Talk:Donner Party/Archive 2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:34, 3 December 2013

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Major problems with recent revisions

General problems

Recent editors of this entry know little about the Donner Party.
They rely on a limited number of secondary sources.
Some of these sources are badly outdated.
There is too much interpretation going on and not enough factual reporting. IMO.
The new material is poorly written. "Brevity is the soul of wit" -- you don't have to chuck in everything.

Fair enough, the article's crap. I suggest that you make your view known at the ongoing FACTooltip Featured article candidates. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

It's far too wordy. Check out *real* encyclopedia articles -- they're punchy and to the point. You don't have to give all the details or include the argumentation. 204.228.152.241 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson
What sources do you feel the article should be using? Awadewit (talk) 01:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot off the press: So Rugged and Mountainous: Blazing the Trails to Oregon and California, 1812-1848 (U Oklahoma, 2010), by Will Bagley. Unlike Rarick, who's a political scientist, Bagley is a long-time historian of the American West and an authority on the overland trails. For basic info about the overland journey, I'd use his book and Unruh's The Plains Across. Dale Morgan's Overland in 1846 is indispensable for Donner buffs. Daniel James Brown's The Indifferent Stars Above (2009) is another recent Donner Party history which should not be overlooked. Rarick is OK, but he's way overcited. 204.228.152.241 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson

Are any of the editors of the article planning to address this issue? This is one of the most important elements of an FA, in my opinion. Awadewit (talk) 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unruh is already used in the article. I can't get the Bagley book yet (my library doesn't have it and won't ILL until it's been out for a year), and I'm not planning to purchase it at this time (exceeded my WP book-buying budget for now!). I don't believe it's available at all in the UK. The Morgan book appears to be a compilation of primary sources, which would be very interesting to people who want to know more about the topic, but not necessarily a good source for WP. The Brown book is almost old enough for me to get through ILL, but not sure when I'll have time to do so. The bigger question, for me, is whether getting these books will actually result in changes to the article or not. Is there new information? Does it set some of the older information on its head? Karanacs (talk) 15:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Some comments on sources

McGlashan's history is 141 years old
Stewart's is 74 years old
Waggoner's article about Relief Hill is nonsense. Just because it's in print doesn't make it true.
Burns is a documentarian, not a historian, and made numerous errors
Rarick is more up-to-date but not 100% reliable

Regarding some points discussed below:

Franklin Ward Graves -- Yes, this was the man's name. "On the twelfth of April, 1846, my father, Franklin Ward Graves..." -- William C. Graves, "Crossing the Plains in '46" (1877), reprinted in Kristin Johnson, Unfortunate Emigrants (1996); the name appears in McGlashan (1879), Stewart (1936), Rarick (2008), Brown (2009). Why is this a matter of debate?
- The debate centred around where his nickname of "Uncle Billy" came from, which you have not explained. Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  - Yes, actually, I have. It's been online for, oh, a decade or so. See http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/Briefmyths.htm#Uncle Billy (Wikipedia doesn't like URLs with spaces in them; you'll have to scroll down to the article after you click) 204.228.152.241 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson

"Russell and Lilburn Boggs were in charge of the much larger train that went on to Fort Hall." Nope. William H. Russell gave up the captaincy in late June and went ahead to California with a mule packing party. The party was thereafter called the Boggs Party.

Why split at the Little Sandy? Because that was where the routes divided. Oregonians and some Californians went right to take Greenwood's (or Sublette's) Cutoff to Fort Hall, those heading for Fort Bridger went left.

Rarick says that Pike was shot while preparing to go get supplies, since no one knew whether Stanton and McCutcheon had made it or not. Rarick is wrong. Pike was shot *after* Stanton returned. Thornton, Graves, and McGlashan all say so, Pike's sister-in-law Mary Murphy said it was the last day of October -- i.e., after Stanton came back -- and Farnham says it was at their last encampment on the Truckee, which would have been at the end of October and thus supports Mary Murphy.

Age of William Murphy. He was born 15 Jan 1836 -- ten years old throughout most of the disaster.
- Who says? Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  - Does Wikipedia recognize websites by recognized authorities as reputable? http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/Murphy.htm#William Green Murphy ; and if you want to know *my* source, it's from a transcription of a Murphy family bible reprinted in a Weakley County (TN) genealogical periodical. 204.228.152.241 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson

Chronology of the Forlorn Hope. Daniel James Brown's is the best. He uses some sources that were not available to Stewart or Rarick.
- In whose opinion is it the best? Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  - - In *my* opinion it's the best, because, as I say, Brown -- author of The Indifferent Stars Above (2009), as I failed to mention, sorry -- used two sources unavailable previously. Brown devoted a great deal of time to his analysis of the Forlorn Hope itinerary because it was a vital episode in life of Sarah Graves Fosdick, the subject of his book. Read it yourself and see what *you* think. 204.228.152.241 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson

William Foster. William Foster was not just a "murderous dick." Thornton makes it clear that Foster was deranged at the time. There's little doubt that he killed Luis and Salvador, but "murder" is a legal verdict.
- Who said he was a "murderous dick"? What the text says is "William Foster, who had recently suggested killing Amanda McCutcheon because she lagged behind, took a pistol and shot the Indians, allowing Salvador to say a final prayer before stripping the bodies of muscle and organs." Where do you see the word "murder" in that? Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
  - When one person kills another person in order to eat him, can it be anything but murder? Do we really need a judge to rule on this before we can use the word murder? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswap (talk • contribs) 07:35, February 19, 2011 (UTC)
    - What we need our reliable sources, per WP:V, reflected accurately, per WP:NPOV. Please sign your entries with four tildes so others can tell who said what. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  - "Moni3" did, below, in the discussion. This is a truly ill-considered summary of the situation and I'm distressed that anyone capable of making such a judgment is editing this page. 204.228.152.241 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson
    - Moni3 was complaining that the article text made him sound like a "murderous dick" and that some text about his mental state needed to be added, it sounds to me like you're agreeing. Kmusser (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

204.228.152.241 (talk) 19:44, 28 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson

For anyone unfamiliar, the commenter is almost certainly the same Ms. Johnson as maintains a long running weblog donnerblog.blogspot.com about the group. Although a librarian by profession, she's been a researcher of the Donner Party for almost two decades, and compiled–edited a compendium of narratives on the incident published by a university press. I used one of her articles as a reference in a related article about a flick I created recently, where I spelt her name correctly, because I'm lovely. –Whitehorse1 22:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are. Thank you. 204.228.152.241 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson

I'm certain her expert input will only improve the article, and it's very welcome. Malleus Fatuorum 22:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry if I came on too strong. Allow me to present some bona fides: I'm also the author of New Light on the Donner Party (http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/) which has been online since 1997; the introduction of the Bison Books (U Neb) reprint of Eliza Donner Houghton's Expedition of the Donner Party, author of articles about the Donner Party, including many published here: http://www.utahcrossroads.org/newslett.htm, historian for the Donner Party Archaeology Project (Alder Creek 2003-04), and have been consulted by numerous historians, documentarians, novelists, and others. You might want to check out my Brief Myths page http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/Briefmyths.htm, and my Roster pages, indexed at http://www.utahcrossroads.org/DonnerParty/Roster.htm. 204.228.152.241 (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Kristin Johnson

Please feel free to edit the article directly yourself Ms. Johnson (may I call you Kristin?), wherever you feel there are inaccuracies or significant omissions. Nobody owns this, we're all just trying to help out by doing our little bit the best way we can. Malleus Fatuorum 20:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Ms. Johnson, for clarifying some of your points. In short, I think you are saying that a) the article should be using Brown's recent book and the new Bagley book, b) the article is (was?) too long and emotional, and c) the article possibly contains some information that is inaccurate. We've tried to put conflicting information in footnotes, because we really shouldn't be hiding it - as editors we aren't supposed to make the determination of what's correct or not, just show what the reliable sources say, even if they are wrong. Are there any other specific points of the article where what is in the main text is incorrect? The article has also recently been copyedited and shortened, which may address some of the issues with the emotional language. As for the other books, I don't know that I can access them easily - are there pieces of the article that you think would change a lot if we had those sources? Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still quite concerned over this choice to "put conflicting information in footnotes" - how did you choose which story to put into the article? As I mention at the FAC, I think that parts of this article read too much like a narrative. One reason for this is because the conflicting accounts are pushed into the footnotes or to the end of the article, so the reader doesn't develop an appreciation for the uncertainty of our historical knowledge. Awadewit (talk) 15:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, we've tried to make the article read more generically (with what the accounts agree on), with the footnotes providing the conflicting detail. In other cases, one source seems to have a timeline that is off from the others, so the article body includes the timeline or reasoning that seems accepted by more sources, while the footnote lists the one that is different. I will do another pass through the article and make sure that we are being specific enough - or vague enough - in the various places. Karanacs (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've now audited the notes, and moved some into the text and reworded the text slightly in another case or two. I've also proposed (below) removing two of the notes, as I don't think they add anything to the article right now. I've also looked critically at the Cannibalism denials section. Some of this information, particularly that about the Breens, could easily be moved into the appropriate part of the narrative. Other pieces, such as Trudeau's later stories, seems very difficult to include in the narrative without breaking up the flow considerably. I'm also concerned that if we move part of this info out, but not all of it, then it will look very awkward. I'm torn over how to do this properly. Karanacs (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very reluctant to tamper too much with the Denial section. There's no reasonable doubt that cannibalism took place, so the details given here don't sit easily elsewhere in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate

An image used at this article is now a featured picture candidate: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/California Trail at Humboldt River.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Durova (talk • contribs) 06:33, 30 March 2010‎ (UTC)

Reference to Murdering/Killing in the Intro

Some of the editors here seem to have a problem with indicating in the intro that two Indians were murdered/killed so they could be eaten. It is stated in the article (and references given) that this was so:

William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair.^[1] Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them: "...as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns."^[2]

Does anyone here believe that killing humans to eat them is worthy of noting in the intro? Or is this bizarro world?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jswap (talk • contribs) 07:17, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

You can sign your entries on talk pages by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your posts.

This is the text you propose inserting into the lead of the article. The lead should "define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first few sentences."

There are at least three problems with your edit: first, the info is disproportionate in the lead; second, the word "even" introduces POV; third, hopefully you can see the difference between the cited discussion of the killing of Salvador and Luis within the body of the article and a straightforward allegation using the word "murder". Accounts differ, which is why it is explored in the body of the article rather than stated as fact in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, your efforts to rationalize your way out of this are admirable. I think we can both agree that killing someone to eat them is interesting or notable. So your main points of contention seem to be that I used the word "even", and said "murdered" instead of "killed". Fine, then change those two words instead of reverting the entire edit like a vandal. Also, please think of one example of it not being murder when you kill someone in order to eat them. Both cited sources say this was the motivation for the killing. Finally, let me just say that now I understand why people complain about the "Dark Lords of Denny's" here on Wikipedia. This is not worth the effort. Good riddance. Jswap (talk) 07:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for signing your entry. I think you'll find discussion on Wikipedia with other editors will advance better if you avoid personalizing your statements to other editors, and confine your discussion to article improvements based on reliable sources. Maligning other editors motives doesn't usually end well on Wiki; please see the talk page guidelines here. We don't think of examples on Wikipedia; we base our edits on reliable sources and reflect them accurately, avoiding doing our own original research. Further, none of the three editors who reverted your POV edit referred to it as vandalism. POV is not vandalism, nor is edit warring against consensus, although both can result in a block.

The full, cited text in the article (part of which you excluded above) is:

After several more days—25 since they had left Truckee Lake—they came across Salvador and Luis, who had not eaten for about nine days and were close to death. William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair.[96] Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them: "...as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns."[63]

We don't give undue weight in the lead to one writer's account when others differ; we explore the different sources in the body of the article so as not to introduce POV based on one selective account. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why the particular emphasis on the Indians? Why not the Germans, or Irish, or Catholics? How many of them were killed? Malleus Fatuorum 12:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Because most of the information about the Donner Party had to come from fist-hand accounts from survivors, who often altered their stories afterward to shed better light on themselves or worse light on the survivors with whom they were in conflict, it's not very clear who was murdered or who engaged in cannibalism. This kind of could-have-been language is best explained in the body of the article instead of the lead. In the body, historians can present their individual views, regardless of their faults, and then other historians can explain their problems with previous historians' views. In the lead it's easier to explain what is known for sure: how many members there were, what happened along the way, the conditions they experienced, and the fact that many of them had to cannibalize the dead.

Indeed, more damning information has been written about Keseberg than any other member of the party. But focusing on these individuals in the lead does not help the readers understand what the overall story is about. --Moni3 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

More on Luis and Salvador and murder

This edit introduced this sentence: Ethan Rarick describes this as the sole incident in which "anyone was killed to be eaten."

This is problematic edit. Although Rarick describes this as the sole incident, George Stewart virtually accuses Lewis Keseberg of killing William Eddy's son and Tamsen Donner to eat them. So this is more complex than saying this is the only instance of murder to further cannibalism. And I wish someone would explain why it's so integral to make it clear that Luis and Salvador were the only members of the party to be murdered. What is the actual goal that is trying to be accomplished here? --Moni3 (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been wondering the same thing, and I think the recent addition needs to be reverted for the reason you say. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Unless the editor who made the edit shows up with an explanation of why one case of a complex saga involving various different accounts is to be highlighted, revert as UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That was me. Principle of least surprise? I was surprised that killing wasn't in here. It came up in a humorously grisly conversation some while ago, relating to the cold spell. My assertion there that well, there were just some complicated and uncertain allegations of murder...was wrong. I see two being killed out of about forty deaths as significant, but since you all disagree, OK. Novickas (talk) 05:13, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

California

Someone thinks the place in the Sierra Nevada mountains where this took place is in Nevada. It isn't. It's in California. And it must also be stated that, at the time this happened, it was still in California. A rescue party did not arrive from California. They were already in that state! The rescue party came from Sacramento (I believe, Sutter's Fort).

It must also be mentioned that there is much research and citations needed fr this article, which is poorly written. Oh, and I've eliminated some of the commas. Someone went comma crazy while writing this. Gingermint (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a mention of the prejudice and religious divisions in the party would be good. It is an important aspect of this story. Gingermint (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does the article say that the Donners camped for the winter in Nevada? All I see is a quotation from Mrs. Murphy asking the first rescuers whether they were from California or from heaven". And in fact the rescuers did arrive from California. That they were already in California is irrelevant, and it's made clear that they came from Sutter's Fort, so no need for speculation on your part. Malleus Fatuorum 13:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

@Gingermint - No, they couldn't have been in the "state of California", which didn't exist until three years later. In fact, they were actually in Mexican territory until January 1847, when it became American territory by treaty. If I'm not mistaken, the entire region including present-day California and Nevada was known as "Alta California" to the mexicans. So the Donner party had been in "California" for quite some time before getting stuck. Shirtwaist ^chat 21:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Couple of Questions

I’ve got a couple of queries, could anyone clarify?

From ‘Wasatch Mountains’

‘As the Donner Party made its way across the Wasatch Mountains, they were overtaken by the Graves family’ (….) ‘Their arrival brought the Donner Party to 87 members in 60–80 wagons’

Is overtaken correct here? It seems to state that the Graves caught up with and joined them.

From ‘Disintegration’

‘Meanwhile Reed caught up with the Donners…’

This seems to state that the Donners were ahead of the rest when Reed was expelled, but I couldn’t find reference to this is the text. Franmars (talk) 16:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Overtaken" now changed to "caught up". George Donner's wagon was indeed a full day ahead of the rest when Snyder was killed. I've added a sentence to explain that. Malleus Fatuorum 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Franmars (talk) 08:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Dixon book

There is a new book, Archaeology of Desperation: Exploring the Donner Party's Alder Creek Camp, eds. Dixon, Schablitsky, and Novak, October 2011. I browsed it at the public library, and it seemed to have quite a bit of information not included in the article. There is new archaeological data, and there are also oral histories of descendants of the Washoe who encountered the Donner party. The oral histories describe interactions between the Indians and the Donner party that don't seem to be discussed in the article. Apparently the Indians attempted repeatedly to give food to the starving people, but were chased off by gunfire.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 02:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I checked my library for this book, and it's "In process", which I'm assuming means it will be available shortly. I don't know when.

As for the Indians the Donner Party encountered, (and forgive me--the sources used in this article are sometimes decades old and use deprecated names for tribes, and I have to find out what they are currently called) George Stewart recounts a story in which two Indians who lived in the mountains opposite Truckee Lake brought soaproot to the starving members of the party, leaving it near the edge of the frozen lake. They came and left very quietly, and a couple survivors remember seeing them, thinking they may have been illusions. I vaguely recall that I read in a juvenile fiction book that the granddaughter of the chief also recounted the story years later, saying the emaciated look of the pioneers frightened the Indians. I've never read the anecdote that while at Truckee Lake members of the Donner Party chased away food-bearing Indians with gunfire. I'll have to get the book, but it may take a while. --Moni3 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Was Jacob Donner older than George?

This article relates Jacob Donner as "Donner's older brother" but it seems to be confusing. In Japanese Wikipedia, it was pointed by a user, who had laboriously translated this article, Jacob been younger than George, as the article of George Donner supports him. Now I guess it should mean Jacob was "the older of George's young brothers" though I don't have any reliable references to hand. Could anyone valid and, if necessary, modify it? --Kareha (talk) 17:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

According to George Stewart, p. 19, Jacob was in his mid-sixties, and the elder brother of George Donner. I recall vaguely Jacob's age was 64, but I cannot remember which source I saw that in. --Moni3 (talk) 21:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, I'll try to correct that in ja. Thanks for your help. --Kareha (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Shot and ate native guides

They shot and ate native guides, like they shoot and eat animals, some fellows here don't see the notability of it all, it is an amazing world. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

What's your point? Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that mention of the murders of the Indians are buried in the article (aren't murders noteworthy enough for a sub-heading?). I'd love to hear the reasoning here. If it's that the references are weak, fine, then the article should say so. But as it stands now, there are two Indians who get killed and eaten, and this isn't mentioned until somewhere around the 20th paragraph. Just not that relevant? Really?66.66.149.221 (talk) 01:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

On a somewhat related note, the first paragraph contains: "...many of the survivors cannibalized members of the party who had already died." Is the "who had already died" there to convince readers that people were not biting chunks out of the living, or is it there to suggest that no party members were killed in order to be eaten? This is yet another example of the editors not really wanting to acknowledge that anyone was murdered to be eaten. Whoops, I can't say "murdered" or someone will complain. Let's say "happily killed" instead. Puts a nicer light on things. 66.66.149.221 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue was raised at DR though I have to agree with the closing admin's comments "This needs to have some current discussion on the talk page. The issue was decided by consensus, at least consensus by silence or abandonment, when it was last raised over a year ago. While consensus can change, the place to change it is not here, but at the article"[1] I suggest that if there are reliable sources supporting the incident, the "killing and eating of the guides" should find mention in the lead and should have a separate section for it. I second comments made by the two IPs above and those made at DR by Jswap, Ssscienccce, Dennis Bratland also the view of Moni3 ought to be taken into cognizance although he perhaps could take a look at "William Foster, believing the flesh of the Indians was the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation, shot the pair." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The present related sentence in the lead reads "Only seven members of the snowshoe party survived, by eating the flesh of those who had died.", which doesn't really inform that the party shot and ate its "native guides", like "game" is shot in the woods. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Which leads me to what this IP wrote: On a somewhat related note, the first paragraph contains: "...many of the survivors cannibalized members of the party who had already died." Is the "who had already died" there to convince readers that people were not biting chunks out of the living, or is it there to suggest that no party members were killed in order to be eaten?[2] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither, as it is debated to this day whether or not anyone was killed to be eaten as opposed to eaten after death, however that occurred; the only people who will ever know the truth are those that were there. There's seems very little room for doubt though that at least some of the survivors certainly did cannibalise the dead, however those members of the party perished. Malleus Fatuorum 17:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, please, let's review what we're talking about.

A. The proposed changes to the article include mentioning that Luis and Salvador were murdered to be eaten because they were Indians, and they were the only members of the party to be murdered to be eaten.

B. These changes according to Jswap should be reflected in the lead with certain, strong wording that makes it clear that people were murdered to be eaten. It also should get its own subsection to explore the incident with more depth.

Is this accurate?

If so, the problem with A is that to my knowledge and memory, only one historian has suggested that Luis and Salvador were murdered to be eaten. To my mind, the incident is treated with far too much certainty in prose and should be rewritten to reflect that Ethan Rarick believes it to be so while other historians do not address it in the same way. This balances out the sources more effectively. Furthermore, it's clear in the prose that Lewis Keseberg was accused by others, including William Eddy and several rescuers, of killing Eddy's son to eat him, and killing Tamsen Donner for her money and to eat her. This is documented far better, in part because of the defamation suit Keseberg brought against his accusers. However, the historian who interviewed Keseberg eventually came away believing him to be innocent. So there doesn't seem to be consensus among the majority of sources that Keseberg murdered anyone.
The problem with B is that giving the incident with Luis and Salvador prominence in the lead and its own subsection prioritizes the horror of racism-tinged murder over 300 other types of horror that befell this incident, most of them involving unfathomable cruelty or neglect. Sources do not give the possibility of Luis and Salvador's murder this kind of prominence. To do it in the article would be outside of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia only reflects what has been published. Unless there are other sources that give weight to the Luis and Salvador incident? --Moni3 (talk) 12:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, "A" is not correct; I'm not sure where you're getting this, but I do believe it shows your bias toward the topic. Let's focus on "B", and only the part that deals with giving a sub-heading to this topic. Moni, I know you are against the term "murder". I would be satisfied with "shot to death". "prioritizes the horror of racism-tinged murder"? That is major political-correctness speech, and it's irrelevant. It's also meaningless in that I could apply it to every sentence in every article on wikipedia that involved the killing of anyone. The valid point you make is that perhaps the references are not strong enough. If that is the case, then it needs to be pointed out in the article, as you mention. The way it stands now, the article is written about Auschwitz without headlining that Jews were killed there. Yes, that is a bit of an exaggeration, but I think many will see the point. To reiterate, all I want is a heading that says something to the effect that two people were shot to death and eaten. I don't care if you mention their ethnicity. Jswap (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What's so significant about the possibility they may have been shot, as opposed to stabbed for instance? Moni3 has already pointed out to you that Keseburg was accused by several members of the party of killing others to eat, so there's nothing particularly unique about the incident concerning Luis and Salvador. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

MF, if you want to say stabbed, I'm fine with it. And you bring up a good point: why isn't there a subheading for the other killings? The only answer that makes sense is if they did not happen. Or is killing not relevant enough to feature in an article? Why is it that you are dead-set against highlighting that anyone killed anyone? You definitely seem to have an axe to grind concerning acknowledging that anyone killed anyone. Jswap (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to say stabbed, I'm simply pointing out the logical inconsistency in your position. And how on Earth you can draw the conclusion from anything I've said that I "have an axe to grind concerning acknowledging that anyone killed anyone" is quite simply beyond incredulity. Malleus Fatuorum 17:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course you don't want to say stabbed; that might make people think that someone was killed by another person. Maybe we should add: "Malleus Fatuorum would like to point out that no one killed anyone in this incident." It's hard for me to fathom the hostility you have about a sub-heading that highlights two murders. Am I infringing on your little fiefdom? Reverting changes seems to be your favorite thing to do in life. "there's nothing particularly unique about the incident concerning Luis and Salvador" <-- lol, did you type that with a straight face? Jswap (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I would very strongly advise you not to further personalise this discussion, as I can promise that if you do you will not like the consequences. But perhaps you can answer one simple question? Why do you consider the alleged killing of Luis and Salvador to be more significant than the alleged killings by Keseburg? That you so clearly do seems to suggest an agenda on your part. Malleus Fatuorum 18:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually read any of the sources listed in this article? Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your question reveals so much about you, Malleus Fatuorum, and let me warn you not to warn me again or you will not like the consequences. By no means do I consider the killing of the Indians any more or less important than any other killings. The only thing I notice is that the article appears to have two separate references to the event of the Indians' killing, which made me believe it actually happened. But I would also be happy to see any other killings highlighted. Jswap (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Provocation and personalization redacted;[3] please avoid personalization, focus on the text and sources. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Then bring it on, because I'm now warning you again, and for the last time. Malleus Fatuorum 18:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved here, but I'd like to say that I have read the article and I find that I disagree with Jswap here. I think the deaths of Luis and Salvador are given appropriate weight here. Dozens of people died in this incident and we should try to avoid giving particular deaths more weight than the sources do. If Jswap feels that L&S are unique, I'd suggest he/she create a separate article on them. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Jswap - Deal with the content, not the contributors; and stop throwing accusations around. You're headed down a path that has no good outcome. If you need the link that states these rules, let me know. — Ched : ? 19:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Jswap, please refrain from personalizing discussions here, and focus on providing reliable sources that back the text you would like to see added. To the best of everyone else's knowledge, there are no sources that back the text you want to add-- if you have sources, please provide them. Regardless, please refrain from further personalization of discussion here and please remember WP:AGF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A potential way forward

I firmly reject any suggestion that the alleged killing of Luis and Salvador is any more or less significant than the alleged killings that Keseburg was accused of, so maybe the problem lies at least in part with the statement in the lead that "...many of the survivors cannibalized members of the party who had already died"; that there was cannibalism hardly seems in doubt, and not at all unusual under the circumstances, so maybe we could focus on reworking that sentence as a starter? Malleus Fatuorum 21:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Could we, for instance, simply drop that "who had already died"? Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. But it's necessary to point out that for the large majority of the cannibalism that took place, it wasn't conjoined with horror-film-like violence. And cannibalism is so taboo that it's not unrealistic that readers might think of it in cartoonish terms, like being on a liferaft in the middle of the ocean and hallucinating your companions as drumsticks--begetting violence. We need to make clear in the lead that these weren't bloodthirsty ghouls, but people beyond desperation, far, far outside the boundary of normal human experience. They had to make unbelievably difficult choices. The Donner Party wasn't a punchline, such as it has become, and we need to disabuse readers of that notion as soon as they begin reading. --Moni3 (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair point, but then how do we reconcile what the lead says with what the article says, that there were at least some cases of members of the party being killed to be eaten? There's an interesting link to an English legal case above, showing that killing someone for food wasn't at all uncommon; if it hadn't been, there would have been no need for a law to prohibit it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What about rewriting the sentence The subsequent casualties were extremely high, and many of the survivors cannibalized members of the party who had already died. to read The subsequent casualties from starvation, exposure, disease, and trauma were extremely high, and many of the survivors resorted to cannibalism. This is accurate; John Snyder, Wolfinger, and Pike all died of trauma. Luis and Salvador, Tamsen Donner, and William Eddy's son were surely dying of starvation. If there is speculation that they may have been murdered, the sentence is still accurate. --Moni3 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I like it, but I suppose we'd better wait to see what others think before we make the change; in my mind "trauma" includes being shot anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 23:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

... I'm not sure about that "casualties from" though. Maybe "resulting from"? Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If the final sentence reads The subsequent casualties resulting from starvation, exposure, disease, and trauma were extremely high, and many of the survivors resorted to cannibalism. I'm fine with that. --Moni3 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As am I. Malleus Fatuorum 16:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"there's nothing particularly unique about the incident concerning Luis and Salvador"

Malleus Fatuorum said, "there's nothing particularly unique about the incident concerning Luis and Salvador". I happen to agree with MF, and would like to support his argument that many people have been shot and eaten throughout history. Here are some examples I could think of off the top of my head: "Night of the Living Dead" and "28 Days Later". I couldn't think of any others, but I am sure MF can provide some more. Jswap (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are those not fictional? I agree with your point, however; there have also been various aircraft crashes and lifeboat strandings in recent history.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, have I missed you being sarcastic? That went completely past me :/ --Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gilderian, you make a good point, but keep in mind that the examples have to contain both the shooting/murdering AND the eating. Jswap (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Arghh ... Why do people always get my name wrong? It's Gilderien :) Anyway, see R v Dudley and Stephens.--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 18:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Gilderien. Thanks for the link. This example is not appropriate, however, because the murder is mentioned in the opening paragraph. It should be pushed down into the 30th paragraph or so, where it belongs. Why didn't they do that? Jswap (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This all looks like apples and oranges to me, the question is, does this article give these two deaths the same weight that the sources do? We're not supposed to add content to just to right great wrongs. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply from Yogesh Khandke

I am sorry but this to me looks like abuse of the talk page, we are reading "views" and "commentary" which is what it should not be like, please see talk page guidelines. Sorry about this comment folks. But let us stay on track.

I present the following evidence that disagrees with comments made by Malleus Fatuorum and Moni3.

Peter R. Limburg writes that the guides were found dying, it was only a matter of time before they died, Foster went over to one of them Luis and "callously told him what he was about to do, and shot him through the head. He killed Salvador (the other guide) too, the women in the party cut the Indians' flesh from their bones and dried it. Peter R. Limburg. Deceived: The Story of the Donner Party. Pacifica Military History. pp. 138–139. ISBN 978-1-890988-33-3. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Sutter who arranged the rescue of the party is quoted ""They killed and ate first the mules, then the horses, and finally they killed and ate my good Indians." Albert L. Hurtado (2006). John Sutter: A Life on the North American Frontier. University of Oklahoma Press. p. 205. ISBN 978-0-8061-3772-8. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Lewis F. Petrinovich in The Cannibal Within writes "it is clear that members of a different race do not have a protected status... The only incident discussed to this point in which people were killed to be eaten involved the two Indian guides of the "Forlon Hope" escape party. Although the Indians had brought mules and supplies to the Donner Party and had served as guides, they were the only ones killed for consumption,as far as is known. To this point there is an orderly pattern of consumption of animals of other species, followed by humans of another race. Lewis F. Petrinovich (2000). The Cannibal Within. Transaction Publishers. pp. 37–. ISBN 978-0-202-02048-8. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Hurtado "The starving whites caught up with the starving Indians, killed them, and ate their remains"Albert L. Hurtado (1 April 1999). Intimate Frontiers: Sex, Gender, and Culture in Old California. UNM Press. pp. 60–. ISBN 978-0-8263-1954-8. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Deborah Lawrence - "The starving whites killed the Indians and ate their remains." Deborah Lawrence (1 October 2006). Writing the Trail: Five Women's Frontier Narratives. University of Iowa Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-1-58729-509-6. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Michael S. Durham - "On Christmas day, their food gone, they drew lots to select one to be killed for food, but no one wanted to kill the loser. Two days later, four people died and their flesh was roasted and eaten. The survivors, who could not bear to look at each other, wept as they ate. Later on the trail, the two Indians, who refused to eat human flesh, weakened and were shot and eaten" Michael S. Durham (1999). Desert Between the Mountains: Mormons, Miners, Padres, Mountain Men, and the Opening of the Great Basin, 1772-1869. University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 82–83. ISBN 978-0-8061-3186-3. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
Priscilla L. Walton quoting King writes that Salvador and Luis fled fearing for life, but were overtaken, found almost dead and were shot in the head, another account quotes Captain Sutter who recounted survivour testemonies "Luis and Salvador" he said were "caught while scratching away [in] the snow for acorns and devoured. Priscilla L. Walton (8 September 2004). Our Cannibals, Ourselves. University of Illinois Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-0-252-02925-7. Retrieved 14 April 2012.

I am aware that "one swallow doesn't make a summer", but if editors here believe that the sources are UNDUE or FRINGE, they may argue so or perhaps UNRELIABLE. (emphasis in bold above is mine and not in the originals) As far a the ~~three~~ numerous sources note, the killing and eating of the native guides, was notably different from the other homicides in the party. The two were killed as "lame horses" would be killed or as "sledge dogs" are killed. The killing was justifiable as the killing of a "different other". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you aware that Keseburg was tried for his alleged killing of several members of the party or are you just choosing to ignore it? Malleus Fatuorum 07:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Please one would like to look at quotations with citation to provide evidence that the "incident" is not NOTABLE for the lead, or that the sources are bad. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Which incident are you talking about? Is it your agenda that because Luis and Salvador were native Americans that their deaths were in some way more significant than those of the other members of the party? Malleus Fatuorum 07:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please address the sources and my proposal. The sources quoted by me are provided as evidence to give a basis to my claim for their inclusion in the lead and a separate section for the incident. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why not answer my question? Malleus Fatuorum 07:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources quoted by me comment on its uniqueness and thus notability. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't. So why not try answering the question? Malleus Fatuorum 07:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat Malleus's question for the benefit of Yogesh Khandke: Are you aware that Keseburg was tried for his alleged killing of several members of the party? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Once again, discussion has been unnecessarily personalized; I have changed the section heading. Please read WP:TALK, and focus on content, not editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My replies were to points raised by the two editors above namely "only one historian has suggested that Luis and Salvador were murdered to be eaten." or " it is debated to this day whether or not anyone was killed to be eaten as opposed to eaten after death,.." Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:TALK and don't single out editors in section headings; replies should be focused on content not on editors. The content in this article was developed over a long time via consensus, and talk pages exist before and endure after editors come and go from Wikipedia. Focus on content; Moni3 and Malleus Fatuorum are not the only editors who watch, contribute to, and participate in discussions of this article. I have repeated a question above that you haven't addressed; please do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot answer leading questions about "my agenda". I'm sure SandyGeorgia would agree with me that it is loss of focus and frowned upon. The issue raised "here" and "now", and not at some other instance spatially and temporally is; "murdered to be eaten" or "killed to be eaten as opposed to eaten after death" if there are other incident like the one in which Luis and Salvador were killed to be eaten, I would request evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made no mention of any "agenda", so please refrain from speaking for me. The question is "Are you aware that Keseburg was tried for his alleged killing of several members of the party"? Consensus on talk page is reached via discussion; please do so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

SG simply has repeated Malleus_F's question, which was preceded by the question I referred to, my reply was to Malleus_F and not to SG in particular. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So what's the answer? Malleus Fatuorum 08:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Malleus_F first would you comment on whether the sources are not FRINGE and are RELIABLE? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Why do you find it so difficult to answer a simple question? Malleus Fatuorum 08:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I given my reasons for inclusion - notability and uniqueness, apparently you want details, my answer would be based on the sources I have quoted, I want you to confirm that you are happy with the sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You have been asked a very simple question many times now. Why are you so reluctant to answer? Malleus Fatuorum 09:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Enough from both: Yogesh, you haven't answered a direct question, relevant to the discussion, posed by two editors; that is not collaborative editing. Combined with your personalization in a section heading, this is beginning to look like borderline harassment or baiting. Malleus, please disengage so others can deal with this. Avoid taking the bait. Content not editors. Moni3, who has every source, can address Yogesh's first post. Hopefully by the time she weighs in, he will have answered the question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

As you wish. Malleus Fatuorum 09:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Reply to question on my talk page.[4] by SG: The question is what is the justification of inclusion in the lead: my answer is because it is notable and unique as I understand from the sources that I have read, and as I interpret them. I can't think of anything else. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ongoing refusal to answer a direct question noted: end of my part in trying to promote collaborative discussion on this particular point. Bolding removed per WP:TALK guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to question on my talk page.[5] by SG: The question: What is the justification for inclusion in the lead? My answer: Because it is notable and unique as I understand from the sources that I have read, and provided here and as I interpret them. I can't think of anything else, no matter who asks them. If my sources are bad or my interpretation is flawed, please let me know. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the question, which is clearly identified above, more bolding and excess markup removed per WP:TALK guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I only need to defend my proposal which is that "the killing and eating of Luis and Salvador is a notable incident in the story of the Donner Party" this is what the sources I have shared here indicate according to my interpretation. If editors here agree with me fine. If they don't they should have to provide a reasonable explanation. I have no more to add for the time being. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires collaboration, and it is not satisfactory to merely repeat vague assertions regarding sources when faced with a very reasonable question ("that because Luis and Salvador were native Americans that their deaths were in some way more significant than those of the other members of the party?"). The topic of this article is not Luis and Salvador, so WP:DUE needs to be considered when deciding which claims need to be highlighted. Repeatedly failing to engage with a valid discussion is disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it amusing that an editor who has never edited this article[6] joins the discussion on the talk page the first time, [7] having earlier voted to topic ban me. I am assuming good faith and not considering it hounding, so I am answering you Johnuniq. I don't claim that I represent the absolute truth. I have presented my sources. I would like other editors to judge whether they are "due", "fringe" or the like. If you think they are "undue" please provide evidence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That reply still does not engage with the discussion—it is merely a repetition with a vague claim about sources. Comments about my habits may be appropriate on some other page, but they are just a distraction from the issues here. Nevertheless I will point out that the disputes concerning this article have been mentioned on several pages and it should be obvious that I noticed the issue elsewhere and my interest focuses on UNDUE editing, not any particular editor. Johnuniq (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrack discussion

Yesterday I attempted to review what Jswap wanted in the article. He's blocked now. If Yogesh Khandke is in the discussion, I know you can't tell me what Jswap wanted in the article, but I don't know what the arguments are about if I don't know what changes, if any, are being requested.

SandyGeorgia said I have all the sources. I don't, but I can get most of them today if I need to.

I previously deleted the sandbox in which the article rewrite was constructed in 2010. I restored it today so I could read what I/we (User:Karanacs and Malleus Fatuorum) originally wrote. After the article rewrite was posted to mainspace I lost track of the changes being made to it by quite a few editors and took a far backseat while it was being nominated for FA. When I restored my sandbox, I saw changes that can be construed both as subtle and significant in the section that discusses Luis and Salvador's deaths.

This is what is in my sandbox:

During the night Jay Fosdick, who was with the rest of the snowshoe party, died, leaving only a total of seven. Eddy and Mary Graves returned with the deer meat, but Fosdick's body was cut apart for food. The effects of starvation and hypothermia began to take their toll emotionally. They were unable to walk steadily and sometimes the women fell and would sob uncontrollably. They were listless and sometimes apathetic. Foster and Eddy began to fight with each other until the women intervened. Again they ventured forth to try to find the trail, still hopelessly lost. After several more days—25 since they had left Truckee Lake—they came across Salvador and Luis, who had not eaten anything for about nine days, and were hours from death. William Foster, who had recently suggested killing Amanda McCutcheon for lagging behind, took a pistol and shot the Indians, allowing Salvador to say a final prayer, before stripping the bodies of muscle and organs. On January 12, they stumbled into a Miwok camp looking so deteriorated the Indians fled at the sight of them. After a brief return, the Miwoks gave them what they had to eat: acorns, grass, and pine nuts. Eddy was revived after a few days and propelled them forward with the help of a Miwok, although the other six simply laid down in the snow, too far gone to care. Eddy and the Indian walked 5 miles (8.0 km), met another Indian who, with the lure of tobacco, half-carried Eddy to a ranch at the edge of the Sacramento Valley. A rancher's daughter named Harriet Ritchie opened the door to find Eddy, supported by two Indians, and let out a sob at his condition.

The small community, themselves emigrants from the eastern U.S., assembled quickly and found the other six members of the snowshoe party who had laid down, all still alive. They were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, and all of them vomited from gorging. It was January 17 and they had been gone 33 days from Truckee Lake.

Compared to the version now, what has been removed is a brief description of how starvation affected them mentally/emotionally, and the fact that William Foster threatened to kill Amanda McCutcheon. I think these factors are significant--particularly in treating the deaths of Luis and Salvador and we should discuss restoring the information about their mental/emotional states brought on by starvation and how it affected Foster, who shot Luis and Salvador. I don't recall accessing Joseph King's "Luis and Salvador: Unsung Heroes of the Donner Party," in The Californians, which is used to source the sentence saying that the Indians were killed while gathering acorns. I don't know who added this. I'd like to read this article. King's book is used as a source for this Wikipedia article, but his book follows the trials of Patrick Breen and the Breen family, none of whom were in the snowshoe party.

I hope not to confuse this issue even more, but I finally have access to Archaeology of Desperation: Exploring the Donner Party's Alder Creek Camp, per a few sections above, which I hope to be receiving in a few days. The article needs to be tended a bit. Keseberg's name is spelled differently throughout the article. There are a few other small issues like this.

To reiterate now, if Yogesh Khandke can state clearly what changes he thinks should be made to the article, that's where we need to begin a discussion. And a reminder: a discussion sometimes takes the form of "This is what I think it should be, what do you think it should be?" Sometimes over the Internet that makes it seem confrontational or argumentative. It's not meant to be. But this is a difficult topic to discuss for anyone. It's hard for me to discuss it and my good days are when I don't think about this topic at all. We need to keep in mind any conversation on this page needs to be very strong in equal parts on SOURCES and COLLABORATION. It would help if Yogesh Khandke can access the sources used to construct this article, namely George Stewart's Ordeal By Hunger, Ethan Rarick's Desperate Passage, and Kristin Johnson's Unfortunate Emigrants, the latter a commentary on the various histories written about the Donner Party and how accurate they are in light of how history has been written, and how the practice of writing history has evolved since 1847. If there are books or articles I need to get that aren't listed in the bibliography of the Wikipedia article, I'll do my best to get them. Please make clear which of them I should get. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Folks I present my final say on the matter for the moment, so that Moni3's queries wouldn't be left unanswered. Though I am a little surprised that they still want to know what my proposed edits are about. I am repeating myself for the umpteenth time. I am also a little puzzled about their comment about SOURCES and COLLABORATION. Isn't that a little allusive, considering that it has seemingly been aimed at the person who has been patiently presenting sources on the talk page while facing what looked like hounding,[8][9] baiting [10] and abuse.[11]

The hunting of "Luis and Salvador" for their meat a significant event in the travails of the Party. This event ought to;
have a mention in the lead and

to have its own sub-section.

In support of my argument I have shared numerous sources that consider the event significant as I interpret them, and thus warrant its inclusion in the lead and a separate section dedicated to it, which could discuss Petrinovich (2000) "Although the Indians had brought mules and supplies to the Donner Party and had served as guides, they were the only ones killed for consumption,as far as is known. To this point there is an orderly pattern of consumption of animals of other species, followed by humans of another race." or that Luis and Salvador were shot after having refused to indulge in anthropophagy.(Durham 1999) Please weigh the sources from various Wikipedia angles to judge their usefulness. I have placed all my cards on the table and that is all from me for the time being.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well, I guess I was accurate in trying to review what changes were being promoted in the article. Jswap said I wasn't.

From here the question is about the totality of all sources used in the article, and which of them emphasize Luis and Salvador's deaths and in what ways. Why would these two people warrant more emphasis or weight than the 39 other people who died? This is why it's necessary for you to be knowledgeable about the sources.

You provided a list of sources above, thank you, that address Luis and Salvador's deaths. The article should reflect with appropriate space and weight how much sources concentrated on Luis and Salvador. It's my belief that it does it appropriately now. So how much emphasis do the sources you introduced give Luis and Salvador's deaths?

Limburg: less than 1 page
Hurtado: less than a paragraph
Petrinovich: 1 paragraph, although it makes the claim (how it could I don't know) that Luis and Salvador were the only members of the party to be murdered just to be eaten
Hurtado again: 1 sentence
Lawrence: 1 sentence (this book uses Eliza Farnham's account of the Donner Party)
Dunham 1 paragraph
Walton: half a page

These sources base their writing on a collection of previous accounts, such as Eliza Donner Houghton, Charles McGlashan, J. Quinn Thornton, or George Stewart. There are flaws with each of these sources. None of them are perfect for various reasons. So as editors we have to weigh each source's strongest points and balance them out in the article. Obviously, none of the writers were there on the snowshoe party; they had to rely on first-hand accounts. William Eddy gave a lengthy statement, which was used by George Stewart, so Stewart's account is weighted somewhat in Eddy's favor. Other survivors considered Eddy a liar and a braggart. According to Kristin Johnson (p. 8), he reported events he never saw. But this is common in history, and particularly for this instance when the story is salacious, and the survivors of a tragedy have interpersonal conflicts that started during the tragedy and continue for years after. James Reed, for example, heavily doctored his own accounting of his participation in the entire ordeal. All the sources we used reflect these flaws; the ones you provided are tertiary so they convey the same flawed views, some of which we declined to use because the style in which they were written (Farnham's, for example) fall outside the bounds of acceptable tone and neutrality.

What causes you to believe Luis and Salvador should be mentioned in the lead, above the 39 others who died, some in terrible ways? We can't say the way Luis and Salvador died is more terrible than, say, Hardkoop's death--the 70-year-old who was callously left in the wilderness, with feet so swollen they had split open, because he could no longer walk. Or the actions of William Foster more reprehensible than Lansford Hastings or Selim Woodworth, the rescuer who decided (or misunderstood, as history isn't clear on this) not to meet Reed with the second rescue with food, ensuring that two children and Mrs. Graves died and were consumed by others.

Similarly, what would a sub-section say and what would you base it on? J. Quinn Thornton (Johnson, p. 117) claims William Foster was insane with the effects of starvation. Each of the snowshoe party reacted differently to starvation. Listlessness, apathy, uncontrollable sobbing, and the absolute insanity of hypothermia as illustrated by Patrick Dolan, who took off his clothes in the snow and ran about screaming hours before he died. Foster had threatened to kill another member of the party for lagging behind; violent behavior is within the bounds of abnormalities brought on by starvation. When the snowshoe party initially drew lots to see if they should kill one another so the other might eat, Luis and Salvador did not participate in it--either volunteering to be eaten or drawing straws for someone else's fate. Nor were they murdered outright at this opportunity. Both Foster and Eddy were accused by the women survivors of threatening to kill them. Amanda McCutcheon was passed over because she was a mother. Sarah Fosdick and Mary Ann Graves were not mothers and each suspected Foster and Eddy of wanting them dead to eat them. George Stewart says Luis and Salvador were within hours of dying. Joseph King portrays them almost idyllically searching for acorns when they were ambushed by a bloodthirsty Foster. What tone would be presented here? What information other than what's provided would benefit readers? I don't understand what the point of a subsection would be. --Moni3 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Having read this article and following along with much of the conversation here a thought occurred to me. As you folks are much more knowledgeable on both the topic and sources, I'll ask you. As this article covers the entire scope of the Donner party migration, do you think there is enough information and resource material to build a separate article around say "Cannibalization of the Donner Party"? Or would that be too narrow in scope for a viable article? — Ched : ? 07:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It would repeat much of the information in this article, plus include details that were left out of this article, for (what I assume was) going right over the edge of decency in its vivid descriptions of human suffering. --Moni3 (talk) 14:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Certainly not something I'd want to do a whole lot of reading about. I may enjoy my action/western/war movies - but I don't follow the slasher (Friday the 13th, Halloween, Freddy) stuff. Just thought it might be something for those guys that are so fascinated by the factoid. Cheers. — Ched : ? 16:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The Californians article

If we're going to do this, we should do it right.

I got the source used to cite this sentence: Writer Joseph A. King, however, disagrees that Salvador and Luis were already close to death when Foster shot them, "as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Salvador and Luis] were murdered while gathering acorns".

It's a 2-page magazine article. King confirms that Luis and Salvador were within hours of death in the sentence immediately preceding the one quoted, so the statement here that he disagrees is inaccurate. King is merely reporting what Sutter said about the Donner Party incident and the loss of Luis and Salvador.

This appears to be a momentarily controversial issue; I would have removed the sentence myself if it hadn't been the topic of conversation recently. The article cannot say King disagrees, so the first part of the sentence should be removed, unless it's to re-confirm what another historian has already said. In that case, why not use it to cite the same fact at the end of the previous sentence instead of reiterating what was already said? That then begs why the article needs John Sutter's remark as if it is a historian's view. So--thoughts... --Moni3 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems clear enough, as you say. So what about something along the lines of "But according to writer Joseph A. King, 'as Captain Sutter heard the story from other survivors, his 'good boys' [Luis and Salvador] were murdered while gathering acorns'". As well as using the King citation at the end of the earlier sentence ending "... who had not eaten for about nine days and were close to death"? Malleus Fatuorum 04:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

King isn't the only historian/writer to quote Sutter. The 2nd link from Yogesh Khandke's helpful list of sources (here, for convenience) quotes Sutter, and I have a couple others that give if not the same quote, a similar one. I'm not sure why we're attributing Sutter's words to Joseph King in the prose.

Furthermore, a source I found while searching for more info in the past couple days, here, up to p. 89, gives an extensive treatment of Luis and Salvador as Sutter's slaves. So now I'm thinking about the possibility that Sutter's quote might have to be quantified. His "two good boys" were his slaves, painted by some historians as unfailingly loyal to the stranded Donner Party, and by the author of this source as terrified that Sutter would have them hanged if they returned without his mules. (Notwithstanding the quality of that source, which I don't take for the best if only for the first person view.)

The most valuable information King provided was Luis and Salvador's original given names, probable ages, and what tribe they were from. This has been left out.

On a related note, I got The Indifferent Stars Above, which is listed in the Further reading section. It addresses an issue we're really skirting in this entire discussion over the past few days: the divides that spring up between people when social order breaks down. p. 196 discusses the generalities of human communities that are forced into being feral, like concentration camps, prisons, and the Donner Party, saying that the compulsion to survive overcomes compassion and humanity for many, crystallizing in an often cruel (to outsiders) self-centeredness brought about by the very basic necessities of staying alive. When people go through this in groups, it often divides the entire group (i.e. prison population) based on notions of identity, such as race, religion, gender, class, and culture. I think this is the point Jswap and others may have been trying to make, maybe. Well, I dunno, but it is interesting, and now well-sourced, and I think we should consider placing this in a footnote. --Moni3 (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain why, but I'm feeling a bit uncomfortable about adding that kind of sociological analysis to the article, which I think should just relate the facts as best we can marshal them. But I think a note about the Indians possibly being Sutter's slaves might be good to add. I'll not fight you over it though. Malleus Fatuorum 22:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, it's all in the presentation. I'm not married to the idea, but I'm open to discussion about putting it in a footnote as long as we're just as concerned about the attention to detail and neutrality in the footnotes as the prose. We can think on it and come back in a couple days. --Moni3 (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me. To be honest, I'd have to admit to a very significant anti-sociology bias after having been forced to study the bloody subject for a year during my psychology degree, so I'm maybe not the best judge anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 22:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)