Jump to content

Talk:Donner Party/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Numbers

The numbers of individuals in the party changed over time, and those numbers have been altered in this article relative to what was in the version that passed FAC. I have deleted the last round of changing numbers from the lead. Eric Corbett do you still have sources and can you rationalize these numbers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The numbers did indeed change over time, as you suggest and as the article says, so adding the number "81" to the lead can't possibly be justified. Eric Corbett 16:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Since you have the sources, can you determine if other numbers have been altered over time? I only picked this up because of today's edits on my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Where was Fremont?

In the section Donner_Party#Reed_attempts_a_rescue, there's the sentence: "He [Reed] pleaded with Colonel John C. Frémont to gather a team of men to cross the pass and help the company, in return for which Reed promised he would join Frémont's forces and fight in the Mexican-American War." Other accounts state that Fremont has already left for Santa Barbara by the time Reed got to Sutter's Fort, taking most of the local men with him. That's given as one reason why it took so long to mount a rescue expedition. If someone has the Kristin Johnson book (or a detailed Fremont bio), could you check that? WCCasey (talk) 23:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Minor comment on article (edit proposal)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donner_Party
In paragraph: Disintegration.
Line: The family had eaten all their stores, but the other families refused to assist their children.
Issue: Use of but.
The family had eaten all their stores and the other families refused to assist their children. Trouts2 (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, why not do it yourself? The article isn't edit protected... Roberticus talk 21:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

What's Stewart's and Rarick's source material

The article does not seem to indicate that any members of the party kept a journal. So where did Stewart and Rarick's source material come from? Rationalobserver (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC) I se now that Breen kept a diary, but his account is not used as a source in this article. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Rationalobserver. I think the notes and bibliography, as well as the general methodology, for Rarick's book are pretty clear. You point to the first note from chapter one; you'll see that the second and third notes reference a letter from Tamzene Donner to Elizabeth Eustis, consulted in the archives of the Huntington Library. As for the rest, this is what historians do: they compile sources and create a narrative from them. And I see no evidence of reconstructed dialogue; you, at least, have not provided any. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but is Rarick a historian? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
What Rarick is pretty self-evidently doing here (and elsewhere) is writing history. Below, you attempt a comparison with (what I gather to be) Frank Waters, Brave are my People. The first thing to note is that only one of these two books is published by an academic press. Moreover, one of the two scholarly reviews of Waters's book that I could find describes it as "the work of a man of letters who combines art with history." Even so, as far as I can see, you have not been "forbidden" to use Waters; merely told to use him with care. Which is how we should use all our sources. Let me say, finally, that if Rarick were to play as fast and loose with his sources as you seem willing to do, then I would indeed be worried. But he seems to be much more conscientious. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I see what you mean, and Waters doesn't even have notes, so I understand why his book is not reliable. I guess I was thrown off by the NYT's referring to Stewart and Rarick's books as novels. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The New York Times absolutely does not refer to Rarick's book as a novel. This is (part of) what I mean by your fast and loose use of sources. And now here I agree absolutely agree with User:Karanacs's point below: enough. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The NYT said the Rarick book is written "in a novelistic mode". Rationalobserver (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes (I have read the article, too, thanks). And that is not the same thing. Meanwhile, note that that phrase occurs in a sentence (and a paragraph) whose main point is to underline the extent to which Rarick not only incorporates "expert analysis" but also provides "new data" as a result of his own research. Again, you are playing fast and loose with sources. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, it seems that Rarick's book similar to the Waters' work. Can you please explain why one is forbidden and the other acceptable? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Desperate Passage: The Donner Party's Perilous Journey West by Rarick

The first note, chapter 1, reveals that Rarick has reconstructed dialogue and settings. This should not be swept under the rug until it's resolved. That reviews are published in reliable sources does not guarantee the book does not contain reconstructed "scenes" as Rarick calls them: "scene around Tamzene: She does not describe the scene around her in great detail. The portrait here is based on various emigrant accounts." Rarick here is explaining that he has reconstructed the scene using generic emigrant accounts not related to the Donner Party. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Per Rarick (in author's notes): "In places, I have relied on reasonable and obvious speculation to flesh out the narrative. Some things can be assumed. Parents fret about the safety of their children. Little girls smooth the dresses of their dolls. People wave farewell. At other points, I have relied on my own observations or experiences. During my research, I traveled the route of the Donner Party, and often one can still see today what one would have seen then: the heft of Independence Rock looming in the distance, the flat crawl of the Humboldt River across Nevada, the intimidating eastern face of the Sierra. I drew on personal experiences in other ways". Rationalobserver (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Rarick's notes can be seen here, and a quick glance shows that much of this "account" is actually taken from stories about emigrants in general, and not the Donner Party; e.g., Chapter 13, note 7 reveals that the description of the storm is not based on Donner Party accounts, but it's rather a generic and fictionalized telling of what it might have been like. Chapter 15, note 124 reveals that his description of the Donner Party's starvation is based not on accounts from the Donner Party, but on a University of Minnesota study and reports of the conditions in the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII, i.e.; it's a fictionalized. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

That is what historians DO - they compile a variety of sources, judge appropriate weight, interpret them, and place the events within the proper historical context. They do not regurgitate exactly what Primary Source A says - that would be pointless. Have you checked the pieces you have a problem with against what is actually cited in this article? I will guarantee you will find no dialogue quoted. Karanacs (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Why no Morgan or Breen?
  • I'm surprised to see that this article does not use Morgan's Overland in 1846: Diaries and Letters of the California-Oregon Trail, Volume 1 as source material, but instead uses Rarick's narrative that draws heavily from it. Same with the Breen diary, which ought to be cited to directly. There are no "according to Breen" or "according to Morgan"s in this article, but as primary source material they ought to have been directly utilized. Rationalobserver (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
For the most part, we do not (and should not) use primary sources on Wikipedia. We use secondary sources which have examined those primary sources in detail and attributed them the appropriate weight. See WP:PRIMARY. Karanacs (talk) 19:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's what I thought, but SlimVirgin told me the opposite here. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I know absolutely nothing about the book that you are referencing nor the discussions surrounding it. I am telling you how policy applies to this particular book that I read and researched. This entire exercise is a violation of WP:POINT and you need to stop. Karanacs (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not POINTy, I am trying to understand why one narrative history is better than the other, and now I think I get it. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
If you want to understand, you ask a question: "Hey, why is this source reliable when that one isn't"? What you've done is disruptive. Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
That's all I was trying to do, but so many people jumped on me it got confusing. The thread at RSN should not have been closed so soon. The disruption starts with that. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
YES, the disruption starts there - with your initial post. It is ALWAYS appropriate to first raise an issue on the article's talk page if the person who thinks there is an issue was not involved with the article. By going straight there and not asking here why that book was chosen and whether that review you found indicated a problem, you were essentially giving a giant middle finger to the people who have already done the hard work on the article. Heck, the act of searching for reviews of the book was an indication that you were trying to find problems with the article - an article that has gone through FA review already. Karanacs (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Enough

rationalobserver. I have, in good faith, replied to the comments that you have made about this article. They are all baseless, as you have been told by neutral parties (including jbmurray, who is a university professor). You have accused us of falsifying sources (and then retracted that accusation) and have demonstrated an appalling lack of understanding of how to examine the reliability of a source, how to properly summarize information, and what is appropriate to source from a given text. This article has been through the combined scrutiny of 3 prolific FA writers (and if I don't know how to evaluate a source by now, someone needs to ban me) and a multitude of FA reviewers who have looked at the very things you've brought up. For you to throw all of this on the talk page today is a quite blatant exercise in WP:POINT. It's time to stop, or I will be filing a notice at WP:ANI. If you find an actual valid point (there have been changes since the FAC, and you fixed one wording error yesterday), I'll be happy to address that, but I don't intend to waste any more of my time today with what is either an attempt to prove someone else (SV?) wrong or an attempt to make Eric Corbett look bad. Karanacs (talk) 20:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Look, the NYT's said it was written in a "novelistic mode", and some of it (the prologue for example) clearly is fictionalized. I wasn't accusing anyone of anything, I just made an honest mistake. You guys aren't always the best at explaining things to newer users, and right away I was jumped on by EC supporters. Rarick's own words support my concern to some extent, but I'll drop it lest I get blocked for asking questions. And BTW, the error I corrected was restored (see above). Rationalobserver (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
rationalobserver, you seem to have a habit of persevering in your misconceptions, however hard people work at trying to help you. So one last comment: it is not clear to me in the slightest that any part of Rarick's book is "fictionalized" in any practical sense of the term. But if you are really interested in issues that arise in the writing of history (and the inevitability of narrative), then I suggest you do some reading: I've mentioned E H Carr. Hayden White may also be to your taste. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for personal attacks on me. The NYT said "[Rarick's] generally facile prose is at times a trifle literary, and he sometimes loses control of his elaborate metaphors." So please don't act like I made this up from nowhere. The NYT might be wrong, but that was the first review I read. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And that is not the same as "fictionalization." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree; that's the wrong word to describe the book as a whole, but segments of it appear to be fictionalized. E.g., the first page of prose after the prologue contains: "she reached for a fresh sheet of stationary and carefully noted the date". If this isn't fictionalized, what's the source for such a specific description of her actions? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
rationalobserver, if you want to have a discussion about historiography, fiction and history, the problems of representation and narrative, etc. etc., you are welcome to start such a chat on my talk page. Regarding Rarick's own methodology, you have already quoted it here on this talk page, where he comments on "reasonable and obvious speculation." Note the term he uses (and uses for a reason): is "speculation" rather than "fictionalization." But, on my talk page, we could also discuss more difficult, and perhaps more interesting, texts such as Edmund Morris's Dutch, or (switching disciplines, but still) some of the anthropology of Michael Taussig, say. If you want that conversation, I'm up for it. See you at User talk:Jbmurray. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wording change reverted

I have reverted this change: (fix; migrants → emigrants; ce migrants → several members of the party) I would not call this a "fix" so much as a preference. IMO, when it comes to a GA editors have no business changing the work of others just because they prefer something to fit their particular style. I find migrant more accurate than the more often used word emigrants, which better describes one who has traveled from a different country.Gandydancer (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Or maybe not? Per WP: Emigration is the act of leaving one's native country with the intent to settle elsewhere.[1] Conversely, immigration describes the movement of persons into one country from another.[2] Both are acts of migration across national boundaries. Gandydancer (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree on the second part (some/migrants). On the first part, my take on it is this: "..was a group of American pioneer emigrants" ... I would change it to immigrants because the sentence establishes them as present in the area being pioneered, so immigrated to seems to follow in my view. If it were saying ".. was a group of Illinois families, then I'd use the emigrants. All that said, using either term beyond the original context of the lede seems forced to me; simply because these aren't people who have left a far off land or native country of origin. Seeing "emigrant" repeatedly just doesn't feel natural to me for people traveling within their own country, and I would change most cases of the word to "pioneers, explorers, travelers, etc". Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  12:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Considering all the work done on this article, I'd bet that the editors discussed this thoroughly and came to the conclusion that "migrants" is the best term. That said, to choose "migrants" is AFAIK an unusual choice. Perhaps it can be improved but IMO there is no excuse for changing it without first opening a discussion. BTW, looking back at the discussion put into this article, it is mind-boggling! Gandydancer (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. :-) I'm not one to go mucking about with FA pages, I was just thinking out-loud. — Ched :  ?  13:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Looking back I see the use of American pioneers as stable at one time. I like that one. Gandydancer (talk) 13:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Why are they migrants in the first paragraph and emigrants in the second and subsequent ones? I hope you realize that migrants has a specific meaning that is not interchangeable with emigrants. Migrants move to one place during a certain time of the year and another during the opposite time. Immigrants leave their home country and go to a new one, and emigrants move from one area of a country to another. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I watch over several of Moni's articles. Do you have any objections if I change the wording to Moni's version? IMO the wording used that brought the article to an FA would be the best solution here. I have a great deal of respect for our editors that go through the massive amount of work to bring an article to FA status. Gandydancer (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean, did Moni call them migrants? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
When Moni left the wording was American pioneers. From the articles that I watch over, I know that she carefully watched over her articles. This has been fortunate for me because by experience I have learned that the same things tend to come up again and again, and rather than try a (most likely rather lame) attempt on my own, I refer the editor to Moni's well-thought out reasoning. Gandydancer (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, all I'm saying here is that "migrants" is not the correct word, though emigrants and immigrants do migrate, they aren't migrants as they do not move back and forth between two or more places. This is undoubtedly a mistake, and as I said, notice that they are only called migrants in the first paragraph; in the rest of the article they are called emigrants and never migrants, because that term is flat wrong for this. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I could support a return to pioneers. — Ched :  ?  17:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think dictionary definitions are in order here.

  • migrant - a person who moves from one place to another in order to find work or better living conditions.
  • emigrant- a person who leaves their own country in order to settle permanently in another.

It was fine as it was. J3Mrs (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Then why does the article call them all emigrants everywhere except the first paragraph? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
And if you are, wrongly, using them interchangeably, why was my edit in error? Rationalobserver (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ched and I both like American pioneers, as I believe it was when it passed FA. Will there be any disagreement if I change it to that? Gandydancer (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that, as migrants is currently being used in error. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh for the fucking love of god. Report me for saying fuck and I will gladly be barred from editing for whatever number of days. Gandydancer (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
As J3Mrs pointed out migrants is not in error, but since there is agreement with the terminology used when it achieved FA, I will change the wording back to American pioneers. I apologize for my anger. Gandydancer (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The FA terminology is certainly preferable, good change. J3Mrs (talk) 17:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Content Gaps

Hello there,

The summary mentions that the journey west usually takes 5-6 months (and then the main text states 4-6 months) and that the Donner Party was delayed, hinting that the delay was considerable but not indicating how bad the initial delay was. The summary just goes on to state that it was November by the time they reached the Sierra Nevada. When do most wagon parties generally reach it? September? August? October? June? How many months behind were they? I do feel that if you're going to bring up the delay in the summary, you should probably not leave it this vague.

Additionally, did I miss something in this mess of text or does Mr. Wolfinger's story go from "Two young single men named Spitzer and Reinhardt traveled with another German couple, the Wolfingers..." to "...Joseph Reinhardt, confessed on his death bed that he had murdered Wolfinger" with no mention of just what the hell happened? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.38.6 (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

"Of the 87 members of the party, 48 survived..." "Of the 87 people who entered the Wasatch Mountains, 48 survived." Can YOU spot the difference? (but seriously, folks, do the people who died before that point just not count as members of the party? Is it saying that the Luis and Salvador aren't people?)

Also, I left this over at the timeline article too, but maybe editors here can sort it out instead:

"I think there might be some sort of screw up, either here or at the "Donner Party" article, regarding the timing of Lemuel Murphy's death and the timing of the cannibalism:

December 25, 1846: ...At "Camp of Death" Patrick Dolan and young Lemuel Murphy die.

December 26, 1846: The snowshoers resort to cannibalism, "averting their faces from one another and weeping."

Versus

As the blizzard progressed, Patrick Dolan began to rant deliriously, stripped off his clothes and ran into the woods. He returned shortly afterwards and died a few hours later. Not long after, possibly because 12-year-old Lemuel Murphy was near death, some of the group began to eat flesh from Dolan's body. Lemuel's sister tried to feed some to her brother, but he died shortly afterwards." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.38.6 (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Kindly do this lowly anonymous editor a favour and explain what the problem is with the sentence 'The "shortcut" had added 150 miles (240 km) to their travels and probably delayed them by a month'? If it is the accuracy of the information, then I suggest you change or remove the caption as well. Or is there a rule about repeating information from captions in the main text? Is it the quotation marks, which could have easily been removed without changing the rest of the sentence? Did I make a mistake and the "shortcut" under discussion is not actually the Hastings Cutoff? No one deigned to explain in the edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.38.6 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't speak for others, but when an editor does not even bother to sign his/her posts I'm not willing to spend a great deal of time going through the article to check out what they are concerned about. I would tend to guess that others who watch this article feel the same way. Gandydancer (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
BAM! Now feel free check out my concerns. (Also, why exactly is that an issue, by the way? It seems to get added automatically anyway.) 206.75.38.6 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Careless, know it all, and arrogant. Not exactly the sort of person that I figure is suggesting an improvement or that I want to engage with. Gandydancer (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, insults. Very civil, very welcoming to a newcomer. Anyhoo, regardless of how you "figure" me, I am, quite obviously, suggesting multiple improvements to the article, and have already made several. My comments here were made to garner input regarding changes that I thought might be controversial before I made them or have proven controversial since I made them. I had assumed (wrongly, I guess, since I've been met mostly with silence and now insults) that that was how I was supposed to do it. Thank you for engaging me though! I am sure that as a respected and experienced editor, you will be able to look past whatever you find abrasive about me (was it my question about the need for manual signing? That wasn't sarcasm; I really do find it puzzling since there's that little bot to do it for me) and actually look at the substance of my comments for the good of the article.

And on that note, the Citations section seems a bit strange to me. For example, even though it appears to be the first time the source is referenced, citation #2 doesn't have a lot of detail "(McGlashan, p. 16; Stewart, p. 271.)". I would have expected the first occurrence to be more like #1 (McGlashan, Charles Fayette (1907). History of the Donner Party: A Tragedy of the Sierra. H. S. Crocker. p. 158.) Is that intentional or just the result of citations being added/removed/shifted around over the years? If it is intentional, could someone link me to an explanation for it because damned if I could find any guidance on the subject from checking Wikipedia's help pages.

Cheers, 206.75.38.6 (talk) 05:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Mr/Mrs IP: Please try not to be so abrasive with other editors. I am unsure what your query is concerning the citation style of ref #2? It follows the standard format used for all the book references consistent throughout the article. By the way, you are being asked to properly sign your posts (use either four tildes: ~~~~ or the icon at the top of the edit window) as the bot triggers additional unnecessary notifications to other editors. SagaciousPhil - Chat 08:58, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
As SagaciousPhil says, these are Shortened footnotes with Harvard referencing, which are widely used in FAs such as this one. It stops having to repeat the same basic information about a print source that's referred to multiple times in an article. I appreciating finding guidelines and policies can be a maze, but the link here should give you some context. Shortened footnotes are fairly standard in books, not generally as much as Wikipedia articles, but they do exist when a particularly bold claim (such as a figure or statistic) needs to point to an original source. As for the other comments, I'll have to read the article in more depth and get back to you, but my gut feeling is at 57K of prose, the article is on the top of the acceptable limit of article size - so if you want to add anything, something else may need to be removed. Most editors will assume the Featured Article Review has set the balance about right. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Excessive and probably inaccurate detail in Familes

I think Familes runs afoul of WP:SUMMARY. Also, Rarick states that "19th century ages are notoriously imprecise".(note 118) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Which is why a citation is given for each age - that these are the best estimates of the historical work to which they are cited. The point of writing an article is to summarize the information given in the secondary sources used, NOT to go back to the primary sources and determine what is "truth". You've been writing articles for some time; I should not need to remind you of these basic premises. Also, what part of WP:SUMMARY do you think that background section violates? Karanacs (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it overly detailed? Shouldn't it be summarized versus repeated verbatim? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
It is, quite obviously, a summary of information that is crucial to an understanding of the rest of the article. A detailed version would include their entire life histories. That would be inappropriate. Karanacs (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I would think this: Levinah Murphy, 37, a widow from Tennessee, headed a family of thirteen. Her five youngest children were John Landrum, 16; Meriam "Mary", 14; Lemuel, 12; William, 10; and Simon, 8. could be condensed into something like this: "Levinah Murphy, a 37-year-old widow from Tennessee, headed a family of thirteen, with five children ranging from 16 to 8 years of age." Rationalobserver (talk) 20:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Except those children are specifically mentioned in the article because they were part of the party. The other children were not. Even if we went with your version, that saves fewer then 15 words. BFD. Karanacs (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the detail is excessive in terms of including the names. It might make sense to include an info box, similar to the one used for those who were rescued, to record the names and ages of the party members if people feel that the information is necessary. I personally don't think it is, but would actually be cleaner and more accessibly if presented in a table than in-line text for those looking for those kinds of details! Appellative (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I much prefer it the way it is with no changes. The names with their ages seems more able to make the story come "alive", so to speak. Gandydancer (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that with regard to names this article is excessively detailed. To cherry-pick some examples, the mentioning of Frances and Leanna Donner seem rather superfluous. The congestion of largely meaningless text considerably increases the difficulty of reading this article. I have no doubt this information is of encyclopaedic value, but perhaps it could be spun off into an article of it's own? Whatever beef you guys have with Rationalobserver, I think he raises a valid point when he suggests that the section could be rewritten into a more readable prose rather than a semicolon-delimited list as I would consider that, too, to be a reasonable improvement.
Still just spitballing ideas, but maybe it could be spun off into a list article which contains a table of names, ages and fates? That would allow for the removal of side information without losing it altogether whilst retaining information about the truly pivotal persons in the main article. Forgive me if I appear to be trying to delegate the actual work to others, but I'm somewhat new to the editorial side of Wikipedia so I'm somewhat wary of treading on toes. Bawb131 (talk) 05:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is extremely well written and clear. It documents one of the more famous episodes of settlers migrating west. Perhaps this is more of an eye of the beholder issue? --I am One of Many (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
If it is indeed the case, then what it boils down to is "I like the article the way it is" vs "this article is harder to read". Clearly I'm biased, but if a section presents a significant hurdle for some then shouldn't that trump an opinion of preference? Bawb131 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it just the fact that the names of the people in the Donner party are mentioned in the text? Or do you find the writing in the article too difficult? --I am One of Many (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm solely referring to the list of names (and perhaps the more superfluous references to some of those names). I don't disagree with you, given the quality of the rest of the text I understand why this is a featured article. But I believe the Families section may represent an impediment to the comprehension of the rest of the article because the reader is presented with a barrage of names without any real indication of either who is pivotal or where an appropriate place to skip to might be. I mostly skim read due to difficulties with attention, so a couple of paragraphs of (what appear to be) largely irrelevant semicolon-delimited names sprinkled with important characters is something I think constitutes a significant barrier. Now it just so happens that it was pretty easy to infer who was who without that section; to be clear, I'm certainly not advocating the wholesale deletion of that section, but even something as simple as changing the semicolons to asterisks so it was formatted in a proper list would be of help. Bawb131 (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Further reading

Any objection to adding this book as further reading? It appears to have won the California Historical Society Award of Merit, 1994: Winter of Entrapment: A New Look at the Donner Party by Joseph A. King, 1992 (Toronto: P.D. Meany Publishers), revised edition 1994 (Lafayette, CA: K&K Publications). ISBN: 0-9608500-4-X Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes to improve grammar/mechanics/clarity and/or consistency throughout the article

Hello, I see one editor is averse to making changes. While I applaud efforts to ensure the article's quality, I caution against reverting or objecting to changes that actually improve quality. For example, if you'll note the recent reversions to my changes, you'll see the editor who made the reversions is unaware of (at least in this instance) of the value of correctly placing modifiers or of using transition(al) terms. Additionally, the same editor earlier removed changes I'd made for the sake of consistency with how ages and numbers are written throughout this article, related articles, and most modern writing (i.e., writing as numbers, rather than words, ages and numbers 10 or greater, except in specific instances, e.g., year 2016). It's inappropriate to impose one's personal style on the article merely for preference's sake and wholly inappropriate to protect the status quo against improvements that are justifiable and add value.Froid (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes. The introduction of unnecessary sub-headings that cause accessibility issues, inconsistent formatting etc are not improvements. The article complies with the FA criteria and follows the WP:MOS. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No evidence of Cannibalism

I am not an editor of Wikis but I have been researching the Donner Party and should mention here that there is no archaeological evidence of Cannibalism at either campsite at Alder Creek nor at the Cabins. Research done in the 1990s by Hardesty et al. and early 2000s by Dixon et al. show that faunal remains collected at Alder Creek show no evidence of humans being consumed at the hearths. Likewise, the two human bone fragments found at the Murphy Cabin in the 1990s showed no evidence of being burned, boiled or cut. It is possible that that the bodies could have been processed elsewhere, however, no human remains have been located yet by archaeologists.

Other details that need to be corrected include that Snyder was murdered by Reed who was banished by the Donner Party group prior to using the Hastings Cutoff. He was the reason why the group had so many rescue efforts made, as he had been forced to leave his family behind when he was banished from the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.218.151 (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donner Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donner Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Wolfinger's Death

The article mentions the death of Mr Wolfinger in passing a couple of times, once when discussing Reinhardt's confession and once near the end when listing the dead, but doesn't actually say when or how he died (other than "trauma"). Anybody know? Gazeboist (talk) 10:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"outcome of the ongoing"

I know that American is a different language but

Emigration to the west decreased over the following years, but it is likely that the drop in numbers was caused more by fears over the outcome of the ongoing Mexican-American War than by the cautionary tale of the Donner Party.

how can you support this wording? The sentence mixes tenses for a start. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I can support it very easily, as there's nothing wrong with it. Eric Corbett 19:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
(after ec) Hi Keith-264, "ongoing" here is used as an adjective to provide specificity - the decrease was caused not by the war generally (as your amendment suggested) but by the uncertainty over what its outcome would be, since it was unresolved at the time in question. Is there an alternative phrasing that might work? (Also, FWIW neither of the people who've reverted you are American). Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Do you agree that you shouldn't change tense in a sentence? Do you agree that the word ongoing is redundant since the fears over "outcome" makes it plain that the war hadn't ended? I suggest that adjectives and adverbs should be used sparingly and that conjunctions shouldn't be punctuated.

Emigration to the west decreased over the following years; uncertainty caused by the Mexican-American War (1846–1848) might have had more effect than the fate of the Donner Party.

Keith-264 (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree that "ongoing" is redundant to "outcome" - it's quite possible to fear or be uncertain about the implications of an event's outcome after the event has concluded. For that reason, I feel your new proposal still lacks specificity. Some readers will catch the addition of dates and understand the implications moving forward in the paragraph, but others will not. I would be interested in hearing from other commenters on the matter, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Emigration to the west decreased over the following years but the uncertainty caused by the Mexican-American War (1846–1848) and its aftermath, might have had more effect on emigration than the fate of the Donner Party.

Keith-264 (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Too many emigrationsKeith-264 (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
might have had and it is likely do not mean the same thing. The section reads very well just as it is and I see no reason to change it. Gandydancer (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
"Likely" looks like speculation, the war is a fact. If it's in the source, the RS should be named in the text ("In 1996, John Smith wrote....") or is it OR?Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it isn't OR as it is in the ref used. I don't see any necessity to change the wording as it reads very well; adding the dates in brackets is clumsy. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I suggest that it is scholarly and consistent with Wiki requirements. How the passage reads is a matter of opinion and mine is that it doesn't scan, uses redundant cliche words and mixes tenses. Keith-264 (talk) 12:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
You're simply trying to justify your own misunderstandings. Scanning is for poetry, not plain text, there are no "cliche words" and it doesn't mix tenses. Isn't it about time you found something more compatible with your own level of competence to work on? Eric Corbett 17:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh dearie me, I meant parsing or clause analysis, much humiliation. I'm rather good at riposting to threats though. Keith-264 (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
If that's what you meant, why didn't you say that? Eric Corbett 00:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Donner Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Hastings Cutoff

"To promote his new route, Lansford W. Hastings sent riders to deliver letters to traveling emigrants. On July 12, the Reeds and Donners were given one of them.[27] Hastings warned the emigrants they could expect opposition from the Mexican authorities in California, and advised them to band together in large groups. He also claimed to have "worked out a new and better road to California", and said he would be waiting at Fort Bridger to guide the emigrants along the new cutoff."

Did Hastings benefit financially from the use of his route (I assume that's why he was promoting it - or was it pure altruism?) If he did benefit financially, how? Tolls? Charging people to show them the way? Deals with store owners on the route? Other ways?

86.166.216.28 (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Bogus Subhead

In the main menu the article has a very screwy short descriptor. The actual article doesn't show the odd text. UrbanCyborg (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

UrbanCyborg, what specifically is the "screwy" text? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears to have somehow been fixed, so I can't access the original text I saw. It was truly squirrelly, though. Sorry to have instigated a snipe hunt inadvertently. UrbanCyborg (talk) 10:45, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Emigrants

The article refers to people traveling westward as "emigrants". I think this should be changed to migrants or settlers; as "emigrants" refers to people who migrate out of a country while the use here refers to people traveling entirely within the United States. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 13:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that this has come up before. Check the old talk pages. Gandydancer (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
You're right. It looks like this was already discussed but at some point someone reverted it. 98.179.184.17 (talk) 17:03, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I've changed all references to immigrants and emigrants back to migrants with the exception of place names, titles, quotations, and cases where the terms actually referred to emigrants or immigrants.
Technically, California was not part of the U.S. until February 2, 1848, when theTreaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed and the State, as well as the States of Nevada and Utah as well as parts of several others was annexed into the U.S. The Donner Party started emigrating to Mexican Territory but shortly after they left, California's residents revolted against the Mexican Government to form an independent republic. Mexico didn't have a chance to suppress the revolt because California was occupied almost immediately by American Forces that had declared war on Mexico over annexation of Texas. So, the U.S. had control over California when the party finally arrived, but it was legally still Mexico territory, or an independent Republic, not part of the U.S. Emigrant was correct. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

More accessible reference?

The McGlashan book is online here: https://books.google.com/books?id=8WwUAAAAYAAJ Seems a better one to use than the one that must be downloaded to refer to it.Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That link does not universally lead to full text, and ease of access to a reference does not determine its suitability for use. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I take it you mean: "Links to Google Books do not universally lead to full text." However, only books that are still under copyright protection are not fully reprinted in Google Books. In the case of this book, the link does lead to the full text. So it is perfectly suitable for use. At least provide links to both formats. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
No, I mean that specific link, which for me does not lead to full text, even though it may for you. "Not universal" in the context of GBooks means not only that not all links lead to full text, but also that links do not behave the same for all users. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll have to take your word on that. I know that if a book is under copyright, GBooks will limit the number of times a uses can access the searchable contents, but other than that there seems no reason that a link will behave differently. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
One explanation (and I haven't investigated whether it applies here) is that "under copyright" differs between jurisdictions - something that is in the public domain in the US may not be elsewhere, and vice versa. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah. I hadn't considered that GBooks might limit access outside the U.S. However, doing a little reading on this issue, it seems the Google Play format may have the same issue. Google limits accessibility everywhere outside the U.S. rather than try to determine the copyright status in all the different jurisdictions. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Two William M's?

The 'Families' section describes both daughters of Levinah Murphy as being married to men named "William M." Is this an error, or did both men happen to have the same middle initial? I can't figure it out from the sources available online. If the second, the men's full middle names should probably be written out.

Gazeboist (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gazeboist: It appears to be correct that both men were William M., but I haven't found any reliable sources indicating their full middle names. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"No adults over the age of 49 survived..."

Patrick Breen, an original participant of the Donner-Reed Party, was 51 years of age at the start of his and his family's journey. Patrick survived, as did the entire Breen family. Therefore, the sentence later in this same "Donner Party" Wikipedia entry that begins with "No adults over the age of 49 survived..." is contradictory/inaccurate. MLOestreich (talk) 05:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

George C. Yount

[Edit March 29, 2021 to undo the edit which removed the entire paragraph with this reference to George Yount's dream. Dana's Journal is even more explicit that 'Twenty-Four Years Later' in his description of Yount's account of the dream, devoting several pages to the conversation. Yount's dream is part of his legacy and California history. Why would this event be removed? The historical references are reliable and online. [Edit February 19, 2021 to move this section about Yount's dream to the 'Second relief' section and revise the entry to present the facts as reflected in the sources. I think this addition might help people who, like me, stumble upon Dana's claim about a miraculous dream and want to know more about it. An examination of news reports on the dream seems to be warranted, since Dana refers to it as 'celebrated'. This means it was in the national narrative in a significant way, at least for him. Maybe he had read Bushnell's book on the voyage back to California.] [Edit February 17 2021 to present the historical evidence as evenly as I could. I think the evangelical pressure might be highlighted. I think that this event probably scared the sh-t out of people and they really wanted to know that God would never abandon them. This is in the earliest days of an 'internet': wire communication coast to coast, a daily national narrative.] I noticed a reference in Richard H. Dana. Jr's 'Twenty-Four Years Later' (p. 48) to a "John Yount" recounting a 'thrice-repeated' dream that led to the rescue of the Donner Party in 1847. My edits to the wiki entries for 'Donner Party' and 'George C. Yount' reflect research I have done on this subject. I believe Dana either misrecalled Yount's name or Yount was called "John". Ivartshiva (talk) 13:33, 13 January 2021 (UTC) comment added by Ivartshiva (talk • contribs) 13:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Murphy daughters

The article has BOTH of Levinah Murphy's daughters marrying men named "William M.". Now, just how LIKELY is that? CFLeon (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

California

The introduction references the survivors reaching California and the rescuers coming from Califonia. The Donner campsite is in California.

I don’t see the problem; rescuers could conceivably have come from Nevada. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Washoe Account

This seems credible and relevant.

"Until now the Native American perspective has been left out of the telling of the Donner tragedy, not because the wel mel ti did not remember the pioneers, but because they were never asked, or perhaps were not ready to share. Their oral tradition recalls the starving strangers who camped in an area that was unsuitable for that time of year. Taking pity on the pioneers, the northern Washoe attempted to feed them, leaving rabbit meat and wild potatoes near the camps. Another account states that they tried to bring the Donner Party a deer carcass, but were shot at as they approached. Later, some wel mel ti observed the migrants eating human remains. Fearing for their lives, the area's native inhabitants continued to watch the strangers but avoided further contact. These stories, and the archaeological evidence that appears to support them, certainly complicated my interpretation of the Donner Party event. The migrants at Alder Creek were not surviving in the mountains alone—the northern Washoe were there, and they had tried to help."

https://archive.archaeology.org/1205/letter/donner_party_alder_creek_washoe.html

Orchidnecromancer (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be an article by U.Oregon archaeologist J. Schablitsky, published in Archaeology (magazine) Volume 65 Number 3, May/June 2012. The archaeological expedition appears to have unearthed many bone fragments:

"Back at the laboratory, with his collection of comparative bone samples at hand, Tasa listed the cuisine on the Donner Party desperation menu: small rodent, rabbit-sized animal, canine, cow, and deer. But no human."

"Using an optical microscope to observe osteons, or the fundamental structural units of bone, Schug found 85 bone fragments that belonged to cow, deer, horse, and dog. But again, there were no human bones. This, of course, does not mean that the Donners did not practice cannibalism."

"Although the absence of identifiable human bone was an interesting problem, I was much more intrigued by what we did find: None of the survivor accounts from Alder Creek mention successfully hunting and killing rabbit or deer. We also found lead shot and sprue from lead casting, suggesting the pioneers had attempted to make ammunition for their guns. Perhaps one of the Donner Party members or rescuers had been successful at hunting wild game. But if the Donners found themselves too weak to hunt in the deep snow, or their aim was off, how could they have ended up eating these animals?"

Where in the article should this important archeological research finding be added? Mang (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Just add it near the end as a separate chapter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.239.206.63 (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this research would benefit the article. It is also referenced in Wa She Shu "The Washoe People" Past and Present by The Washoe Cultural Office, 2009. Ynneblack (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
This does not appear to have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donner_Party/Archive_3&oldid=1180187986"