Talk:Donner Party

Pioneers is an incorrect, outdated term

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

From Pioneer: In the United States pioneer commonly refers to an American pioneer, a person in American history who migrated west to join in settling and developing new areas. The Donner Party would certainly meet that definition, no? –CWenger (^ • @) 16:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Some better definitions here, which emphasize "firstness." https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pioneer. They were migrants following an established pattern. They were not "pioneers" except in that way that elementary schools used to refer to everyone who came over on the Mayflower as "pilgrims" when many had little religious beliefs. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings about keeping "pioneers" but how does one define firstness? Is it the very first person to take that route? Migrants in the first year only? Anyway, I think "American pioneer" is not as strict and encompasses early settlers in the West. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It risks offending Native Americans who were much earlier inhabitants. Let's please get rid of it. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Aynrandspeaks What alternate term do you propose that is in reasonably common use and makes clear who they were? —C.Fred (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

What's wrong with the more precise edits I just made? Families and individuals? Migrants? Why have an abstract values-laden label like "pioneers" at all? Please revert the reversion of my edits. Exactitude is best. Pioneers is a values-laden term when they were not "pioneers" -- they were not the first in any way and there were plenty of individuals already living wherever the Donner Party roamed. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@CWenger However, American pioneers links to an article to provide context. Your edit eliminates that context. —C.Fred (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@C.Fred: wrong person; think you meant @Aynrandspeaks. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(@CWenger Yep, sorry, getting used to the automatic-ish pinger in the new reply window.) —C.Fred (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I just started editing the American Pioneers entry -- thank you @C.Fred for pointing it out. It should not be linked to until the American Pioneers page acknowledges the existence and suffering of Native Americans equally to the outdated "pioneer" myth. Do you see now why I want to stay away from it altogether? It just isn't necessary. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 22:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's more meaningful than "families and individuals". Agree with C.Fred that the context is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Pioneers" is as meaningful as "invaders," which would be the Native American view. "Families and individuals" does not take sides. Do you really want to take sides? I don't. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Families and individuals" is a bit of an Easter egg to be the text attached to the link "American pioneers", though. —C.Fred (talk) 17:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The American Pioneers is now sourced to include anti-Native American understanding. There is no need to link to that page from the Donner page. Aynrandspeaks (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Not going to revert, but I'm not sure why those changes affect whether or not we should link to American pioneer from this page. The Donner Party was certainly anti-Native American. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with CWenger. By not linking, we focus on the migrants so exclusively that we neglect the impact on Native Americans. Leaving out the mention of American pioneers and link back to the article because it "risks offending Native Americans" would be akin to saying that the abuses of the American Indian boarding schools are so horrific that it's best to never mention them to avoid offence. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Shot and Ate the Native Guides

"William Foster shot the pair, believing their flesh was the rest of the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation." This has got to be the most surprising sentence in the article, and it's pretty much buried. For posterity:

1. 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.
2. William H. Eddy claimed that Salvador and Luis were shot in the head by William Foster. Another account quotes Captain Sutter, who recounted survivor testimonies, saying Luis and Salvador 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.

Thanks to Yogesh Khandke for the above references. 50.48.129.86 (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree the double murder is way too deeply buried in the article details where few people will find it. I've tried adding a reference to it in the lead but was reverted. I'll soon open a separate section to discuss that. Gawaon (talk) 09:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The sentence, as currently worded ("William Foster shot the pair, believing their flesh was the rest of the group's last hope of avoiding imminent death from starvation.") is also clearly non-neutral. Supposedly Foster would have subsequently justified the murder in such a way, but how exactly should we know what he believed? We can't look into his head. Moreover, the cited source (Johnson, p. 62) doesn't even explicitly say anything about his motives, but rather:

They had not proceeded above two miles, when they cam into a small patch of snow, where they found the tracks of Lewis and Salvadore, for the first time since Mr. Eddy informed them of their danger. Foster immediately said that he would follow them, and kill them if he came up with them. They had not proceeded more than two miles when they came upon the Indians, lying upon the ground, in a totally helpless condition. They had been without food for eight or nine days, and had been four days without fire. They could not, probably, have lived more than two or three hours; nevertheless, Eddy remonstrated against their being killed. Foster affirmed that he was compelled to do it. Eddy refused to see the deed consummated, and went on about two hundred yards, and halted. Lewis was told that he must die; and was shot through the head. Salvadore was dispatched in the same manner immediately after. Mr. Eddy did not see who fired the gun. The flesh was then cut from their bones and dried. (Johnson, pp. 62–63)

So, their flesh was dried, which also refutes the idea that it was a matter of "imminent ... starvation". And, as the previous paragraph states, the question of murdering the two men had already been discussed a week earlier, before Eddy's subsequent warning made them leave. Therefore I suggest rewording the sentence as follows, to bring it in line with the source and with the known facts:

William Foster shot the pair, thus realizing his plans from before they had left; their bodies were then defleshed and their flesh dried for consumption.(ref: Johnson, pp. 62–63)

I'm proposing this here first so we can discuss it, but unless there are counterproposals, I'll make that change in a few days. Gawaon (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the desire to remain as neutral as possible. The issue I have is, once we have the supporting citation, we need to be blunt in our wording. In my mind it's a question of communicating impact. I much prefer:

William Foster shot both men, as he had planed from the outset. Their bodies were then butchered and the flesh left to dry for later consumption.

... but that's just me. Padillah (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I have now changed the sentence, using a mix of your wording and mine. Gawaon (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I also suggest changing "were close to death" to "were probably close to death" in the preceding sentence, following the account given in Johnson, which uses the word "probably" too. We cannot simply make assumptions that are not covered by the sources, and omitting that word here would be such an assumption. Gawaon (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Changed as well. Gawaon (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Mention of double murder in lead section

Currently, the lead section says:

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

I've added at the end of that sentence:

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

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

Agreed. This belongs in the lead. As recently as three months ago, historians discussing the Donner party emphasized the double murder.[1] It's in the literature and it's critically important to the narrative. Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I put the addendum back. I also added that the killing was deliberate. People need to be made aware of this. I understand that there is need for discussion over topics of contention. This is not a contended fact. It is stated clearly in Johnson's notes and is a significant fact in the history of this event. If we can mention the Hastings Cutoff we can mention the murder of two young men! Padillah (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if anybody is disputing the killing of the two Native Americans (I certainly am not). I am torn about whether it should be mentioned in the lead. I think it currently seems very awkwardly shoved into the first paragraph, although it does need to be modified to reflect that the cannabalism was not restricted to those who died naturally. I suggest it be added to the third paragraph after (or as part of) the sentence about the Forlorn Hope. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it fits well enough at the end of the first paragraph, since that's where the cannibalism was already covered. Cannibalism isn't even mentioned again in the lead. Gawaon (talk) 17:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I didn't place it in the first paragraph for sake of the fact that "it needs to be in the first paragraph". I put it in the sentence that mentions the cannibalism. Why is it acceptable to mention that people died from "... starvation, sickness, and extreme cold..." but clunky to mention they died from being deliberately killed?

If there is a better way to phrase this - I'm all for it. But it needs to be right alongside the other reasons people died. I cannot support this fact being either singled-out or even deferential to the other manners of death. If anything, it should be rather easy to argue the deliberate killing of a person needs to be given preferential treatment over other types of passing.

I am trying not to be "activist" about this, but the push-back in respect to the ending a person's life is getting untenable.

Padillah (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Wolfinger was murdered also but there's no push to add that to the lead. My issue with it being in the first paragraph is, like it or not, the broad overview of the Donner Party always mentions cannabilism but rarely (if ever) the killing of the two Native Americans. Perhaps that's not right, but it shouldn't be our mission to correct that. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, is there reason to believe Wolfinger was killed in order to eat him? If so then we need to expand the lead to include his murder as well. I don't want to get into a discussion or defense surrounding why the killings were glossed over in lieu of the cannibalism but you are right, we need to correct that. This topic is notable for the cannibalism so that remains our lead paragraph. If a death (deliberate or not) can be directly linked to the cannibalism that should be in the lead paragraph as well. Padillah (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

No, Wolfinger was killed earlier and not for nourishment. In any case I feel better about mentioning the two Native Americans now that the wording is more natural (in my opinion). –CWenger (^ • @) 21:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm also satisfied with the current wording, so I think we're good here. Thanks everyone! Gawaon (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

I appreciate the help. I think @CWenger's changes are much clearer. They look like a list of lists. There are two types of people they ate: one set that died for "reason one" and "reason two"; and one set that was killed deliberately.

Does that read correctly for you?

Padillah (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Johnson to "Further Reading" section

I notice that Johnson's Unfortunate Emigrants is currently missing from the Further Reading section, though it's quoted extensively throughout the article and is clearly essential reading, collecting all the first-hand accounts of the events. Therefore I propose adding it there – or are they objections? Gawaon (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

The general practice is to list a book only once. Johnson's book is in the bibliography with all the best soures. The "further reading" section contains sources which have not been cited for various reasons. It's kind of the also-ran section. Binksternet (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I see, that makes sense. But the "Bibliography" current appears as the less prominent section, being nested under "References" and printed in a smaller font. Maybe it would be better to promote it to a == section and remove the refbegin template to make it clear that it's no less important than the "Further reading"? Gawaon (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I have now changed the Bibliography formatting accordingly. Gawaon (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Who is Charles T. Stanton?

Charles T. Stanton is first mentioned in the section "Wasatch Range": Reed, Charles T. Stanton and William Pike rode ahead to get Hastings. He is not among those listed in the article as members of the Donner Party and there is no explanation as who he is. Sansgloire (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

"Bear Valley"

The "Bear Valley" linked in the Forlorn Hope section of the article is verifiably not the same Bear Valley that the expedition was attempting to reach. Bear Valley, Alpine County, California is significantly further south than the winter camps.

I am reasonably confident that the Bear Valley referred to in the original source is the valley of the Bear River (Feather River tributary), which is mentioned earlier in the article and much closer to the camps. ButterscotchPuffin (talk) 02:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it's actually neither of those, and it doesn't have a Wikipedia article. I believe it's here on Google Maps. I have removed the link accordingly. If I am wrong or you find a Wikipedia article for the place please let me know. –CWenger (^ • @) 03:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree, that is the place I was trying to signify. I apologize if that wasn't clear. ButterscotchPuffin (talk) 04:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah you're right, it is Bear River (Feather River tributary), I thought it was yet another Bear River in California. Is it worth linking, you think? –CWenger (^ • @) 04:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Probably is worth linking. Needs to be clear where it's referring to.

California really needs to get more original with naming it's rivers. ButterscotchPuffin (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Great catch by the way! –CWenger (^ • @) 05:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)