that in a subsection, and that should be it. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Three sources on this (all originating from the same basic studies):
The earlier study by Grayson is already mentioned in this article. The edition of The Archaeology Of The Donner Party used in this article is an earlier edition. I'm not sure if the section 'New Directions in Donner Party research' is present in that earlier edition or not. If not, possibly some updating of this article could be done. I'm still pondering whether the three sources above justify adding anything to this article or not. I'm tentatively coming to the conclusion that source on the Mormon handcart pioneer tragedy mention the Donner Party more than sources on the Donner Party mention the Mormon handcart tragedy. If anything is added here, it would only be based on the above three source, and would only be the very briefest of mentions (possibly only a footnote). Carcharoth ( talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Scott Lankford's book describes the cruelty of the white settlers in California, and describes the conditions of natives as nothing worse than slavery. Moni3, remarks that L & S who some sources note were shot, killed and eaten, would have been hanged for loosing Stutter's mules. On this Lankford notes that Luis and Salvator must have had numerous opportunities to escape, being young, strong and familiar with the terrain. Lankford hypothesises that the presence of women and children in the party made them chose to stay in the party till "the bitter end". Yet they were shot in the back and eaten by those whom they had been sent to rescue.(page 76) Lankford writes about the silence of Donner Party historians, who fail to acknowledge or discuss these "cold-blooded murders" except briefly. He criticizes modern historians, and gives the example of Frank Mullen's The Donner Party Chronicles: A Day-to-Day Account of a Doomed Wagon Train, which he writes is otherwise "deliciously detailed and meticulously researched" but is brief on the killing of the duo. Mullen mentions "The crime is double murder but no court will ever hear the case. In 1847, Indians are casually killed in punishment for theft or just for sport." I argue that there be a separate section and a mention in the lead. My argument is further strengthened by Carcharoth's comments above regarding the relatively small loss of lives. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 17:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
General problems
Some comments on sources
Regarding some points discussed below:
204.228.152.241 ( talk) 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson
donnerblog.blogspot.com
about the group. Although a librarian by profession, she's been a researcher of the Donner Party for almost two decades, and compiled–edited a compendium of narratives on the incident published by a university press. I used one of her articles as a reference in a related article about a
flick I created recently, where I spelt her name correctly, because I'm lovely. –
Whitehorse1
22:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for clarifying some of your points. In short, I think you are saying that a) the article should be using Brown's recent book and the new Bagley book, b) the article is (was?) too long and emotional, and c) the article possibly contains some information that is inaccurate. We've tried to put conflicting information in footnotes, because we really shouldn't be hiding it - as editors we aren't supposed to make the determination of what's correct or not, just show what the reliable sources say, even if they are wrong. Are there any other specific points of the article where what is in the main text is incorrect? The article has also recently been copyedited and shortened, which may address some of the issues with the emotional language. As for the other books, I don't know that I can access them easily - are there pieces of the article that you think would change a lot if we had those sources? Karanacs ( talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
An image used at this article is now a featured picture candidate: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/California Trail at Humboldt River.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova ( talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Some of the editors here seem to have a problem with indicating in the intro that two Indians were murdered/killed so they could be eaten. It is stated in the article (and references given) that this was so:
William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair. [1] Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them: "...as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns." [2]
Does anyone here believe that killing humans to eat them is worthy of noting in the intro? Or is this bizarro world?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswap ( talk • contribs) 07:17, February 19, 2011
This is the text you propose inserting into the lead of the article. The lead should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."
There are at least three problems with your edit: first, the info is disproportionate in the lead; second, the word "even" introduces POV; third, hopefully you can see the difference between the cited discussion of the killing of Salvador and Luis within the body of the article and a straightforward allegation using the word "murder". Accounts differ, which is why it is explored in the body of the article rather than stated as fact in the lead. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
The full, cited text in the article (part of which you excluded above) is:
We don't give undue weight in the lead to one writer's account when others differ; we explore the different sources in the body of the article so as not to introduce POV based on one selective account. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)After several more days—25 since they had left Truckee Lake—they came across Salvador and Luis, who had not eaten for about nine days and were close to death. William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair.[96] Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them: "...as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns."[63]
This edit introduced this sentence: Ethan Rarick describes this as the sole incident in which "anyone was killed to be eaten."
This is problematic edit. Although Rarick describes this as the sole incident, George Stewart virtually accuses Lewis Keseberg of killing William Eddy's son and Tamsen Donner to eat them. So this is more complex than saying this is the only instance of murder to further cannibalism. And I wish someone would explain why it's so integral to make it clear that Luis and Salvador were the only members of the party to be murdered. What is the actual goal that is trying to be accomplished here? -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
That was me. Principle of least surprise? I was surprised that killing wasn't in here. It came up in a humorously grisly conversation some while ago, relating to the cold spell. My assertion there that well, there were just some complicated and uncertain allegations of murder...was wrong. I see two being killed out of about forty deaths as significant, but since you all disagree, OK. Novickas ( talk) 05:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Someone thinks the place in the Sierra Nevada mountains where this took place is in Nevada. It isn't. It's in California. And it must also be stated that, at the time this happened, it was still in California. A rescue party did not arrive from California. They were already in that state! The rescue party came from Sacramento (I believe, Sutter's Fort).
It must also be mentioned that there is much research and citations needed fr this article, which is poorly written. Oh, and I've eliminated some of the commas. Someone went comma crazy while writing this. Gingermint ( talk) 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Maybe a mention of the prejudice and religious divisions in the party would be good. It is an important aspect of this story. Gingermint ( talk) 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I’ve got a couple of queries, could anyone clarify?
From ‘Wasatch Mountains’
‘As the Donner Party made its way across the Wasatch Mountains, they were overtaken by the Graves family’ (….) ‘Their arrival brought the Donner Party to 87 members in 60–80 wagons’
Is overtaken correct here? It seems to state that the Graves caught up with and joined them.
From ‘Disintegration’
‘Meanwhile Reed caught up with the Donners…’
This seems to state that the Donners were ahead of the rest when Reed was expelled, but I couldn’t find reference to this is the text. Franmars ( talk) 16:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a new book, Archaeology of Desperation: Exploring the Donner Party's Alder Creek Camp, eds. Dixon, Schablitsky, and Novak, October 2011. I browsed it at the public library, and it seemed to have quite a bit of information not included in the article. There is new archaeological data, and there are also oral histories of descendants of the Washoe who encountered the Donner party. The oral histories describe interactions between the Indians and the Donner party that don't seem to be discussed in the article. Apparently the Indians attempted repeatedly to give food to the starving people, but were chased off by gunfire.-- 75.83.69.196 ( talk) 02:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This article relates Jacob Donner as "Donner's older brother" but it seems to be confusing. In Japanese Wikipedia, it was pointed by a user, who had laboriously translated this article, Jacob been younger than George, as the article of George Donner supports him. Now I guess it should mean Jacob was "the older of George's young brothers" though I don't have any reliable references to hand. Could anyone valid and, if necessary, modify it? -- Kareha ( talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
They shot and ate native guides, like they shoot and eat animals, some fellows here don't see the notability of it all, it is an amazing world. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
On a somewhat related note, the first paragraph contains: "...many of the survivors cannibalized members of the party who had already died." Is the "who had already died" there to convince readers that people were not biting chunks out of the living, or is it there to suggest that no party members were killed in order to be eaten? This is yet another example of the editors not really wanting to acknowledge that anyone was murdered to be eaten. Whoops, I can't say "murdered" or someone will complain. Let's say "happily killed" instead. Puts a nicer light on things. 66.66.149.221 ( talk) 01:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I firmly reject any suggestion that the alleged killing of Luis and Salvador is any more or less significant than the alleged killings that Keseburg was accused of, so maybe the problem lies at least in part with the statement in the lead that "...many of the survivors cannibalized members of the party who had already died"; that there was cannibalism hardly seems in doubt, and not at all unusual under the circumstances, so maybe we could focus on reworking that sentence as a starter? Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Could we, for instance, simply drop that "who had already died"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum said, "there's nothing particularly unique about the incident concerning Luis and Salvador". I happen to agree with MF, and would like to support his argument that many people have been shot and eaten throughout history. Here are some examples I could think of off the top of my head: "Night of the Living Dead" and "28 Days Later". I couldn't think of any others, but I am sure MF can provide some more. Jswap ( talk) 18:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry but this to me looks like abuse of the talk page, we are reading "views" and "commentary" which is what it should not be like, please see talk page guidelines. Sorry about this comment folks. But let us stay on track.
I present the following evidence that disagrees with comments made by Malleus Fatuorum and Moni3.
I am aware that "one swallow doesn't make a summer", but if editors here believe that the sources are UNDUE or FRINGE, they may argue so or perhaps UNRELIABLE. (emphasis in bold above is mine and not in the originals) As far a the three numerous sources note, the killing and eating of the native guides, was notably different from the other homicides in the party. The two were killed as "lame horses" would be killed or as "sledge dogs" are killed. The killing was justifiable as the killing of a "different other".
Yogesh Khandke (
talk)
07:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Once again, discussion has been unnecessarily personalized; I have changed the section heading. Please read WP:TALK, and focus on content, not editors. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
|
Enough from both: Yogesh, you haven't answered a direct question, relevant to the discussion, posed by two editors; that is not collaborative editing. Combined with your personalization in a section heading, this is beginning to look like borderline harassment or baiting. Malleus, please disengage so others can deal with this. Avoid taking the bait. Content not editors. Moni3, who has every source, can address Yogesh's first post. Hopefully by the time she weighs in, he will have answered the question. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 09:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Yesterday I attempted to review what Jswap wanted in the article. He's blocked now. If Yogesh Khandke is in the discussion, I know you can't tell me what Jswap wanted in the article, but I don't know what the arguments are about if I don't know what changes, if any, are being requested.
This is what is in my sandbox:
During the night Jay Fosdick, who was with the rest of the snowshoe party, died, leaving only a total of seven. Eddy and Mary Graves returned with the deer meat, but Fosdick's body was cut apart for food. The effects of starvation and hypothermia began to take their toll emotionally. They were unable to walk steadily and sometimes the women fell and would sob uncontrollably. They were listless and sometimes apathetic. Foster and Eddy began to fight with each other until the women intervened. Again they ventured forth to try to find the trail, still hopelessly lost. After several more days—25 since they had left Truckee Lake—they came across Salvador and Luis, who had not eaten anything for about nine days, and were hours from death. William Foster, who had recently suggested killing Amanda McCutcheon for lagging behind, took a pistol and shot the Indians, allowing Salvador to say a final prayer, before stripping the bodies of muscle and organs. On January 12, they stumbled into a Miwok camp looking so deteriorated the Indians fled at the sight of them. After a brief return, the Miwoks gave them what they had to eat: acorns, grass, and pine nuts. Eddy was revived after a few days and propelled them forward with the help of a Miwok, although the other six simply laid down in the snow, too far gone to care. Eddy and the Indian walked 5 miles (8.0 km), met another Indian who, with the lure of tobacco, half-carried Eddy to a ranch at the edge of the Sacramento Valley. A rancher's daughter named Harriet Ritchie opened the door to find Eddy, supported by two Indians, and let out a sob at his condition.
The small community, themselves emigrants from the eastern U.S., assembled quickly and found the other six members of the snowshoe party who had laid down, all still alive. They were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, and all of them vomited from gorging. It was January 17 and they had been gone 33 days from Truckee Lake.
Folks I present my final say on the matter for the moment, so that Moni3's queries wouldn't be left unanswered. Though I am a little surprised that they still want to know what my proposed edits are about. I am repeating myself for the umpteenth time. I am also a little puzzled about their comment about SOURCES and COLLABORATION. Isn't that a little allusive, considering that it has seemingly been aimed at the person who has been patiently presenting sources on the talk page while facing what looked like hounding, [8] [9] baiting [10] and abuse. [11]
The hunting of "Luis and Salvador" for their meat a significant event in the travails of the Party. This event ought to;
- have a mention in the lead and
- to have its own sub-section.
In support of my argument I have shared numerous sources that consider the event significant as I interpret them, and thus warrant its inclusion in the lead and a separate section dedicated to it, which could discuss Petrinovich (2000) "Although the Indians had brought mules and supplies to the Donner Party and had served as guides, they were the only ones killed for consumption,as far as is known. To this point there is an orderly pattern of consumption of animals of other species, followed by humans of another race." or that Luis and Salvador were shot after having refused to indulge in anthropophagy.(Durham 1999) Please weigh the sources from various Wikipedia angles to judge their usefulness. I have placed all my cards on the table and that is all from me for the time being. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 06:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Having read this article and following along with much of the conversation here a thought occurred to me. As you folks are much more knowledgeable on both the topic and sources, I'll ask you. As this article covers the entire scope of the Donner party migration, do you think there is enough information and resource material to build a separate article around say " Cannibalization of the Donner Party"? Or would that be too narrow in scope for a viable article? — Ched : ? 07:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
If we're going to do this, we should do it right.
I got the source used to cite this sentence: Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them, "as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns".
It's a 2-page magazine article. King confirms that Luis and Salvador were within hours of death in the sentence immediately preceding the one quoted, so the statement here that he disagrees is inaccurate. King is merely reporting what Sutter said about the Donner Party incident and the loss of Luis and Salvador.
This appears to be a momentarily controversial issue; I would have removed the sentence myself if it hadn't been the topic of conversation recently. The article cannot say King disagrees, so the first part of the sentence should be removed, unless it's to re-confirm what another historian has already said. In that case, why not use it to cite the same fact at the end of the previous sentence instead of reiterating what was already said? That then begs why the article needs John Sutter's remark as if it is a historian's view. So--thoughts... -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
When reading the article noticed there's a strange piece of writing in the chapter Backround. It is located immediately after refrence number 12. It reads kayla sexy. When logging and going to edit and searching it for removal it wasn't to be seen. If in doubt I have taken a printscreen on it. Noseball ( talk) 14:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell it isn't there anymore Noseball ( talk) 20:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I got the book and am reading through it. Some interesting points to consider adding to the article:
As for the book's conclusions about archaeological evidence of cannibalism, this is what it has to say (pp. 325-328)
I'm still reading. There is a chapter on the generalities of cannibalism in society and how the Donner Party incident fits into the framework of necessary cannibalism vs. symbolic. I haven't read through it all the way, just skimmed it. I welcome thoughts on any of the issues presented regarding how to improve the article. -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Posting something here on the comparisons to the Donner Party that are in a book I recently finished reading, called Devil's Gate ( David Roberts, 2008), about the Mormon handcart pioneers.
Those are the only three substantive references from that book. I thought they might be of interest to those editing this article. There is more on how the later history developed for both tragedies, with one becoming very famous and the other less so, but that is more difficult to add to the articles, and I'm not sure whether it is better put at the 'Mormon handcart pioneers' article, rather than here. I do think readers of either article would be interested in the other one, so hopefully there is some sensible way of working in a reference somewhere in this article to other pioneer trail tragedies, including the Mormon one. Carcharoth ( talk) 04:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
The point about reader interest is an... interesting one. When I was in the shop at the 'This is the Place' heritage park, where I bought this book (almost exactly a year ago now), I looked at the blurb on the back and thought 'interesting, another account of a disaster that befell a group of pioneers heading west to new lands, just like the Donner Party'. I then expected to find an article on Wikipedia on the disaster that befell the Mormon handcart companies, but found instead an article covering the handcart movement as a whole (which is fair enough, I guess). Reading these two articles, and having briefly toured the areas in question, piqued my interest in the subject, and what I'm looking for, I suppose, is an overview of pioneer trail history, and why some aspects of the pioneer trail history became legendary and others didn't.
Oregon Trail (which itself only briefly mentions either disaster, and neither are mentioned in the 'deaths' section) may be a good place to start. But I suspect the reading list at the back of the book I have may be a better resource than the various Wikipedia articles in their current states (this one excepted). My point is that reliable sources do compare the two disasters (see here for one example) and they do have sufficient aspects in common (both are companies of pioneers caught by early winter snowstorms in mountains, leading to deaths by starvation) that I would expect both articles to mention the other, even if only in passing, or for them to be in the same template, or the same category.
You may have assumed from what I posted above that I was suggesting that the above be put in the article. That was never my intention. I wasn't entirely sure what was best , and thought it was better to ask first, rather than edit the article directly, though sometimes asking first can be a more painful experience (funny that). I was intending to suggest a link from this article to the handcarts one, and one back here (though a link from that article to this one might already exist), but was not sure how to do it, and didn't want to just add a 'see also' link. Carcharoth ( talk) 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Having thought about this some more, I really don't want to get into a prolonged argument over this. I've already added the Mormon handcart pioneers article to Category:History of the American West, so both articles now have a category in common. There isn't really any category for articles on expeditions caught in snowstorms in mountains (probably too specific anyway, and the only other comparable one I've seen mentioned is the Fremont party, see the John C. Fremont article, the fourth expedition). So the only other thing I would suggest is (ignoring most of what I posted above) to add something about work done comparing the mortality rates in the Donner Party and one of the handcart companies (the last one, the Willie company). I'll post the three sources I have on that in a subsection, and that should be it. Carcharoth ( talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Three sources on this (all originating from the same basic studies):
The earlier study by Grayson is already mentioned in this article. The edition of The Archaeology Of The Donner Party used in this article is an earlier edition. I'm not sure if the section 'New Directions in Donner Party research' is present in that earlier edition or not. If not, possibly some updating of this article could be done. I'm still pondering whether the three sources above justify adding anything to this article or not. I'm tentatively coming to the conclusion that source on the Mormon handcart pioneer tragedy mention the Donner Party more than sources on the Donner Party mention the Mormon handcart tragedy. If anything is added here, it would only be based on the above three source, and would only be the very briefest of mentions (possibly only a footnote). Carcharoth ( talk) 22:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Scott Lankford's book describes the cruelty of the white settlers in California, and describes the conditions of natives as nothing worse than slavery. Moni3, remarks that L & S who some sources note were shot, killed and eaten, would have been hanged for loosing Stutter's mules. On this Lankford notes that Luis and Salvator must have had numerous opportunities to escape, being young, strong and familiar with the terrain. Lankford hypothesises that the presence of women and children in the party made them chose to stay in the party till "the bitter end". Yet they were shot in the back and eaten by those whom they had been sent to rescue.(page 76) Lankford writes about the silence of Donner Party historians, who fail to acknowledge or discuss these "cold-blooded murders" except briefly. He criticizes modern historians, and gives the example of Frank Mullen's The Donner Party Chronicles: A Day-to-Day Account of a Doomed Wagon Train, which he writes is otherwise "deliciously detailed and meticulously researched" but is brief on the killing of the duo. Mullen mentions "The crime is double murder but no court will ever hear the case. In 1847, Indians are casually killed in punishment for theft or just for sport." I argue that there be a separate section and a mention in the lead. My argument is further strengthened by Carcharoth's comments above regarding the relatively small loss of lives. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 17:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)