Talk:Donner Party

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)

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)

Inconsistencies in the party members

I tabled out the people mentioned as being part of the various groups and ran into some issues. (I got very lost in the names and thought a table would help me understand better.)

1. "Also traveling with the Donner brothers were teamsters Hiram O. Miller (29)" this particular teamster is never mentioned again.

2. Charles Stanton, who gets a portrait on the page, and Antonio both appear without any indication of how or where; the Donner Party timeline page mentions both as being members of the Donner group.

3. "Two young single men named Spitzer and Reinhardt traveled with another German couple, the Wolfingers, who were rumored to be wealthy; they also had a hired driver, "Dutch Charley" Burger." Although Joseph Reinhardt is mentioned again, Dutch Charley is not, and the only Spitzer mentioned is Augustus Spitzer, which implies them both to be duplicates of Augustus Spitzer and Charles Burger. Both of them were earlier classed as Donner group teamsters rather than Wolfinger's, and are classed as such on the Donner Party timeline page again.

4. "the Donner families hastily constructed tents to house 21 people, including Mrs. Wolfinger, [and] her child" this is the only mention of Mrs. Wolfinger's child in the entire article, and the 12 children mentioned are already filled by the various Donner children.

Related to 1 and 2 possibly: there's an offhand mention on leaving from Blacks Fork of "Donner hired a replacement driver". No reason is given for why he needed to hire a replacement, nor who the replacement is. It seems plausible that Hiram Miller left and was replaced with Charles Stanton or Antonio, but I don't have any idea of where to look in the references to check for the reality of the situation. If nothing else, that one sentence needs clarification.

Because of these inconsistencies, there are a minimum of 88 people mentioned, and if you include Sarah Keyes, Luis and Salvador, and the Wolfinger child, that number goes up to 92. This is two more than Stephen McCurdy's number. It seems likely that the Wolfinger child is not particularly historically attested, but the other extra person is unclear. I assume it's Hiram Miller, but, again, that's my supposition rather than a researched answer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.121.239 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Use of the term "migrant"

The common terms used for persons headed out west during the early 1800's included Pioneer farmers, homesteaders, or American settlers. Rarely, if ever, were they called "migrants". 2600:1700:A020:BC50:F0A3:B1B4:509B:247F (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears that many modern sources use the term "migrants" for such people - see for example America's Great Migrations Project. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I think "migrants" is a more neutral term. WCCasey (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree - pioneer or settler are both politically charged. Migrant is totally neutral. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)