Jump to content

Talk:Donner Party/Archive 4

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

Nisenan Maidu rather than Miwok Native Americans

After several years of research, it has become clear several authors who have retold the Donner Party story have confused Luis and Salvador (Miwok Native Americans) who John Sutter had in his services at Sutter Fort and two members of the Forlorn Hope, with the Native Americans whose settlement the seven surviving members of Forlorn Hope stumbled upon and who subsequently assisted the Forlorn Hope to reach Johnson’s Rancho. These Native Americans were members of the Nisenan sect of the Maidu, NOT Miwok as our current wiki description indicates. The suggestion is to correct this error by replacing instances within the Forlorn Hope paragraph of “Miwok” with “Nisenan”.

Imcrowley (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Bob Crowley

  1. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=hornbeck_ind_1
  2. https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1099&context=usupress_pubs
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisenan
  4. https://sierrafund.org/tag/nisenan-tribute-site/
  5. http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/california-indian-history/
  6. https://www.forlornhope.org/research-resources/
  7. http://www.donnersummithistoricalsociety.org/
  8. http://www.wheatlandhistoricalsociety.org/
  9. https://www.nisenan.org/
  10. https://octa-trails.org/
  11. https://emigranttrailswest.org/
Imcrowley, your list of sources was formatted confusingly; I have numbered them so they can be individually discussed below. (Which I will do after I read them.). You should also be aware of WP:COI. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I’ve now looked at your sources— no listed needed. Some of them are not WP:RS, some are not high-quality reliable sources required for a Featured article, and in no case can I locate text supporting your proposed changes. For your proposed edits, we need a high quality reliable source that supports the text. I have removed your text for now, pending scholarly sources.[1] I can find no source supporting your text at scholar.google.com ... has this research been published somewhere? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your response. I will ask the same from you. What are your sources and let’s deep dive into each and from where they originate. I look forward to the discourse. Meantime, I’ve undone the edit and replaced with Nisenan. This is a good place to begin: page 391. https://digitalcommons.csumb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=hornbeck_ind_1. This map delineates the Nisenan settlements along the Bear River: https://www.forlornhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/E3866DD8-F0D7-4AA8-9649-87FA0F7856B9.png (Kroeber) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imcrowley (talk • contribs) 14:58, March 7, 2021 (UTC)
Bob Crowley, “anyone can edit” Wikipedia, but our edits are guided by policies and guidelines. If you continue to breach those, an admin can block you from editing Wikpedia.
  1. Please see WP:TALK for how to format and thread your responses. I have correctly indented the response above for you.
  2. Please see WP:TALK about how to sign your posts on talk pages by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them.
  3. Please read the messages on your own talk page about editwarring and editing with a conflict of interest. If you are unsure how to find your talk page, that is at User talk:Imcrowley
  4. The scholarly sources *are* already listed in the article content (which you are replacing with an external jump; please read WP:ELNO).
  5. A map cannot source the text you are adding. And we cannot expect our readers to dig through an 1100-page source to verify text. Please provide here on talk a quote of the exact text from page 391 which verifies the text you are adding. I am unable to find this verifying text, and that page crashes before I can reach page 391 (possibly because of its length).
You are edit warring (here, and at Forlorn Hope (disambiguation) and you appear to be editing with a COI at Bob D. Crowley. Please review WP:OWN#Featured articles and develop consensus on talk before reinstating reverted text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I do not mean to wage “war”. Quite the opposite. Apologizes for my Wikipedia protocol ignorance. My expertise lies elsewhere. But on this single fact pertaining to Nisenan not Miwok I am certain, after seven years of related research. The perpetuation of using “Miwok” as the settlement upon which the remaining seven members of Forlorn Hope discovered is traced to King’s novel. He misread (or didnt do his homework) one of his sources, Kroeber (1925) and assumed the settlements were the same tribe as the two, now deceased at this point, guides that were part of the Forlorn Hope, Luis and Salvador; both Miwok. So the error was innocent due to ignorance or sloppy research. Because King was a recognized academic and author, his version “stuck” and many authors and researchers since have simple cut and pasted his version. BUT, during our research we discovered after speaking with both the Miwok and Nisenan tribes, who maintain an Ora, history of this story, that it was a Nisenan settlement(s) not Miwok, that provided food, rest, shelter and guidance to the Folorn Hope to Johnson’s Ranch. So again, I apologize for my Wikipedia ignorance, but stand by the facts and seek assistance in correcting the Donner Party page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imcrowley (talk • contribs) 15:44, March 7, 2021 (UTC)
No problem; learning to edit Wikipedia is not easy. I have again threaded this response and added a signature for you; could you please learn to sign your talk page posts? Think of it this way: if someone tries to read through this discussion two years from now, can they understand who said what when?
At any rate, to add your proposed text, we need a high quality, published reliable source that verifies the content. You being “certain” is not enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot “right great wrongs”; we report what published reliable sources say, and until/unless a scholarly, third party, independent source changes the history, neither can we. If you want to alter the text, we need a high quality, independent, published scholarly source; Wikipedia cannot be the first publisher of your original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, thank you for your guidance and patience. The high quality, independent, published scholarly source (beyond the oral history expressed directly from Nisenan tribal historian) is Smithsonian original and first edition of Kroeber, A.L., 1925 – Handbook of the Indians of California, Digital Commons @CSUMB, Government Documents and Publications, First Nations Era, digital publication, 2019 [2] pages 391-441 (Chapter 27), pages 442-462 (Chapter 30) and page 446 plate 37 and accompanying map key citing Nisenan settlements #49-52 along the Bear and Yuba Rivers in precisely the location of the Forlorn Hope trail followed on their way to Johnson's Ranch in today's Wheatland, CA. In Chapter 27 Kroeber adds, "With the Maidu on their right hand, the Yokuts on the left, Washo and Mono behind them, they (Miwok) lived on the long westward slope of the great Sierra, looking out over the San Joaquin Valley. A few of the Plains Miwok moved into the higher Sierra only for summer residence or hunting." The plate 37 map identified the several southern Maidu settlements (Nisenan) on the Bear and Yuba Rivers.The previous citing is consistent with the oral history conveyed by the Nisenan tribal historical oral history of the region, location of settlements, Maidu and Miwok territories and the story of the Forlorn Hope. I hope this is sufficient to provide the high quality, independent, published scholarly source required?Imcrowley (talk) 20:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
That is synthesis of materials from multiple sources to come to a conclusion not made by any one of them, that is, original research. You are taking one set of sources that have maps and locations and combining them with other sources that talk about the Forlorn Hope group to draw a conclusion that is not in any source. This is classic synthesis, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. A reliable independent third-party scholarly source has to publish that conclusion before we can. Where do you have a source that specifically says the Nisenan were the people involved with the Forlorn Hope group? You don’t have that source because as far as I can tell, no such thing exists. That is an unpublished conclusion that you have drawn. Further, I have now read that source about locations of tribes and it is not as conclusive as you present. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
And by the way, now that all of this has been explained to you, you should self-revert your edits, as the article is now in a damaged state as a result of your edits. Removing that damage would show good faith. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead; it is not the place to publish the results of your own research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, this is not an independent source or a scholarly publication; it is the page about Bob D. Crowley and crew’s trek to retrace the steps. That is, self-published. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. The source(s) I cite, mainly Kroeber, is equivalent pertaining to "scholarly" than most of the most frequent referenced resources across the Donner Party page (i.e. Thornton, King, Rarick, Stewart, Johnson, et al). My sources are the same as these sources, all of which have been consulted and considered, AND Knoeber and the oral accounts from the Native Americans. Are they to be ignored simply because they are not published in a peer reviewed journal? Do they not deserve to be heard and accounted for if the very history being recorded is about them and they themselves dispute it? How does we/wikipedia resolve this dilemma?
I appreciate and understand the lead verses follow role of wikipedia. Fair. But there needs to be continuity when some sources are considered qualifying as "scholarly" or "legitimate" and others which appear to be in the same form of reference - in this case historical and historical fiction - and others not. It seems the playing field is not entirely level.
To be clear, I am not referencing myself or my publications. I am referencing what I found, then researched further to confirm using the very same resources - and more - that are used to construct this page. I cannot find the source(s) for reference to the specific fact I seek audited - mainly Nisenan not Miwok. Can you please point me to the source(s) so I can research?
I think at the very least the matter should be footnoted that there is no proof, beyond "classic synthesis" that is very likely the basis of using "Miwok" not Nisenan" that Miwok is correct. And that it has been researched and suggested that the probability is "equal that it may have been Nisenan". This seems like a fair compromise which both maintains the page integrity yet recognizes that this "fact" is indeed in question and an alternative view, based upon equivalent synthesis is indeed being put forward. I appreciate your thoughts as always. Imcrowley (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Imcrowley yes, Kroeber (the digitalcommons link above) appears to be a scholarly source. You haven’t answered the question: where does Kroeber state that the Nisenan were the Forlorn Hope encounter? It doesn’t. That conclusion is your research: synthesis of sources (and one not independent or scholarly). Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia, but I have already explained this. You don’t agree with the conclusions drawn by the sources that are now in the article; we are not here to right great wrongs, Wikipedia follows the sources, does not lead. I have already explained that. You have asked me to point you to sources that do not exist, because you want to add research that is unpublished by a scholarly source. You are now asking for a footnote which would directly contradict the sources used in the article, without providing any reliable source that substantiates the text you want to add to the footnote. I have already explained that.
There are three possibilities here: 1) I am not explaining Wikipedia policies well, or 2) I am explaining but you are just not understanding, or 3) you aren’t actually reading the pages I am linking. I feel confident that those pages are all written in a way that a reasonably intelligent person, which you clearly are, can understand them. Perhaps Ward20 or Nikkimaria will be able to phrase things in ways that you will understand them. I am concerned that you have an unfortunate history (based on the articles edited exclusively by you like Bob D. Crowley) of misunderstanding how Wikipedia works and what policy-compliant editing allows; for that confusion, I suggest another good article at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Most of your editing has not been policy compliant, but has stood nonetheless; on a Featured article, your edits are not likely to stick unless they conform to policy.
Please read WP:TALK and learn to thread your posts correctly under the post you are responding to; I have had to thread every post you have made to this page, even after multiple reminders. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@Imcrowley, I agree with SandyGeorgia that what you are trying to add to the article is what Wikipedia deems original research. An editor of Wikipedia should not take source A material plus source B material to deduce C material that source A or B did not explicitly state. C material might not be wrong, but that method does not work well for Wikipedia as it would lead to endless conflict of editor opinions which wastes everyone's energy. The policies and guidelines that SandyGeorgia has explained are there to help editors understand the peculiarities of Wikipedia. Understanding them really does help smooth the editing process. So please take a breather to work through them, and it may allow you to understand how to find the reliable sources that support the viewpoint. If the sources aren't available then the viewpoint does not belong on this encyclopedia. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia and @Ward20 thank you both for your guidance, reference material, which I have eagerly consumed, and most importantly patient thoughts. I am indeed a 'newcomer' and appreciate you not biting me. I'm trying, I'm learning but this is neither my area of expertise (obviously), nor a vocation for which I've the skill, like you both. Based upon our discussion:
  1. in good faith deleted the wiki page concerning Bob D. Crowley which I clearly now understand is inappropriate and incongruent with wikipedia policies and guidelines.
  2. after reading all of the recommended materials referenced above and throughout this topic talk page, I have a solid appreciation for 'reliable sources', 'original research' and 'primary sources'
  3. the research I have conducted pertaining to the topic in question has unearthed "some scholarly material (that) may be outdated, in competition with alternative theories..." [quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, 'Some Types of Sources'
  4. The material I have utilized to determine the outdated scholarly material has been a. other scholarly material, b. oral history from Native American Tribes, c. recent published documents which have corrected the outdated scholarly material pertaining to the matter in question. To be clear, my argument is not my opinion or based upon original research
I drop my argument for now that "Miwok" should be replaced with "Nisenan" since all I will be able to reference is recent material from historians and academics using "Nisenan" in articles, books, monographs or research papers that are currently NOT vetted by the scholarly community and the oral history of the Native American tribal historian, the latter for which I'm unable to find any guidance within Wikipedia materials for how to account for oral history as reliable scholarly material.
But does there exist a specific cite from the source(s) utilized within the Donner Party page that states that Miwok were the tribe encountered by the Forlorn Hope at a settlement along the Bear River just northwest of Colfax, CA? @SandyGeorgia you state above. "You have asked me to point you to sources that do not exist, because you want to add research that is unpublished by a scholarly source". I ask you for the source because it is not cited for the fact I am arguing is "outdated". If it does not exist or can be proven outdated (which I willing to cite several articles using "Nisenan" not "Miwok" when referring to this historical encounter if it's not a waste of your time) then...I propose the following:
Replace the reference of "Miwok" with "Native American".
This solution reflects the increasing evidence (albeit yet to be scholarly in publication) that the use of "Miwok" in this instance is at the very least "outdated" and possibly factually incorrect. Can we agree to this minor edit?
I hope and pray I have correctly learned to thread this conversation - you have been very patient and accommodating correcting my naive attempts to communicate :-)Imcrowley (talk) 01:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
You have threaded correctly :) :). Thanks for slowing down and starting to digest policies and guidelines.
You mention in your point 4 c) above that you have “recent published documents which have corrected the outdated scholarly material”. In the next paragraph, you seem to imply you have access to “recent material from historians and academics using ‘Nisenan’ in articles, books, monographs or research papers that are currently NOT vetted by the scholarly community”. I have not seen text in any independent source that you have supplied that states that the Forlorn Hope party stumbled into a Nisenan camp. [3] If you have any such independent reliable source, you have not yet provided it, and I’m pretty sure I checked the entire list you gave. Nor am I able to find any such notion on google, books.google, or scholar.google. If you have any such source, please give the source and quote the exact text here on this page. Unfortunately, we can’t use oral histories; this new piece of scholarship will need to be published before it can be used on Wikipeda.
Johnson p. 62 is the source for the fact that it was a Miwok camp; I am not sure what else you want produced, because Bear River and Colfax are not mentioned, and I’m not seeing why they need to be.
Separately, you ask for a compromise whereby we could just rewrite the text to remove the words MiWok and make the text more generic (I would rewrite the entire paragraph somewhat differently than just replacing MiWok with Native American if we were to go that route). If you could produce even one source (not the website from your own trek) that says that the Forlorn party stumbled into a Nisenan camp, editors here could have a discussion about how to reflect scholarly vs. non-scholarly sources (that is, per WP:UNDUE how much weight to give each viewpoint). But so far you haven’t given a source; you’ve given us original research using one source that has maps which you put together with other sources that have text, to draw a conclusion from the maps about where events described in text occurred, which you say coincides with oral histories from Native Californians. Before we can even contemplate compromise wording, we need a source that backs the wording you suggest; that is the starting point. Honestly, based on what you’ve provided so far, I am not yet convinced that we have any source that shows that Johnson was wrong.
Separately (and not for this page), I am not an admin, but I am not sure you can just have Bob D. Crowley deleted because you do meet notability, the article has existed since 2006, and many editors have edited it. Perhaps Fastily or Sphilbrick will have a look at this entire conversation, and suggest what you might do there. (I am guessing you are saying the three earlier accounts were yours as well.) That your bio has some policy issues does not mean it can just be deleted, but that is not an area I know well. Perhaps Fastily or Sphilbrick, who work in that area, will explain on your talk, or at Talk:Bob D. Crowley, because that conversation doesn’t really belong on this page (recognizing that you made a good faith effort). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I do possess two independent published references which have corrected the outdated scholarly material. One from a notable historian and author of American Pioneer era and specifically the Sierra and Donner Party, the other an independent author for history publications.
  1. Heirloom, December 2020, Donner Summit Historical Society, Bill Oudegeest, page 10 http://www.donnersummithistoricalsociety.org/PDFs/newsletters/news20/December20.pdf herein the pertinent sentence: “January 17 Wm. Eddy arrived at Bear Valley. The seven surviving members of the Forlorn Hope, five women and two men, had been found a few days earlier by Nisenan Indians, a sect of the Maidu Tribe."
  2. Atlas Obscura, Retracing a Donner Party Path, Nearly Two Centuries Later by Erika Mailman, March 8, 2021 https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/donner-route-2020 herein the pertinent sentence: “Tipped off, the two escaped in the night but a week later, Foster tracked them by their bloody footprints and shot them, a well-documented but little talked-of chapter in the tragedy. Assisted by Nisenan Indians in the final stretch, only seven survivors arrived at Johnson’s Ranch.”
At this time, there are no published "scholarly" references I can cite, beyond the above references. There are numerous podcasts, blogs, media interviews that corroborate the above statements but assume they will be be admissible as further evidence. And of course then there's the matter of Native American oral history but you have already covered that ground with an inconclusive "how to" use such references within wikipedia.
I have researched the current reference K. Johnson p. 62 and share the following for consideration:
  1. The specific cite for use of "Miwok" within the wiki page for Donner Party on p.62 of Kristin Johnson's Unfortunate Emigrants is: “The wild and fierce savages who once visited their camps only for the purpose of hostility; who hovered around them upon the way; who shot their cattle, and murdered their companions; who actually stood upon the hills, laughing at their calamity, and mocking as their fear came, now seemed touched with the sight of their misfortunes; and their almost instinc- tive feeling of hostility to the white man, gave place to pity and commisera-tion.73”
  2. The no. 73 footnote reads: "73 The Indians who had plagued the emigrants along the Humboldt were Paiutes; these California Indians were Miwoks, an unrelated people." This I believe is source of the use of "Miwok" within the wiki Donner Party page.
  3. In the first cite above, Ms. Johnson is quoting directly from J. Quinn Thorton's Oregon and California in 1848. (Ms. Johnson's publication is an anthology)
  4. In the second cite above Ms. Johnson has added the footnote herself but does not provide any further reference or basis for doing so. This leaves the question open as to the original primary source to draw such a conclusion that the Native Americans in question were Miwok. The argument of what is currently cited in the Donner Party page is based upon "published scholarly material" may be specious.
  5. Furthermore, I hold K. Johnson is the highest regard for her preponderance of exceptional material pertaining to the Donner Party. But on this small factoid, I believe she may have the fact incorrect, or at the very least outdated based upon new evidence found after her publication went to print. I cannot verify the source for her footnote which has interpreted Quinn's material. I have reached out to Ms. Johnson on serval occasions to query her on this very point but have failed to gain a reply. Indeed Quinn himself refers to the party in question as "Indian village" and "Indians" and no where references "Miwok".
So at the very least I propose rewording the paragraph in question to revert back to the primary source, in this case Thornton and use "Indian village" or "Indian" rather than specifically "Miwok". If you are satisfied with the two independent materials referenced above, both of which use "Nisenan", then I ask that change be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imcrowley (talk • contribs) 16:55, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Imcrowley this looks like material we may be able to work with (I say that not yet having examined it closely), so next I am going to plead for patience. My computer has been stuck in FedEx hell en route to SquareTrade warranty repair in Texas for three weeks (seems laptop keyboards have less of a need for a full cup of caffeine than I do), and I have been doing all of this from an iPad, which is a rather miserable editing experience. The warranty repair was accomplished in less than a day, but FedEx has been a debacle getting it to and fro. Unless FedEx is lying (for the fourth time), my computer may be delivered tonight. If you don’t mind, it would be much easier for me to carefully examine these sources, and propose a rewrite, from a real computer so I don’t have to hunt and peck for half an hour to put something together. Would you mind giving me that time to work on this correctly? Then I would propose the rewrite, and we would also consult with other page editors before installing it, which is a model of Wikipedia collaboration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Looking a bit at those sources, your next task on the Wikipedia learning curve will be understand how we evaluate reliability of sources. It appears that Atlas Obscura is a wiki: https://www.atlasobscura.com/faq. That is, anyone can contribute, so it is not likely a reliable source. Anyone can add material to it. It is user-generated content, not reliable. We can’t use it at all. UNLESS. You can establish via Wikipedia’s policy on self-published sources that the author of that particular entry is “an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications”. Please read SPS carefully, as I have similar questions regarding your first source. The historical society is not peer reviewed material. The editor of the publication is Oudegeest but the author is Tim Twietmeyer. How do they meet WP:SPS?
With your analysis of Johnson, though, we are moving closer to being able to drop the “Miwok” usage ... need to look closer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes of course. Your patience has been deserving of waiting for as long as needed...and more. No worries. My goal isn't speed, just accuracy, albeit I'd like to wrap this up, whatever decided, in a reasonably timely manner as we've both got other things to do for sure. Hope your computer arrives as hoped.
Here is bio for Obscura article author, E. Mailman: https://erikamailman.com/about-erika/; I'm in no position to judge credentials but she is a published author (6 books)and her research before writing the article was extremely thorough based upon her interview with me and reaching out into the Native American community for fact checking.
The first source, Mr. Oudegeest (BTW, the article I referenced was written by him, not Tim Twietmeyer) could meet the SPS standard reference ["established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."] I'll let you be the judge. He is a very highly regarded subject-matter expert for certain, particularly in the realm of American Pioneer era, with a specialty in the Sierra Mountain region - which is precisely the context of the history of the Forlorn Hope and their encounter with the Native American settlement. Amongst those that that are "Donner-ite's", Mr. Oudegeest is considered an important historian peer and has reviewed nearly every Donner book ever written.
Regardless, I'm hopeful my presented logic for dropping "Miwok" per the Johnson reference is adequate to justify the rewriting of the paragraph sans "Miwok". I'm going to rely on a judgement call from y'all on using Nisenan. I know it's correct but the stringent required documentation for wiki is not available at this time, and "other stuff exists" is a non-starter argument along with it optically looking like it's original reference from me (for the record it isn't just me!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imcrowley (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Re Erika, she is a novelist; I am not seeing any indication that she meets WP:SPS ... subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Being a published novelist does not meet any of that for this content area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Re Oudegeest, this page makes it hard for me to determine the author of the particular statement. I see Oudegesst as the editor, and I see I erroneously got the Twietmeyer from the first page. At any rate, to meet WP:SPS, you can’t just tell us either of them is a subject-matter expert who has been published in other reliable publications; you need to provide those independent reliable publications for us to examine. (Computer arrived, doesn’t work ... grrrrrrrrrr ). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I've no further independent reliable publications for you to examine at this time.
My case for change therefore, remains on the above referenced lack of source citing for the K. Johnson footnote (beyond her as an original sources which by definition is not allowable) which is the core source of the insertion of "Miwok" into the page. Sorry about your computer...Imcrowley (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
I will try to dig in to that tomorrow, apologies for my computer situation, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal re Miwok

Ward20 having looked over all the sources in this discussion, and looked for old and new sources myself, I continue to conclude that we just don't have reliable sources to switch Miwok to Nisenan. We have maps (and more can be found, which make a convincing case that the Miwok just were not that far to the north-east, while the Nisenan were), but nothing we can do without WP:SYNTH.

On the other hand, I cannot come up with any sources strong enough to refute Imclowley's position at 16:55, 9 March 2021 about the strength of the claim based on one footnote from Johnson. It is only a footnote, and I can find no credible source that makes me think we would be remiss in switching "Miwok" to just "Native American". There are some newer sources that still say they were MiWok, but those are generally children's books (not scholarly) that may have relied on this article or Johnson's footnote to make the statement. And that's about it. While we would have to wait for published literature to make the claim they were Nisenan, that doesn't mean we have to continue to say they were Miwok based on one footnote.

Are there other editors we should consult ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Current Proposed
On January 12, the group stumbled into a Miwok camp looking so deteriorated that the camp's inhabitants initially fled. The Miwoks gave them what they had to eat: acorns, grass, and pine nuts.[1] After a few days, Eddy continued on with the help of a Miwok to a ranch in a small farming community at the edge of the Sacramento Valley.[2][3] A hurriedly assembled rescue party found the other six survivors on January 17. Their journey from Truckee Lake had taken 33 days.[4][5] On January 12, the group stumbled into a Native American settlement looking so deteriorated that the inhabitants initially fled, but eventually shared what they had to eat: acorns, grass, and pine nuts.[1] After a few days, Eddy continued on with the help of tribe members to a ranch in a small farming community at the edge of the Sacramento Valley.[6][7] A hurriedly assembled rescue party found the other six survivors on January 17. Their journey from Truckee Lake had taken 33 days.[4][8]

References

  1. ^ a b Johnson, p. 62.
  2. ^ Stewart, pp. 142–148.
  3. ^ Johnson, pp. 63–64.
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Rarick, p. 142 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Stewart, p. 149.
  6. ^ Stewart, pp. 142–148.
  7. ^ Johnson, pp. 63–64.
  8. ^ Stewart, p. 149.

Imcrowley I am good will the above suggested change. Imcrowley (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Will wait to hear from Ward20, who has followed the article more continuously than I have. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
I have to admit I haven't extensively researched this topic, but what I found would indicate that the sources point more toward 'Native American' vs 'Miwok'. I am wiped tonight but will try to post more tomorrow with the sources I found, and possible compromise wording to deal with the uncertainty. Ward20 (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Ward20; Imcrowley, it is preferable to wait for all parties to make proposals and get it right in one shot. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
100% agree @SandyGeorgia and thank you @Ward20 Imcrowley (talk) 15:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Attempting to begin building a case for Nisenan not Miwok for the future, with an understanding that for now, we may be only comfortable with reverting to a more generic "Native American", here are some additional resources we used as we researched the Forlorn Hope that are worthy of capturing in this thread:
  1. https://www.rocklin.ca.us/sites/main/files/file-attachments/4.8_cultural_resources__sw_7-7_.pdf
  2. https://www.forlornhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Nisenan-Wilson-and-Towne.pdf [4]
The above references further the argument that, based upon the location of the Forlorn Hope encounter with several "Native American settlements along the Bear River, southwest of Colfax...", it very likely the tribe encountered were Nisenan, the southern sect of the Maidu. This conclusion is based upon:
  1. geography - Nisenan occupied the western Sierra foothills for foraging and hunting, always with ample access to water, flora and fauna. The path taken by the Forlorn Hope was along the Bear River located in the western foothills of the Sierra between Colfax and Wheatland. There are no accounts of Miwok occupying this territory ("occupying" = settlement). However, there is ample evidence that Nisenan had numerous settlements in this area.
  2. time of year - Miwok were predominantly valley dwellers and were reported to have been seen in the Sierra foothills only in the summer months, never in the winter for lack of skill in managing in the cold and finding ample food through winter foraging techniques. The Nisenan however, were skilled at living in the cold and remained in the Sierra foothills year-round. The Forlorn Hope encountered the settlements in January.
  3. oral history - the Nisenan oral history of the Forlorn Hope encounter sustains it was Nisenan, not Miwok settlements.
To date there are no secondary, scholarly sources published to substantiate the above presumptions. Hopefully, this will be corrected in the future and therefore, enable us to without hesitation alter the text to reflect the more recent findings pertaining to this bit of history with apropos references.Imcrowley (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
Imcrowley, staying on topic is more effective on Wikipedia, so sections don't grow unnecessarily long. This is a distraction for now, but the first source you list never uses the words "Forlorn Hope" or "Donner Party"; again, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Please remember we are all volunteers, have already spent an inordinate amount of time on something for which there are no sources, and take a hard look at how far the welcome mat extends when one has so much more work to do on other articles; I type this with friendly intent, but also with concern that you have still not understood the gist of SYNTHesis and why these sources are completely unusable, and that reintroducing them here just garbles what was a new and clean proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I mean no harm and completely understand the protocols, in large part thanks to you. I also understand that the talk threads are permanent and act as a historical record and reference for future possible modifications. Therefore, I added the above not to garble the standing clean proposal, but to leave behind a trail for future investigation. I return to sustaining the above clean proposal. I do not wish to create unnecessary work, just a trail. And agree the amount of time and effort dedicated to this topic is tremendous, and seeks a conclusion forthwith. Imcrowley (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Having read this entire thread, I support removing mention of the Miwok in favor of Native American at this time. By coincidence, I frequently drive from Colfax north and across the Bear River to visit my son and granddaughter who live near Grass Valley. I will look at the area with a new perspective next time. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:56, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I am going on an early weekend jaunt, so as soon as Ward20 weighs in (unless they have something contradictory), someone could make the changes without waiting for me. I do think we should wait for Ward, though, so we don’t end up with unnecessary back and forth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
There appear to be two ambiguities in this section, Native American vs Miwok, and January 10th vs 12th for the village encounter. I have put the sources and links I have found in a table which can be added to if necessary. The sources A-G are somewhat presently cited by the section. (The Stanford Edition is not cited but carries both conflicting dates in the Editor's forward).
Source Village description attributed to Village encounter date
A) McGlashan, 11th edition p. 109 [5] Indian rancherie NA NA
B) McGlashan, 1947 Stanford edition, Editor's Foreword pp. xii,xiii,xxxvi [6] [7] Indian rancherie NA pp. xii,xiii - Jan 10, xxvi - Jan 12
C) Stewart, p. 147 [8] Indian village NA NA
D) Johnson, p. 62 [9] Indian village, rancheria, note 73: these Indians were Miwoks J. Quinn Thornton January 10
E) Johnson, p. 121 [10] where Indians lived Mary Ann Graves January 9
F) Johnson, p. 151 [11] rancherie, of Digger Indians Eliza W. Farnham NA
G) Rarick, p. 142 [12] Miwok Indian village NA NA
H) Eliza P. Donner Houghton, Chapter ix [13] Indian village NA tenth of January
I) McNeese, p. 91 [14] American Indian village NA NA
J) Bryant, p. 255 [15] fell in with some of the Indians John Sinclair January 12
I would suggest that based upon the sources above Native American village be used and January 10 be used. I think a footnote should be added to attribute the publications stating the Native Americans could have been Miwok or Digger. Ward20 (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Nice work sorting the date, which was a mystery to me, and I thought it was from a source I was missing. I agree with correcting the date. Considering that the preponderance of sources do not label the Indian village as Miwok, I am wondering why we need to footnote it. If we do footnote it to Miwok or Digger, would we not then have to expand the footnote to indicate also what all of the other sources call it, indicating that while most call it an Indian vilage (cite, cite, cite, cite, etc), two call it Miwok and one calls it Digger? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, Ranchería is useful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I would say the other sources use a generic term for Native american village or Ranchería if that is used. The footnote would specify a descrete people so that the reader or another editor might want to investigate further. I'm not fussed if no footnote is decided upon. Ward20 (talk) 05:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I’m happy with either the word settlement or village (settlement feels more authentic to me), so we don’t have to introduce a new Spanglish term that is never used again in the article. If we footnote the people (not sure we need to), then I would opt for a full accounting in the footnote (most sources say Indian followed by those citations; Johnson says Miwok per Thornton or Digger per Farnham; Rarick says Miwok); that is, I don’t want to appear to preference Miwok in the footnote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that works fine. I just looked up what the defintition is of a Digger Indian. It was used as a term for many tribes that were in CA. It more often pertained to the Maidu which lived close to the Miwok. The footnote could always come at a later time I suppose. Ward20 (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
I am iPad typing, so will leave it to you to install ... village, settlement, either, but camp felt anglicized to me, and settlement feels more native ... but don’t care either way. Fixing the date and removing Miwok for now would be a good start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Charles Fayette McGlashan was not an academic but instead a 19th century tabloid journalist well-known as a virulent racist who openly advocated for using Ku Klux Klan tactics against Chinese immigrants. He is the opposite of a reliable source. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that McGlashan is being added as a source. McGlashan is already being used as a source in the article, and this discussion is just comparing what he wrote compared with the other authors. Many of the other authors also use him as a source in any case so I am not sure what there is to discuss, besides, yes he was a racist. Ward20 (talk) 05:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Please refrain from referring to Native American Indians as “diggers”. It’s as derogatory as another word that rhymes with it for another race. It’s not a tribe or sect but used to justify the removal of the tribes as “ignoble savages” [ https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6qq09790]

As for the date, for what it’s worth, having just spent seven years researching the entire Forlorn Hope trail, along which the settlement encounter(s) [yes there were several, not just one] occurred, and then reprising the entire route on foot in December, 2020 we (the collective body of researchers, historians, reprisers), based upon the conflicting accounts and dates from several credible resources (as evidenced in table above and several more sources not cited above), reconstructing the series of daily events of the entire 33 day journey and then confirming by applying logic and practicality in the field (which had never been done by any of the previous sources including Thornton, Sinclair, Rarick, King, Johnson, Bryant, McGlashan, Brown, Rosen, Reed, Farnham, Kaufman, et al - with exception of Stewart who did physically visit a portion of the Forlorn Hope trail but not the section in question) that January 12th, 1847 is the correct date for the first Native American Indian settlement encounter. It would have been physically impossible to be January 10th based upon the evidence and now having reprised the route in it’s entirety in the field. This revised information has NOT been published (yet) in an academic journal given the recency of the reprise (December, 2020). But since January 12th is already in use in the Donner Party page, I’d suggest leaving it be as future publications will sustain this date. Imcrowley (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Fiddlesticks, now the date, too. Ward20, I am a bit hamstrung by iPad editing, will be home tomorrow. Would like to completely avoid a footnote then so we don’t have to deal with “digger”, ugh. The problem wih the date is bigger ... even Johnson doesn’t list it as the 12th, so it is unclear how it came to be the 12th in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, no I don't want to deal with the insensitivity of the 'digger' word either. Imcrowley, I made the table so that it would be easy to add WP:RSs for conflicting source material. The only source I have seen for the 12th is the McGlashan 1947 edition in the Editor's foreward section. Even that lists the 10th and the 12th as dates for the village encounter. Are there other WP:RSs that can be added to indicate that the 12th is what should be in the article? If not, I don't know of any other documentation for keeping the 12th. Ward20 (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
John Sinclair recounting William Eddy's journey (only journal kept by a Forlorn Hope member): "On the tenth and eleventh they made about seventeen miles, when falling in with an Indian trail, they concluded they would follow it, which they accordingly did. And on the twelfth, fell in with some of the Indians, who treated them kindly, gave them some acorns, ..." This is as primary and reliable source available concerning the Forlorn Hope because the interview of Eddy by Sinclair was conducted soon after the conclusion of the Forlorn Hope journey ended at Johnson's Ranch [John Sinclair, Alcalde of Northern California wrote a statement in February, 1847, based on several conversations with the survivors and from a few notes handed me by W. H. Eddy.... Sinclair’s statement was first published in Edwin Bryant’s What I Saw in California (1848); also from wiki Donner Party Timeline page: "January 29, 1847: While recuperating, Eddy has dictated a letter which has been carried to John Sinclair, the alcalde (magistrate) of the Sacramento district. Sinclair alerts others in the area and on this day writes a letter to his colleague Washington A. Bartlett, alcalde of San Francisco."] reference for these letters written by Sinclair: http://pdf.oac.cdlib.org/pdf/berkeley/bancroft/mcb84_cubanc.pdf, folder Nos. 2, 14-17, (9-10, 30-37), Sinclair, John. 5 letters to George McKinstry. Alcalde's Office, Sacramento District, 1846-1848. Imcrowley (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Imcrowley. What page does Sinclair’s statement published in Edwin Bryant’s What I Saw in California (1848) appear on? I seached for Sinclair and only found one mention on page 131 in Chapter XVI, and the chapter was about gold. I saw nothing about Eddy. Ward20 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
pg 255 here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/What_I_Saw_in_California_Being_the_Journ/SB5HAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover Imcrowley (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I got the Kindle edition, and they deleted chapter xx onward with this part in it and didn't indicate the omission as far as I could determine. Ward20 (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Shall we change “On January 10, the group stumbled into” to something generic (Several days later ... After several more days ... Later ... ) and footnote that, with citations saying some sources say the 10th, others say the 12th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, At this point I believe your suggestion is the best resolution. Sinclair's details of the event does not closely correlate with some other sources so I am not keen on using that source alone for the 12th. Rechecking Johnson's book, pg 130, the May 1847 letter from Mary Ann Graves specifies "...we got out of the snow and came where Indians lived. Thence we subsisted nine days on acorns when we obtained relief from the settlements, being the 18th of January." That is actually the 9th of January. Her's is a 1st person account (the only one I have read I think), that was recent to the event so I hesitate to discount the earlier dates vs the 12th at this time. Another matrix might be set up to evaluate the dates and distances covered, and accuracy of the other events described by present and unknown sources to evaluate the WP:Weight to give them. (Johnson details some sources I have not researched presently.) But that will take some time I don't have right now. Ward20 (talk) 16:05, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Agree; we can't just ignore weight, and we don't have sources to get out ahead on this. A footnote seems the best compromise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposal re Jan 10 v Jan 12

Based upon the material presented, and utilizing the most compelling evidence (first-person account from Eddy via his diary and subsequent interview with Sinclair, published by Bryant - all previously cited reliable academic sources throughout the Donner Party page, I propose the following (which sustains @Ward20 proposal above, repeated here for convenience):

Current Proposed
On January 12, the group stumbled into a Miwok camp looking so deteriorated that the camp's inhabitants initially fled. The Miwoks gave them what they had to eat: acorns, grass, and pine nuts.[1] After a few days, Eddy continued on with the help of a Miwok to a ranch in a small farming community at the edge of the Sacramento Valley.[2][3] A hurriedly assembled rescue party found the other six survivors on January 17. Their journey from Truckee Lake had taken 33 days.[4][5] On January 12, the group stumbled into a Native American settlement looking so deteriorated that the inhabitants initially fled, but eventually shared what they had to eat: acorns, grass, and pine nuts.[1] After a few days, Eddy continued on with the help of tribe members to a ranch in a small farming community at the edge of the Sacramento Valley.[6][7] A hurriedly assembled rescue party found the other six survivors on January 17. Their journey from Truckee Lake had taken 33 days.[4][8]

References

  1. ^ a b Johnson, p. 62.
  2. ^ Stewart, pp. 142–148.
  3. ^ Johnson, pp. 63–64.
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Rarick, p. 142 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Stewart, p. 149.
  6. ^ Stewart, pp. 142–148.
  7. ^ Johnson, pp. 63–64.
  8. ^ Stewart, p. 149.

Imcrowley (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We can't just disregard all the other sources; I support this revision (and appreciate all of your help, Imcrowley). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
👍 and thank you both for the wiki-education. This bull now delicately tiptoes out of the wiki-china shop with apologizes for any breakage ;-) https://www.forlornhope.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/51DA7916-8A6B-4D8D-A3B3-F835C3F4DBB9.jpeg Imcrowley (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Imcrowley now that you're a Wikipedian, you should stick around and help out! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bibliography question

Small point, I'm still trying to find new sources. While investigating under the present Bibliography I found Johnson's Unfortunate Emigrants: Narratives of the Donner Party link downloads directly full text. At the same site there is also an e-version link that allows the reader to select download. On another article I worked on it was stated that a selectable link was preferable. Does anyone know if there is guidence on this? Ward20 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

If you will put the links here, I will ping those who may know (don't want them to have to go digging). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Direct download:
  • Johnson, Kristin (ed.)(1996). Unfortunate Emigrants: Narratives of the Donner Party, Utah State University Press. ISBN 0-87421-204-9
Selectable download:
Ward20 (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria and Ealdgyth: do you have an opinion re this query? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Nobody asked me, but the selectable download page has a recommended citation that says:
Johnson, Kristin, "Unfortunate Emigrants" (1996). All USU Press Publications. 100.
https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/usupress_pubs/100
I used to manage pubs for a couple of research projects at a university. There, we found it to be a best practice to have a landing page that had a link to the pdf. One reason was that if there was an update to the paper, then we could easily add another link to the landing page for the newer version of the paper. In addition, as paper formats get updated, the link to the download can change - we had lots of PostScript files that were eventually migrated to PDF. Of course, an even better practice is to use a DOI which can be retargeted as URLs migrate between systems. Cxbrx (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
If there were to be an update in future we would want to check that the new version continues to support the text cited to it. With that in mind, I'm not aware of any policies favouring one or the other, and don't have a personal preference between the two. The landing page may be more stable, but linking the PDF would allow for specific page links. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Good points about referring to the specific document instead of a possibly updated document. Even better would be to refer to the archive.org version of a document from a specific date. However, in general that seems to be rarely done. One good thing about referring to the PDF directly is that it will definitely be picked up by archive.org fairly promptly, whereas a landing page might possibly not have its outgoing links archived by archive.org. These days for my own research elsewhere I tend to submit items to archive.org if I think I may want access to them later. Thanks for the tip about referring linking to a specific page in a PDF, I did not know that was possible. It seems to me that either approach is correct and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Cxbrx (talk) 15:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
I have no preference either, so I don't think it should be changed for its own sake. Not changed. Ward20 (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

More questions

Several sources state the ages of the individuals are calculated from the start date of the journey. Is that the convention of this article, and if so should a footnote be added?

This brings up another question. Kristin Johnson has information I have not found in other sources on her website. Could that be used as a source since WP:RSSELF, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ward20 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Do not know the answer to the ages question, would not object to using Johnson's website for uncontroversial info per WP:SPS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
To explore the age issue further, some of the party have no source for month and day of birth so it would be difficult to have any blanket note or convention about the ages at the beginning or later down the trail. Having the stated ages supported or attributed to sources in the appropriate section is probably the best that can be achieved. Ward20 (talk)

WP:URFA/2020

There are some cleanup needs here for the ongoing WP:URFA/2020 effort.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

When did this article take on so much uncited text? Or did content get moved so that material was separated from citations? A featured article review will be needed unless content can be cited :(. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Don't know, but looking over the material, at least half should be easy to source. Ward20 (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yount

An SPA re-inserting this content, which looks WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yount did make preparations that helped provision the second relief, and reportedly told Reed at their meeting around December that he had done so due to dreams about some of the deprivations that the party was going through. Trying to attribute it to devine premonition appears to be superstition that could have been Yount's personality and some promotion from a book by The Rev. Horace Bushnell. [16] (Start on pg 63.) I think Yount's help, and his dream that motivated him is noteworthy, but should be limited in scope to approx:
"Around the time the first relief party was being organized, nearby California settler and patriarch George C. Yount had likely previously heard of the plight of the Donner Party, and had distressing dreams of a struggling group of starving pioneers in deep snow. Yount, Vallejo and others then raised five hundred dollars to send out a rescue party.[1]
Ward20 (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Also came across another interesting source, Researcher’s Guide to Sutter’s Fort’s Collections of Donner Party Material. Ward20 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Camp, Charles L. and Yount, George C. (April 1923). "The Chronicles of George C. Yount: California Pioneer of 1826" California Historical Society Quarterly 2 (1) pp. 63–64.
I would support that much, as more reasonable than the lengthy UNDUE focus on one person’s dreams that we now have. Your suggestion is well written, provides context, and discusses the dreams without giving such undue attention to them. I will look over the new source tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
[April 1 - Hello folks - Please excuse my informality as I am not familiar with the protocols here. I think this last edit is fine, again I say I learned about the Yount-Donner Party connection from two books by Richard Henry Dana, Jr., a very respected author. Dana, whether superstitious or not, found Yount's dream interesting, as did Rev. Horace Bushnell and probably the press at the time, since Dana calls it his 'celebrated' dream. It is inscribed on Yount's tombstone in Yountville, California. Vallejo verified it. He had a dream and it inspired him. Members of the Donner Party were saved because of the dream. As a reader of Dana I came here to see if Yount had been given credit, or even mentioned. Since he hadn't I found three sources to support the story, including the 1928 references to survivors corroborating the dream story.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivartshiva (talk • contribs) 03:22, April 2, 2021 (UTC)
Ivartshiva, you can sign your talk page posts by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. The talk page protocols are explained at WP:TALK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
The assertion that George C. Yount's dreams are "inscribed on Yount's tombstone in Yountville, California" is incorrect. I live in the Napa Valley and have visited Yountville many times. I mostly wrote Harry Yount, who was his nephew and it's a Good article, and I have read quite a bit about the Yount family.
Yount's actual grave marker, which is an obelisk, is engraved with his name, birth date, death date, and age at death. Nothing else. And then there is a 1959 historical marker placed by the California State Park Commission in cooperation with the Native Sons of the Golden West and affiliated organizations. That marker has a bit more detail, although it is presented in hagiographic fashion. However, neither of these markers say anything at all about Yount's alleged dreams about the Donner Party. As for Richard Henry Dana Jr., his famous journey which included a lot of time in California, took place from 1834 to 1836. His writings are a primary source and are fascinating, but I fail to see how he is relevant regarding events that took place over ten years after he left California. To the best of my knowledge, Dana never returned to California after 1836. If Yount heard of the disaster and then had bad dreams when rescue efforts were being organized, then that is both understandable and trivial. But the notion that Yount had such dreams before receiving reports of the catastrophe is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I see no such evidence. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328, are you suggesting that the sources are unreliable and we should completely remove all mention, or are you happy with the reduced text that is there now? I did not follow this article closely for many years, and am dismayed to find how hard it is to maintain without Moni3, so please pardon me for not being fully up to speed. What is your recommendation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, I was wrong about Dana not returning to California. He did come back in 1859 and that is when he repeated Yount's story about his dreams. I do not object to the current wording, but I strongly object to any mystical content that claims that Yount had his dreams without any knowledge of the plight of the Donner group. An editor above claims that "Members of the Donner Party were saved because of the dream." No, they were saved because Yount and other people organized rescue efforts under wartime conditions in a very remote area. I, too, am not fully up to speed. I have not studied this topic in depth, but I do want baloney to be kept out of this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
We may need to all follow more closely; the last few discussions here have been similar (and exhausting), and I would hate to see Moni3’s work end up at FAR because of POV and UNDUE insertions. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
On this matter, we should take a close look at the sequence of events. It is well known that James F. Reed made his way to the safety of what is now Yuba County by late October and was soon recovering at Sutter's Fort in what is now Sacramento shortly thereafter. Reed then went to San Jose where he stayed until February trying desperately to organize a rescue effort. As the months went by, newspapers in the San Jose area were already speculating about cannibalism. The rescue party that Reed motivated departed from the Sacramento valley area in early February and arrived at Donner Lake on February 18. The second relief party organized by Yount arrived on March 1, 11 days later. The Napa Valley where Yount lived is much closer to Donner Lake than San Jose is, and Yount knew Mariano Vallejo very well. Vallejo was extremely well connected and well informed. News spread much more slowly than today but certainly news spread from Sacramento to the Napa Valley and San Jose in a few days as opposed to over three months. The notion that many winter months went by, and that Yount never heard the reports that Reed had brought, and that he was motivated by three random dreams instead of increasingly alarming reports is utterly bizarre. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe the citation used in the article[17] for the present revision[18] agrees with Cullen328's analysis. The cited secondary source is Charles Lewis Camp's presentation of Yount's written reminiscences, with Camp's notations, and material from other sources to put his reminiscences in perspective. Camp speculates Yount heard of the stranded party previously and he doesn't present any indication or evidence that the dream was prior to hearing about the party. Camp wrote that Reed talked with Yount about the party at his ranch in December. Yount told him, "My God, Mr. Reed, that's an interpretation of my dream! I saw a body of water, a caravan with women and children all just as thin as they could be. There was one tall woman with many children. Mr. Reed, it must have been your wife.". That seems a tall leap to a generic dream of a snowbound camp at Donner lake. Yount and other principal sources claim his dreams were influental in the consideration for the relief party, but that is as far as Camp indicates IMO. (pp. 63-64) Camp seems to have better scholar credentials on this region and era than Horace Bushnell and Dana. I also found Hubert Howe Bancroft's History of California. 1884-90 denies Yount's dream story was factual.[19] Ward20 (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Excessive detail

Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, a Wikipedia article "should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". This article includes excessive details that would likely interest only a very particular sort of reader, and should be condensed such that it comprises a succinct summary, rather than a comprehensive retelling, of this event. References and external links direct readers to more detailed sources. @Nikkimaria: you're welcome to engage in discussion here. Dylanvt (talk) 18:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a featured article - that doesn't mean it's perfect, but it does mean the article (including substantively the same prose) has received scrutiny from the community and been judged to have met the FA criteria. I don't agree that significant condensing is necessary. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
It was reviewed 12 years ago. And besides, being featured doesn’t mean it’s infallible. Dylanvt (talk) 00:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
As I said. But also as I said, much of the text is the same as when it was reviewed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Washoe assistance

There appears to be no mention whatsoever about Washoe attempts to assist the party (not surprisingly given their exclusion from most reporting), but I don't have time to dig for more than this: Native Americans tried to help the starving Donner Party, research shows. They faced gunshots. - NiD.29 (talk) 23:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Pioneers is an incorrect, outdated term

All definitions of "pioneer" suggest the term is "first settler." The Donner Party were not the first settlers of anywhere and should not be called pioneers. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

From Pioneer: In the United States pioneer commonly refers to an American pioneer, a person in American history who migrated west to join in settling and developing new areas. The Donner Party would certainly meet that definition, no? –CWenger (^ • @) 16:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Some better definitions here, which emphasize "firstness." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pioneer. They were migrants following an established pattern. They were not "pioneers" except in that way that elementary schools used to refer to everyone who came over on the Mayflower as "pilgrims" when many had little religious beliefs. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't have strong feelings about keeping "pioneers" but how does one define firstness? Is it the very first person to take that route? Migrants in the first year only? Anyway, I think "American pioneer" is not as strict and encompasses early settlers in the West. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It risks offending Native Americans who were much earlier inhabitants. Let's please get rid of it. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@Aynrandspeaks What alternate term do you propose that is in reasonably common use and makes clear who they were? —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
What's wrong with the more precise edits I just made? Families and individuals? Migrants? Why have an abstract values-laden label like "pioneers" at all? Please revert the reversion of my edits. Exactitude is best. Pioneers is a values-laden term when they were not "pioneers" -- they were not the first in any way and there were plenty of individuals already living wherever the Donner Party roamed. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@CWenger However, American pioneers links to an article to provide context. Your edit eliminates that context. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@C.Fred: wrong person; think you meant @Aynrandspeaks. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
(@CWenger Yep, sorry, getting used to the automatic-ish pinger in the new reply window.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I just started editing the American Pioneers entry -- thank you @C.Fred for pointing it out. It should not be linked to until the American Pioneers page acknowledges the existence and suffering of Native Americans equally to the outdated "pioneer" myth. Do you see now why I want to stay away from it altogether? It just isn't necessary. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
It's more meaningful than "families and individuals". Agree with C.Fred that the context is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Pioneers" is as meaningful as "invaders," which would be the Native American view. "Families and individuals" does not take sides. Do you really want to take sides? I don't. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Families and individuals" is a bit of an Easter egg to be the text attached to the link "American pioneers", though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
The American Pioneers is now sourced to include anti-Native American understanding. There is no need to link to that page from the Donner page. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Not going to revert, but I'm not sure why those changes affect whether or not we should link to American pioneer from this page. The Donner Party was certainly anti-Native American. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree with CWenger. By not linking, we focus on the migrants so exclusively that we neglect the impact on Native Americans. Leaving out the mention of American pioneers and link back to the article because it "risks offending Native Americans" would be akin to saying that the abuses of the American Indian boarding schools are so horrific that it's best to never mention them to avoid offence. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Mention of double murder in lead section

Currently, the lead section says:

Some of the migrants resorted to cannibalism to survive, eating the bodies of those who had succumbed to starvation, sickness, and extreme cold.

I've added at the end of that sentence:

, and killing two young Native American men for the purpose of eating their flesh.((ref: Johnson, pp. 62, 130.))

CWenger has reverted this change, commenting: "I don't think this belongs in the lead, and certainly not the first paragraph". I humble disagree and request that this change be reinstated, though I'm certainly open to alternative wordings, if anyone has good suggestions. The double murder for food is not disputed and it's already covered in the article itself, in the section on "The Forlorn Hope". But the lead section currently mistakenly suggests that only the corpses of those who had died of more or less natural reasons were eaten – which is clearly false and therefore a distortion of the historical record. A double murder is not a trivial matter that can be conveniently "forgotten". It clearly belongs in the lead. Gawaon (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This belongs in the lead. As recently as three months ago, historians discussing the Donner party emphasized the double murder.[20] It's in the literature and it's critically important to the narrative. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I put the addendum back. I also added that the killing was deliberate. People need to be made aware of this. I understand that there is need for discussion over topics of contention. This is not a contended fact. It is stated clearly in Johnson's notes and is a significant fact in the history of this event. If we can mention the Hastings Cutoff we can mention the murder of two young men! Padillah (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if anybody is disputing the killing of the two Native Americans (I certainly am not). I am torn about whether it should be mentioned in the lead. I think it currently seems very awkwardly shoved into the first paragraph, although it does need to be modified to reflect that the cannabalism was not restricted to those who died naturally. I suggest it be added to the third paragraph after (or as part of) the sentence about the Forlorn Hope. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it fits well enough at the end of the first paragraph, since that's where the cannibalism was already covered. Cannibalism isn't even mentioned again in the lead. Gawaon (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I didn't place it in the first paragraph for sake of the fact that "it needs to be in the first paragraph". I put it in the sentence that mentions the cannibalism. Why is it acceptable to mention that people died from "... starvation, sickness, and extreme cold..." but clunky to mention they died from being deliberately killed?
If there is a better way to phrase this - I'm all for it. But it needs to be right alongside the other reasons people died. I cannot support this fact being either singled-out or even deferential to the other manners of death. If anything, it should be rather easy to argue the deliberate killing of a person needs to be given preferential treatment over other types of passing.
I am trying not to be "activist" about this, but the push-back in respect to the ending a person's life is getting untenable.
Padillah (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Wolfinger was murdered also but there's no push to add that to the lead. My issue with it being in the first paragraph is, like it or not, the broad overview of the Donner Party always mentions cannabilism but rarely (if ever) the killing of the two Native Americans. Perhaps that's not right, but it shouldn't be our mission to correct that. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, is there reason to believe Wolfinger was killed in order to eat him? If so then we need to expand the lead to include his murder as well. I don't want to get into a discussion or defense surrounding why the killings were glossed over in lieu of the cannibalism but you are right, we need to correct that. This topic is notable for the cannibalism so that remains our lead paragraph. If a death (deliberate or not) can be directly linked to the cannibalism that should be in the lead paragraph as well. Padillah (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
No, Wolfinger was killed earlier and not for nourishment. In any case I feel better about mentioning the two Native Americans now that the wording is more natural (in my opinion). –CWenger (^ • @) 21:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm also satisfied with the current wording, so I think we're good here. Thanks everyone! Gawaon (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Padillah, I've undone your little grammar change since I don't think it's actually an improvement. An abbreviated parse of the current (and old) version reads (adding parentheses for clarity): "[They] resorted to cannibalism to survive, (eating [some bodies] and deliberately killing [two people])." So "eating" and "killing" are parallel to each other and both dependent from "cannibalism". I think you wanted to make the "killing" dependent from "resorted" instead, but I'd say that makes less sense since the killing/murder was directly motivated by the cannibal intent. Also, your version was missing a "to" or similar. Let's discuss this if you're not satisfied, but I think the current version should be fine. Gawaon (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the help. I think @CWenger's changes are much clearer. They look like a list of lists. There are two types of people they ate: one set that died for "reason one" and "reason two"; and one set that was killed deliberately.
Does that read correctly for you?
Padillah (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donner_Party/Archive_4&oldid=1227399792"