Talk:Lewis and Clark Expedition

NPOV

Tobby72 placed the NPOV designation on the article.[[1]] I'm not sure why, though I've asked for a reason on his talk page so whatever problems can be addressed. Ebanony (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The editors are supposed to adopt a “neutral point of view” (WP:NPOV). I'm having problem with the following sentences: [2], [3]

"Its goal was to establish U.S. sovereignty over the tribes along the Missouri River, open trade and claim the rights of "discovery" to the Pacific Northwest and Oregon territory before the British." Voyage of Domination, "Purchase" as Conquest, Sakakawea for Savagery: Distorted Icons from Misrepresentations of the Lewis and Clark Expedition", James Fenelon, Mary Defender-Wilson. Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, American Indian Encounters with Lewis and Clark (Spring, 2004), pp. 90-1

"The Lakota nation (whom the Americans called Sioux or "Teton-wan Sioux") did not welcome the visitors, and refused to be placed under American colonial control. Lewis and Clark wrote about them as "savage and warlike" for defending their rights as an independent nation. The soldiers carried gifts, weapons, flags and medals, and distributed them to symbolize U.S. colonial rule over the inhabitants, and displayed their military firepower to ensure the nations would submit." Voyage of Domination, "Purchase" as Conquest, Sakakawea for Savagery: Distorted Icons from Misrepresentations of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, James Fenelon, Mary Defender-Wilson. Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, American Indian Encounters with Lewis and Clark (Spring, 2004), pp. 88, 90

"Jefferson had the expedition declare "sovereignty" and demonstrate their military strength to ensure native tribes would be subordinate to the US, as European colonizers did elsewhere. This was "An extension of American power", not simply a scientific journey, though it added a significant amount of knowledge to scholars. Expansion by American settlers would begin over the next few years." Voyage of Domination, "Purchase" as Conquest, Sakakawea for Savagery: Distorted Icons from Misrepresentations of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, James Fenelon, Mary Defender-Wilson. Wicazo Sa Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, American Indian Encounters with Lewis and Clark (Spring, 2004), pp. 87-8, 90-1 Tobby72 (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd point you raised on the Lakota nation has been changed, and now describes the problem between the two groups, and has Clark's comments. This relies on Harry Fritz pg 14, 15 & Stephen Ambrose, pg 170 & James Ronda, not on the article Voyage of Domination, which is not used as the basis for any text in the article. So that concern has been addressed. Credibility problem on that article? The evidence?

Point 3 on "declare sovereignty" & "demonstrate their military" for control when meeting tribes. This reflects the sources cited: "Soldiers would present arms. Captain Lewis read a long proclamation, emphasizing American sovereignty over the area" & the use of "uniforms...medals...the air gun" ..."to impress the natives". The Lewis and Clark Expedition, Harry Fritz, pg 64, 13 [[4]] When Jefferson bought the Louisiana area, he "rushed word to Lewis to start advising the Western Indians of the change of sovereignty" - The way to the western sea, David Lavender, pg 90. How is this not neutral, and what is your suggestion to improve it?

"Point 1 you raised on claiming the Pacific Northwest, "It was the publication of their explorations [Gray and MacKenzie] that had induced Jefferson and Congress to mount an armed excursion up the Missouri and down the Columbia". And "Jefferson began to plot an American expedition to connect the upper Columbia and Missouri" Acts of discovery, Albert Furtwangler pg 56, 78. [[5]] And "Jefferson outlined...precise goals...the fur trade, and he wanted to lay claim to the Pacific Northwest" Fresonke & Spence Ibid pg 70. So how is this not neutral, and what do you offer to improve it? It's easier to tear down than build up. Ebanony (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tobby72 you say: "some editors use Wikipedia to push their POV" [[6]]. And you present no evidence for this claim or any other. If there is a NPOV dispute WP:NPOVD, "make a new section entitled NPOV dispute" in the talk page, which you did not do (which is why I started this thread). Then "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why." You have not explained anything: "I'm having problem with the following sentences", tells me very little. What specific NPOV problems do you see ie. undue weight, fringe etc? What is your justification for making these claims? The sources say those things.

I will gladly remove this source [[[7]] or any other source/text if you show it has a problem. But you need to present evidence. The text above is based on Lavender, Ronda & Miller etc, and you ignored the fact they are cited in the article. "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Wpedia also says, "Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." WP:NPOVD I have asked you this at least 3 times for your suggestions, and I have already removed one of the the sentences you did not like. Please communicate & cooperate to reach a WP:CONS decision because "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged." WP:NPOVD Ebanony (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tobby72, since Dec 24th, I asked you to explain the specific NPOV problems, your justification & evidence for it & your proposals for improvement. The guidelines for NPOV dispute require this, and say: "In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time." WP:NPOVD You made unfounded allegations, and have refused to comply with the guidelines.Ebanony (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tobby, when he added the NPOV tag, said "rv Ebony, be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first per WP:EDIT". [[8]] Section 18 "Problems with Stated Mission" has the discussion & it was made by consensus. Tobby72, you have made obviously false claims. Now it has been a week. Neither Tobby72 nor anyone else has provided any reason/justification for this NPOV allegation, the NPOV should be removed, and will be unless there is a legitimate objection.Ebanony (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Tobby72 you filed NPOV dispute & used it just to add your own POV. Your edit was not a consensus decision. [[9]]. Your edit overemphasises science & exploration; and by writing "According to some historians, another goal" next to majority POV's, you portray them as minor POV's. It should be "in rough proportion to the prominence of each view" WP:UNDUE. Yes, they explored & did science, but that is not why Jefferson & Congress sent them:

Pg 228 of the book you cited: "it was to be an expedition to establish the boundaries and chart the details of land not owned by the United States as well as a diplomatic mission to promulgate its authority over the area and the Indian nations over whom it now claimed sovereignty." Pg 104 "Jefferson wanted to ensure not only that the Indians accepted the new sovereignty, but that they would transfer their trading connections form the British and the French to the United States. Thus, in his mission objectives, Jefferson devoted much attention to the Indians..." [[10]] Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov.

That book cites James Ronda - 94 times. Ronda says: "once the [Louisiana] purchase was diplomatic reality, announcing American sovereignty to native people became a vital part of the expedition's Indian policy" & pg 6 says"proclaiming United States sovereignty...were unchanging objectives of the mission" pg 134. Science was not the goal: "Ethnographical research was neither the prime nor the sole duty of the expedition."(pg 4). [[11]] Lewis and Clark among the Indians James Ronda. Your justification for claiming this was about exploring and science as opposed to establishing rights to take the natives land?

These POV's on sovereignty do not come from "some historians". These well known professors wrote the books that Woodger's Encyclopedia cited (Ronda & Fritz), and all of them -including Miller & Lavender- put sovereignty & expansion as more important than science. That Jefferson wanted to claim the Pacific Northwest is not disputed - period. This looks like WP:WEASEL words, specifically "Unsupported attributions". These are not 2 opposing POV's. The one you wrote is simply myth. I will revert your edit this time, and again ask you to use the talk page. See WP:NPOVD WP:CONS. If not, then we can ask for comment. Ebanony (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted your last two edits for the above reasons. You should work with other editors and discuss edits. Editors have an obligation to "Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." WP:CONS That includes you Tobby72. I have asked you for days to discuss this article, and you just refuse.Ebanony (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Section break 1

Removal of sourced content

Ebanony, you completely rewrote the Lewis and Clark Expedition article. Unfortunately, you failed to reach consensus.

Please explain to me why this was deleted: [12], [13].

"The object of your mission," Jefferson wrote, "is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal stream of it, as, by it's course ... may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce." Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. p.150. ISBN 0816047812. Another goal was to gain an accurate sense of the resources being exchanged in the Louisiana Purchase. In July 1803, as the expedition was still in its preparation phase, the United States purchased from France the Louisiana Territory. Jack Uldrich, Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (2004). "Into the unknown: leadership lessons from Lewis & Clark's daring westward adventure". AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. p.41. ISBN 0814408168.

The expedition also collected scientific data, and hoped to find a Northwest Passage. Lewis and Clark's mission was one of the great scientific accomplishments of the Age of Enlightenment. Harry W. Fritz (2004). "The Lewis and Clark Expedition". Greenwood Publishing Group. p.59. ISBN 0313316619. Following detailed instructions from Thomas Jefferson himself, Lewis and Clark became ethnographers, botanists, zoologists, astronomers, carthographers, diplomats, and reporters. Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. ISBN 0816047812.

In his instructions to Lewis, Jefferson emphasized the necessity for treating all Indian tribes in the most conciliatory manner. "Treat them in the most friendly and conciliatory manner", he admonished, and learn all you can about them. Harry W. Fritz (2004). "The Lewis and Clark Expedition". Greenwood Publishing Group. p.13. ISBN 0313316619. There were very few hostile encounters, and relations with most tribes were as friendly as Jefferson had hoped they would be. Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. p.174. ISBN 0816047812.

Ebanony, you say: "Your edits do not match the sources cited" [14], "this edit misrepresents the sources cited, and is an unfounded POV" [15]. And you present no evidence for this claims.

"Lewis and Clark were the Enlightenment's advance agents in the American West. Their duties, as assigned by Jefferson, were preeminently scientific — to explore, to discover, to "take careful observations," "to inform yourself, by inquiry, of the character & extent of the country,” to acquire knowledge. Specifically, they were instructed in geography, astronomy, ethnology, climatology, mineralogy, meteorology, botany, ornithology, and zoology" Harry W. Fritz (2004). "The Lewis and Clark Expedition". Greenwood Publishing Group. p.59. ISBN 0313316619

"Finally, their commitment to a higher purpose shielded them against disappointment when they failed in their primary goal of finding a "practical all-water route" to the Pacific." Jack Uldrich, Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (2004). "Into the unknown: leadership lessons from Lewis & Clark's daring westward adventure". AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. p.41. ISBN 0814408168

"Thomas Jefferson's instructions to Meriwether Lewis were explicitly geographical. "The object of your mission," he wrote in his first real command, "is to explore the Missouri river & such principal stream of it, as, by it's course and communication with the waters of the Pacific ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregan, Colorado or any other river may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce" Harry W. Fritz (2004). "The Lewis and Clark Expedition". Greenwood Publishing Group. p.63. ISBN 0313316619

"Although Jefferson was a visionary, he was also a practical man, and he looked for practical benefits from the expedition. An extract from his mission objectives to Lewis make the point, leaving the explorer in no doubt on his primary purpose: “The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal streams of it, as by it's course ... may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce "Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. p.150. ISBN 0816047812

"Lewis and Clark's expedition had no greater advocate, and no greater beneficiary, than the American Philosophical Society (APS). The United States's first scientific organization..." Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. p.29. ISBN 0816047812

"All told, Lewis and Clark recorded more than 200 plants and animals that were new to science and noted at least seventy-two different Indian tribes." Jack Uldrich, Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (2004). "Into the unknown: leadership lessons from Lewis & Clark's daring westward adventure". AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. p.37. ISBN 0814408168

Tobby72 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72 said: Ebanony, you completely rewrote the Lewis and Clark Expedition article. Unfortunately, you failed to reach consensus. Please explain to me why this was deleted: [16], [17].

First, changes were made by consensus with Pfly who said "Yep, looks alright to me". See [[18]] & [[19]]. So your claim on ignoring consensus yesterday as well as Dec 24 [[20]] have no basis. Second, I already explained the 2 edits I made yesterday (revert #1 [[21]] & #2 [[22]] ) in section 22 NPOV, please read [[23]] & [[24]] Third, you added POV on Dec 24, so it cannot be removed until it is resolved WP:NPOVD. You changed my edits & even my 1 reverts [[25]] [[26]]. Best to read policy on edit warring WP:EW & WP:POVPUSH, because you used the NPOV just to get your edits in without any discussion. Fourth, your edits lack NPOV because putting science & exploration as the main objective gives WP:UNDUE & WP:GEVAL to minority writers or distorts what they wrote.Ebanony (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Science & exploration were important, but "Ethnographical research was neither the prime nor the sole duty of the expedition."- pg 4. Rather "Trade and diplomacy, commerce and sovereignty were all parts of the engine that drove American expansion and guided the Lewis and Clark expedition." pg 9 Lewis and Clark among the Indians, James Ronda [[27]], an expert in the field, and the same expert Elin Woodger & Brandon Toropov cited 94 times in the book you used. They're minor writers. The experts like Ronda say:

You cited Fritz pg 59: "The object of your mission, is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal stream of it, as, by it's course...may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce". But pg 2 says: "Robert Gray" went to "the Pacific Northwest" in 1792 and "named the river...the Columbia', and "Alexander Mackenzie" went there in 1793, and "envisioned a lucrative British economic monopoly in the entire Columbia drainage". "He published Voyages from Montreal. Jefferson read the book in 1802, and alarms sounded. The United States was in danger of losing the Pacific Northwest without a fight." Also pg 3 "in 1802. Jefferson was nervous. He felt threatened. The British threatened to create an economic bastion in the Northwest..." [[28]] Fritz highlighted Jefferson's instructions to map the course of the Columbia River. Why?

"Jefferson...needed to prefect and complete the 1792 first discovery of the Columbia River by Robert Gray by occupying the area within a reasonable time...to turn...newly discovered lands into a recognized title. This was one of the primary reasons Jefferson created and dispatched the expedition is why from the very beginning he directed Lewis and Clark to the mouth of the Columbia River. The Pacific Northwest was always Jefferson's primary objective for the expedition" pg 108 Robert Miller [[29]] My edits reflect the sources, yours do not.Ebanony (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I should say my "Yep, looks alright to me" was about the desire to establish claims "by right of discovery". I'm not sure that the desire to find a "practicable" water route was not also important. I always assumed Jefferson hoped they'd find such a route, but even if he didn't there was certainly a general hope that such a route existed. And if it did, then the "right of discovery" would be all the more important--especially if it could be accessed via Canada or the United States (as it would if it existed where Lewis and Clark crossed the Rockies). Of course as it turned out the best route was via South Pass, not a water route but definitely a US one, so the route issue never became a matter of international dispute. Pfly (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Pfly thank you for the clarification, and my apology for the error. The desire for the water route was very important, and they did want to find it. They still managed to get a significant part of the fur trade & compete with the British for the discovery rights, achieving major goals. THey pretty much had to map the rivers to their sources & get evidence of their trip (and visit to ocean, hence the carving in trees & recording so much data). You're right, the south was a much better route. Hard to believe that was 200 yrs ago.Ebanony (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons stated above (undue weight, reliable sources & npov), I have made the following change [30] to reflect the sources, relying on Ronda, Miller & Lavender, whilst reducing undue emphasis to writers like Topolov and others cited - including one who is not even a historian. NPOV should be removed.Ebanony (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

removed npov dispute - no reason ever provided for it; incorrect assertions corrected (then added 2nd time); no active discussion.Ebanony (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Tdynes, 19 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change heading "Geography, mapping, scientic data" to "Geography, mapping, scientific data" because scientific is spelled wrong.

Tdynes (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for noticing the typo. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The actual journals?

So where did the actual handwritten journals go after the expedition was over? The article doesn't mention it. --98.232.176.109 (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There should in fact be a separate article for the journals, as they've had an interesting history. Jmj713 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Trail Watch Blog as a resource

The | Lewis And Clark Trail Watch Blog looks like a useful resource for further information on the current cultural significance of the expedition, but I don't think it should go into the external links. When you get the time, I suggest mining it for data! rewinn (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

girl? woman? wife?

Seems to me the correct way for the sentence...

"They were accompanied by a fifteen-year-old Shoshone Indian woman, Sacagawea, the wife of a French-Canadian fur trader"

to read would be something along the lines of...

"They were accompanied by a fifteen-year-old Shoshone Indian girl, Sacagawea, whom a French-Canadian fur trader had taken as his wife."

Does anyone object to this change? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

How is she referred to in the Journals of the Expedition? While not completely dispositive, this would seem to be important. The phrase "taken as a wife" seems to have implications that may or may not be supported by the record. rewinn (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I am going by the main article on Sacagawea, from which it appears the current wording is inaccurate. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Obscurity of expedition

The bit about the expedition falling into obscurity in the lead is interesting but needs to be paid off: When did Lewis & Clark achieve their current prominence in American historical consciousness? Nareek (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The two references, linked, have more info. Looks like new interest began in the early 20th century, especially, I think, around the time of the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition. I don't have time at the moment to edit the page... Pfly (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Made some time and added some info about this. Pfly (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

These to sentences are linked with the connector "However", but I don't think it's clear how they relate to one another. Anyone care to shed some light on it? : "These military- or militia-issued rifles were of civilian style, and it has been very difficult for collectors to identify the rifles from this contract. However, the military issued them to regular troops and militias and recalled them back to the arsenals as needed." Thank you Doniasis (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)