Talk:Lewis and Clark Expedition

All those statues

Is it just me, or do all those statues leave other people cold, boobless hi ashley, too. They just make the subject feel like a museum piece, or worse yet, a high school textbook-- sterile and "heroic", in the overused, grandiose sense of the work, like the overblown inspirational music they're always using in the background of documentaries on such stories. The story itself is gritty, and I suspect it didn't feel at all heroic day by day. Anyway, if it were up to me, I'd move them all to a gallery at the end. Anyone feel the same about them? -- Mwanner | Talk 15:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The Corps Of Discovery

It is also beleived that Sacajawea was captured by Indians, but no one can be really sure. I am not sure but I do beleive that the Indians called Clark "the redheaded chief" because of his red hair. It was very unusual for Indians to see red hair so of course they thought it was speical. The expedition is known to be called the corps of discovery, pronounced the cores of discovery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.70.7 (talk) 02:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Official"

I replaced the word "official" with "recorded" because it's not clear what "Official" means. Presumably it has something to do with government sponsorship, in which case, it should say so. Or if the idea is to distinguish haphazard tranists by wanderers of which we have no historical record, then I hope "recorded" conveys that. I don't think we should call transits authorized by the US Government, whose title rested on conquest, as being more official than transits by the Native Americans who, after all, lived there first. rewinn (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Members of the expedition

{{editsemiprotected}}

The list of expedition members requires some corrections: 1. Jean-Baptiste Lepage, who joined the ‘Corps of Discovery’ as a replacement for Newman (No. 24; expelled from the permanent party on Oct. 13, 1804) on November 3, 1804, is missing. He was in one of the earlier versions but then deleted for some unfathomable reason. 2. Instead the list contains one ‘Howard Tunn’, who is pure invention - he isn’t mentioned anywhere in the Journals. Obviously he was brought into this world by some joker on March 19, 2006.

In addition it might be a good idea to organize the list a bit: (see section below)

Hi there, in regard to your semi-protected edit request;

I note that the current section was entirely unreferenced; therefore, I have removed it for now. This is merely procedure, as Wikipedia cannot assert unreferenced facts.

I, or another user processing SPER requests in the future, will be happy to reinstate the section as per your suggestin in the following section, as long as you can support the facts with a suitable reliable, verifiable reference - such as a book (with ISBN if possible).

Best regards,  Chzz  ►  09:24, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Expedition members

The 33 members of the Permanent Party

1. Captain Meriwether Lewis—private secretary to President Thomas Jefferson and leader of the Expedition.
2. Lieutenant William Clark—shared command of the Expedition, although technically second in command.
3. York—Clark's slave (often referred to in Clark's journal as a "servant").
4. Sergeant John Ordway—responsible for issuing provisions, appointing guard duties and keeping records for the Expedition, and leader of the 3rd squad; third in command
5. Sergeant Nathaniel Hale Pryor—leader of the 1st Squad; he presided over the court martial of privates John Collins and Hugh Hall.
6. Sergeant Patrick Gass—chief carpenter, promoted from Private to Sergeant after Floyd's death; leader of the 2nd squad.
7. Private William E. Bratton—served as hunter and blacksmith.
8. Private John Collins—had frequent disciplinary problems; he was court-martialed for stealing whiskey which he had been assigned to guard.
9. Private John Colter—charged with mutiny early in the trip, he later proved useful as a hunter; he earned his fame after the journey as an explorer in his own right.
10. Private Pierre Cruzatte—a one-eyed French fiddle-player and a skilled boatman.
11. Private Joseph Field—a woodsman and skilled hunter, brother of Reubin.
12. Private Reubin Field—a woodsman and skilled hunter, brother of Joseph.
13. Private Robert Frazer—kept a journal that was never published; originally of the Return Party but then transferred to the Permanent Party on October 8, 1804, to replace Moses Reed.
14. Private George Gibson—a fiddle-player and a good hunter; he served as an interpreter (probably via sign language).
15. Private Silas Goodrich—the main fisherman of the expedition.
16. Private Hugh Hall—court-martialed with John Collins for stealing whiskey.
17. Private Thomas Proctor Howard—court-martialed for setting a "pernicious example" to the Indians by showing them that the wall at Fort Mandan was easily scaled.
18. Private François Labiche—French fur trader who served as an interpreter and boatman.
19. Private Jean-Baptiste Lepage—a Frenchman living with the Mandans; after Cruzatte and Labiche the third Frenchman to actually enlist, unlike Drouillard and Charbonneau (and numerous French ‘Engagés’ who joined the expedition only for a short time, usually as boatmen or interpreters); joined on November 3, 1804 as a replacement for Newman.
20. Private Hugh McNeal—the first white explorer to stand astride the headwaters of the Missouri River on the Continental Divide.
21. Private John Potts—German immigrant and a miller.
22. Private George Shannon—was lost twice during the expedition, once for sixteen days. Youngest member of expedition at 19.
23. Private John Shields—blacksmith, gunsmith, and a skilled carpenter; with John Colter, he was court-martialed for mutiny.
24. Private John B. Thompson—may have had some experience as a surveyor.
25. Private Peter M. Weiser—had some minor disciplinary problems at River Dubois, but still made a permanent member of the party.
26. Private William Werner—convicted of being absent without leave at St. Charles, Missouri, at the start of the expedition.
27. Private Joseph Whitehouse—often acted as a tailor for the other men; he kept a journal which extended the Expedition narrative by almost five months.
28. Private Alexander Hamilton Willard—blacksmith; assisted John Shields. He was attacked in July 1805 by a White Bear on portage around Missouri River Falls and rescued by Clark and three others.
29. Private Richard Windsor—often assigned duty as a hunter.
30. Interpreter George Drouillard—skilled with Indian sign language; the best hunter on the expedition.
31. Interpreter Toussaint Charbonneau—Sacagawea's husband; served as a translator and often as a cook.
32. Interpreter Sacagawea—Charbonneau's wife; translated Shoshone to Hidatsa for Charbonneau and was a valued member of the expedition.
33. Jean Baptiste Charbonneau—Son of Charbonneau and Sacagawea, born February 11, 1805, nicknamed ‘Pomp’ by Clark; his presence helped dispel any notion that the expedition was a war party, smoothing the way in Indian lands.

• "Seaman", Lewis' large black Newfoundland dog.

Originally also members of the Permanent Party

1. Sergeant Charles Floyd—the Expedition's quartermaster; died on August 20, 1804, near present Sioux City, Iowa, perhaps of a ruptured appendix He was the one member of the Corps who died during the Expedition.
2. Private Moses B. Reed—attempted to desert in August 1804; convicted of desertion and expelled from the Permanent Party.
3. Private John Newman—court-martialed and confined for "having uttered repeated expressions of a highly criminal and mutinous nature."; consequently expelled from the Permanent Party.

The Return Party

The composition of the return party is anything but clear. The following soldiers are mentioned on different occasions in April and May 1804 as belonging to it, but when it actually left the Permanent Party a year later, on April 7, 1805, the Journals only state that a "barge crew [...] of six soldiers" was dismissed with Corporal Warfington in charge; no other names are specified. If one considers that the party also included Reed and Newman, only four out of the five men mentioned below can have been in it:

1. Corporal Richard Warfington—conducted the return party to St. Louis in 1805; fulfilled his task so ably that Lewis recommended that he receive a bonus beyond his regular pay.
2. Private John Boley—disciplined at Camp Dubois.
3. Private John Dame
4. Private Ebenezer Tuttle—may have been the man sent back on June 12, 1804; otherwise, he was with the return party.
5. Private Isaac White—may have been the man sent back on June 12, 1804; otherwise, he was with the return party.
6. Private John Robertson—member of the Corps for a very short time; mentioned in the Journals on a few occasions (once as ‘Robinson’) and then disappears; may have been the man sent back on June 12, 1804, unless that was Tuttle or White

87.179.237.62 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Were Lewis and Clark homosexuals?

I recently read reports online that Lewis was a homosexual. His wiki article states "Lewis, a happy man, never married." What does that lead us to believe? The fact that Lewis committed suicide around the time that his "partner" Clark married a woman also increases speculation. Does anyone know the answer to this? While I was recently in the Pacific Northwest, home of many Lewis and Clark statues, someone told me this. Anyone want to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSurge1000 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the The Far Horizons (1955) be metioned in the article?

As of 2009, the only feature-length motion picture on the Lewis & Clark expedition is the low-budget 1955 film: The Far Horizons, [although there have been plenty of documentaries on the subject,(including the excellent 1997 PBS Ken Burns' "Lewis & Clark: The Journey of the Corps of Discovery")]. The movie stars Fred MacMurray as Capt. Lewis, Charlton Heston as Lt. Clark, Donna Reed as Sacajawea and Barbara Hale as Julia Hancock (Lt. Clark's wife). It is a film with a great many fictional scenes in it; such as attacks by Native-Americans and a love story between Mr. Heston and Ms. Reed (who isn't married in the film). The short, minor scene where they reach the Pacific Ocean reflects the low-budget of the film. If someone wants to add "The Far Horizons" to the article, that's fine with me, but, it is a lousy movie.204.80.61.110 (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Bennett Turk

A Correction for the reflist

Note 5 refers to an archived version of a site, because the original link to the site does not function. However, the original site (useful to link to in part because of its intellectual authority) does exist, is active, and will continue to be available in the foreseeable future. The original site link should be changed to this: http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=v02.appendix.a.xml&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl -- I am not sure why the note links to the following: http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/v02.appendix.a.html.

Capitalisation

There seems to me to be no reason why "Expedition" is capitalised in the title. "Lewis" and "Clark" should be, as surnames, but the whole thing is not a proper noun, so I'm proposing moving this article to "Lewis and Clark expedition". Comments please. Rodhullandemu 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia training, reports

This article has a Philadelphia template, but nothing about Philadelphia in the article. From memory, I believe that there was training in various subjects for members of the expedition, and connections with the reports afterwards, done in Philadelphia. This needs investigation and additions to the article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have not removed the Philadelphia template, but there is no justification for having it until the article is improved to include relevant Philadelphia information. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent sources for the Philadelphia connection

• http://www.lewisandclarkphila.org/philadelphia/philadelphiafrankmuhly.html
• http://explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=593

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 16 October 2009 00:47:17 (UTC) (talk • contribs) Dthomsen8

All those statues

Is it just me, or do all those statues leave other people cold, too. They just make the subject feel like a museum piece, or worse yet, a high school textbook-- sterile and "heroic", in the overused, grandiose sense of the work, like the overblown inspirational music they're always using in the background of documentaries on such stories. The story itself is gritty, and I suspect it didn't feel at all heroic day by day. Anyway, if it were up to me, I'd move them all to a gallery at the end. Anyone feel the same about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.88.35 (talk) 17:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Native American/Indian

Should we not call them Native Americans.... seeing as how they are Americans... and of no Indian relation..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.6.89 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking this in relation to the wording in this article, or the word usage in general? Katr67 (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See Native American name controversy. My understanding in brief: In the United States both "Native American" and "Indian" are common and acceptable. In a global encyclopedia like Wikipedia I would only use them for topics restricted to areas now part of the United States, and then start off with a term and link like Native American Indians. Later in the article, once the context is well established, and if a shorter term is desired, using just "Indians" seems acceptable. For areas now part of Canada I would avoid both terms and instead use the term "indigenous peoples", or something similar, like Aboriginal peoples in Canada, or First Nations if appropriate. If the topic area covers both what is now the US and Canada, I would opt for "indigenous" over "Native American". For Mexico and areas south I am not sure. See Native American name controversy, which has suggestions. Finally, I think it is best when possible to avoid these overarching terms altogether and instead use the names of specific tribes and nations, like Lakota, Seneca, etc. This is my approach on the topic both in general and for this article in particular (which I will check over now!). Pfly (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well, I made a few changes. The topic is slightly tricky for this article because Lewis and Clark explored land that was not wholly American at the time--Britain had a good claim to much of it, as did Spain. The American claim was rather tenuous. But since the expedition's travels were entirely within what is now the US, I generally went with the Native American Indians style. I replaced a few general terms with specific ones (like changing "Indians" to "Sioux", and removed a number of unnecessary uses of "Indian" (Shoshone Indian wife, Sacajawea). I used the word "indigenous" for the Blackfeet, as they are a tribe that extends into Canada, both back then and today. Naturally I did not edit quotes, such as Jefferson's use of the word "Indians". For the first use of the term in the subsection "Native American relations" I went overboard with the phrase "the indigenous Native American Indians", covering the bases rather thoroughly. The subsection goes on to use both "Native American" and "Indian", so it made sense for the first use to include both. Anyway, lots of articles could use this kind of copyediting, I reckon. Pfly (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hey Pfly, thanks for the thorough explanation. I was planning to delete the anon's question as unrelated chat, however, if s/he didn't reply today that the question pertained to the word usage in this Lewis and Clark article. And then send hiim/her to the reference desk. :) Katr67 (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think "the indigenous Native American Indians" might be a bit of overkill. I wouldn't sweat the usage of "Indian" too much, as long as the usage of the word is clear, "Native American" is used at least once, and Native Americans in the United States is linked somewhere. We should be as encyclopedic as possible, which means using the academically accepted terminology, but do note that most American Indians just refer to themselves as "Indians". You might go ask about the matter at WP:IPNA. For Canada, First Nations is also acceptable. Katr67 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, feel free to trim it down! I've become rather fond of the term indigenous, especially after learning that "Native American" and "Indian" are much less acceptable in Canada (although apparently not entirely so). But you are probably right my phrase was overkill. First Nations is a little tricky--what would you call an individual? A First Nationer? Plus, doesn't it have a connotation of the modern First Nation governments that might not be quite right for historical descriptions? (I'm not sure) Anyway, the original poster's question might have been unrelated chat, but this article did have a little bit of mixed use, so I figured it might as well be checked. Pfly (talk) 22:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

(←) Yeah, no worries, it is all very complex. I believe the best practice for individuals, as you noted above, is to refer to a persons' tribal affiliation whenever possible. For the general term for folks whose ancestors lived here long before mine did, I tend to use the term (capital "N") Native, in my personal writing, depending on context, but I don't think that would work on Wikipedia. Katr67 (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Information in Section 'Achievements' is repetition in the article

This section has the same information as the last four paragraph of the "Louisiana Purchase and a western expedition".

Shall I go into the article and delete the introduction to the 'Achievements' article. BEFORE deleting I would copy and paste the information to the 'purchase' section, because it is better worded.

Shall I work on making this article more readable, or is someone else working on this? (I haven't read the previous comments, I'm printing them off and will read them now.)

Please let me know. I won't do anything until I receive an answer.

Bettymnz4 (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be bold and combine the two.

I'm moving this:

In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson commissioned the Corps of Discovery as a scientific expedition to explore the newly acquired Louisiana Purchase. The expedition's goal as stated by President Jefferson was "to explore the Missouri River and such principal stream of it as by its course and communication with the waters of the Pacific Ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregon, Colorado or any other river that may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent for the purpose of commerce". In addition, the expedition was to learn more about the Northwest's natural resources, inhabitants, and possibilities for settlement. Although Lewis and Clark were not the first explorers to travel west and they did not achieve their primary objective of finding a waterway across North America, the significance of the expedition can be measured in other ways.

to the end of the Purchase section, I'll then seamlessly combine all the information in the Purchase section

I ended up leaving the last sentence in the section it was in; it's a lead to further information in that section.

I have finished with what I intended to do, so I don't expect to make anymore changes unless someone asks me to. Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)