User talk:Moni3/Donner

Karanacs notes

I generally take lots of notes from a source, then put that into the article later. I'm keeping my notes at User:Karanacs/Donner. The source is listed at the top of each section (yes, I know there is only one section right now). Feel free to incorporate this into the draft as you please. Karanacs (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's inevitable that we're going to encounter some conflicting information. Since I usually work alone, I generally handle this with majority of sources rule, unless one is substantially more reliable than others. Since we're working a 3-way team here, I guess I won't be able to do this and we'll have to use the talk page. Feel free, either you or Malleus, to keep a list of "my source doesn't say that" and I guess we can figure it out as we go along. --Moni3 (talk) 18:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me more about Edwin Bryant? He's mentioned by George Stewart, but I did not know he traveled with the party for a while. --Moni3 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Bryant was part of the group that the Donners caught up with just outside Independence. He did not take the shortcut with the Donners. It looks like he's mentioned again later in the book, I just haven't gotten there yet (today I read what's available on the Google preview - all but a few pages of the first 6 chapters - the library is pulling the book from one of the other branches, and I should have a physical copy in the next few days). Karanacs (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Karan, I'm interested in this quote, but I don't quite get the context: "More than at any other point on its long and emotionally powerful journey, the Donner Party's passage theough the Wasatch created a tangible historical legacy." Can you add some, or even add it in? --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

That's "through" rather than "theough" - I don't spell well when I'm reading. The context was directly below the quote. The road they hacked through the Wasatch Mountains was used by the Mormon expedition the next year. The Mormons stopped at the Great Salt Lake to build their new community. I'm not sure where this should go - in the section on the road-building or in a "legacy" section, if the article is to have one. Karanacs (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have a legacy section in there. I'd like to come back to this quote when we're working on that section. When you get done summarizing this book (thanks btw, I did this recently, and had no idea how much work it takes) if you could read over where Rarick is cited to make sure it's accurate I'd appreciate it. I have no idea what semisolid mud flats are...and I'm tagging with clarify tags when I don't quite get what's being said or there's a discrepancy between the sources. Maybe we can list the clarify tags when we have all the sources, hoping that some of them will answer what some of this stuff means. --Moni3 (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I think "semisolid mud flats" probably means a swamp without any plants and with a little less water, but haven't seen a more descriptive account. I'm having fun with this (even though it makes me want to cry) - I hope you are too :) Karanacs (talk) 21:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This story really is Hell on Earth. It's my understanding that Malleus is interested in the social taboos associated with cannibalism, but my focus, fascination--and horror--is more on how this situation, that we would call a train wreck but puts train wreck to self-pissing shame, was caused by the people who endured it and just such awful shitty luck. I'm hoping that I'll kind of exorcise this out of my system. I was fascinated with the Greek tragedy aspect of this story 10 years ago and read quite a bit about it then, but kind of put it on a mental shelf. Maybe by writing all this and working through it I won't be so shaken by it anymore.

I though the semisolid mud flats was some kind of vehicle...Ha! Ok I have to go fix that note I guess. Were the 1986 researchers able to use anything to drive out on the desert? --Moni3 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

They used all-terrain vehicles (goodness, my notes need some work, don't they?). Karanacs (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Karan and Malleus, I think I'm finished with Stewart's book. Johnson's is an edited collection of first-person accounts and letters, and would be a good use of quotes, so I will read through it as I can. She also includes useful footnotes that correct mistakes in the first-person accounts as to dates and locations, and what modern locales are called, etc. McGlashan's book would also be a good source of quotes from a historian about the legacy of the event, and perhaps some quotes from the participants. I am interested if Rarick has any commentary about faults or weaknesses in Stewart's history. The Response, Survivors, and Legacy sections can be filled out more by other sources. I anticipate from here is simple switching some details, extra citing, copy editing, etc. For the most part, the story is told. Any thoughts or comments? --Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Karan, I added the cites up to page 142. Some of these details in the snowshoe party, events at the Murphy cabin, and possible cannibalism at Alder Creek have been disputed, but it's not clear to me who has disputed them, how these reports were disputed, or the nature of the disputes. I understand the Graves family (and possibly the Breens) disliked the Reeds even following the rescues and thought Eddy was a liar, but I'd like to know where this came from. The Forlorn Hope section (still haven't decided if I like that title too much) is quite detailed right now. I'd like to ask if you can read it over with Rarick close by and make changes or suggestions here as to how it could be improved or amended without it getting too much longer. What are your thoughts on this? --Moni3 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Amend: the details about cannibalism on race: do you think these could be added to the Claims of cannibalism section? --Moni3 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not done with Rarick yet, so am not sure whether he comments on some of the other accounts. So far the most I've seen are the comments on Eddy's diary. I haven't read through the sandbox fully yet - once I finish Rarick I'll do that and leave some comments. Sorry I'm slow - real life and all that... Karanacs (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Start

Moni, I have been reading The Expedition of the Donner Party and its Tragic Fate by Eliza Donner Houghton. I have only gotten to the part where Mrs. Donner put together the torn letter, so I have a ways to go. I just took a few minutes to read what you have accomplished so far and I must say I feel really sad for these people. You're doing a great job of capturing the "heart" of the story. All I really knew about the Donner Party when I started looking into this was that "they had to eat each other". I never really thought about how they would feel about eating people. I especially understand the part about dividing the meat up so that no one had to eat their own kin. Wouldn't that be awful! Anyway, keep up the good work and I'll add what I can. Tex (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Tex. Eliza Donner's story is on my reading list, but other historians have rightly pointed out that she was 3 years old at the time, so what she wrote is probably not coming from her memory. Perhaps recollections of the survivors, which in that case still has value. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

True, but she also includes passages and such from adults in the party. It really appears she did her research before writing the book. By the way, Durova seems to have gone on wikibreak, so I took a stab at improving the stump image. I gotta say, for someone who has never done such a thing, I think I improved it quite well!

Improved contrast.

Use it if you like. Tex (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that looks much better. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

In the Snowbound section, you say that Pike shot himself while cleaning his gun. Eliza says that Pike was killed by an accidental discharge of a gun by his brother-in-law, William Foster. Can you get clarification on that from other sources? Tex (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Pike handed a loaded gun to Foster and it went off. It's currently passive right now: In the meantime, Pike, a married father, was shot while cleaning his gun, and died. Perhaps a bit cowardly. No doubt the prose will be reworked with every source I/we read. --Moni3 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Another question. Eliza says the "snowshoe party" called themselves "The Forlorn Hope". Have you seen this phrase used in other sources? To me, that phrase also demonstrates the emotion these people felt at that time. Tex (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Stewart calls them The Snow-shoers. If it seems more than one person in the party called them The Forlorn Hope, not just Eliza, the subheading can be changed and a brief explanation can be added. --Moni3 (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've seen The Forlorn Hope used in a variety of sources. Karanacs (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Now I've seen it in the American Experience video and in McGlashan's history. I was under the impression that someone in the Donner Party called it the Forlorn Hope, but I can't find who named it this. Can anyone else? --Moni3 (talk) 16:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Found it. Was historian McGlashan (from Johnson, p. 49.), whose account is not as accurate as others. I'm still in the middle of reading it, but I agree with Stewart it is quite melodramatic and sentimental, written in the style of 19th century literature. --Moni3 (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, Eliza says "this party which called itself 'The Forlorn Hope,'" but as you correctly pointed out, it's doubtful she remembered them calling themselves anything, so I'm not sure who "coined" the phrase. Tex (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Johnson says the name was created by McGlashan, whose history was first published in 1879. I think Houghton published her account for the first time in 1911. --Moni3 (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Response Section

This is a direct quote from Eliza's book about some of the treatment of Lewis Keseberg after the rescue. I thought parts of it would go good in the Response section. I didn't feel comfortable paraphrasing it in your sandbox as you are working on it, but I thought I'd leave it here for your use. Tex (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know the proper protocol in directly quoting several paragraphs on a talk page, so I'm going to delete it. It's in the history if you're interested. Tex (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Keseberg is made out by George Stewart to be something slightly more than an animal. He was widely reviled, according to Stewart, in California for being frank and open about his cannibalism and then opening a restaurant. I have not re-read Stewart's chapter on Keseberg, but I will soon. There will be a discussion regarding all of the survivors and what happened to them, including the doubt they all cast on who participated in cannibalism, if anyone. I get the impression that some of their descendents vociferously refute that their ancestors ever participated in such an act.

As for copy-paste on talk pages, I'm ok with it as long as it's not in the article. I use a quotation template

Just like this, so it is clear what is verbatim copied from a source.

--Moni3 (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Eliza Poor Donner:

Intense excitement and indignation prevailed at the Fort after Captain Fallon and other members of his party gave their account of the conditions found at the mountain camps, and of interviews had with Keseberg, whom they now called, "cannibal, robber, and murderer." The wretched man was accused by this party, not only of having needlessly partaken of human flesh, and of having appropriated coin and other property which should have come to us orphaned children, but also of having wantonly taken the life of Mrs. Murphy and of my mother.

Some declared him crazy, others called him a monster. Keseberg denied these charges and repeatedly accused Fallon and his party of making false statements. He sadly acknowledged that he had used human flesh to keep himself from starving, but swore that he was guiltless of taking human life. He stated that Mrs. Murphy had died of starvation soon after the departure of the "Third Relief," and that my mother had watched by father's bedside until he died. After preparing his body for burial, she had started out on the trail to go to her children. In attempting to cross the distance from her camp to his, she had strayed and wandered about far into the night, and finally reached his cabin wet, shivering, and grief-stricken, yet determined to push onward. She had brought nothing with her, but told him where to find money to take to her children in the event of her not reaching them. He stated that he offered her food, which she refused. He then attempted to persuade her to wait until morning, and while they were talking, she sank upon the floor completely exhausted, and he covered her with blankets and made a fire to warm her. In the morning he found her cold in death.

Keseberg's vehement and steadfast denial of the crimes of which he stood accused saved him from personal violence, but not from suspicion and ill-will. Women shunned him, and children stoned him as he walked about the fort. The California Star printed in full the account of the Fallon party, and blood-curdling editorials increased public sentiment against Keseberg, stamping him with the mark of Cain, and closing the door of every home against him.

Notes

For my awful memory

• Johnson, p. 8: Eddy's accounts of his experiences may be exaggerated, and thus, Stewart's book, which gives Eddy much weight. Explained in Winter of Entrapment.
• Johnson, p. 36: Reed maintained for many years following the rescues that he forged ahead for supplies and remained "haunted" of his part in Snyder's death. Johnson calls this a "half-truth".
• Johnson, p. 37: Keseberg may have beat his wife. He may also have been (see Stewart) another German named "Boonhelm", who later, in the plains, disturbed a Sioux burial site, opening the whites to certain attack. Boonhelm also once stated in Olympia, Wash. "human liver was the best meat he ever ate". Johnson doubts they are the same person. Keseberg never went to Washington.
• Johnson, p. 43: Donner Lake, 5933 ft., Donner Pass, 7088 ft., Donner Peak, 8019 ft.
• Stewart, p. 306-307: On McGlashan's history, "..the work has received high praise from later historians. As the record would indicate, I do not agree with this opinion. If I had agreed, I should obviously not have tried to write my own history. McGlashan's work seems to be hazy in chronology and topography, overloaded with miscellaneous notes about the survivors, and composed in a bad style of nineteenth-century sentimental oratory. it sometimes misquotes its originals; it indulges in almost ludicrous eulogy of individuals. It is far from complete--in particular, omitting most of the references to cannibalism. Its author was, however, an assiduous collector."
• Johnson, p. 49: J. Quinn Thornton's account of the Snowshoe Party inaccurate according to Stewart and Johnson.
• From various sources, both Stanton and John Denton wrote poems just before dying. Wtf??

Ethical/moral question

When I wrote Rosewood massacre, there were some details about body parts in jars and souvenirs that were pretty lurid, and not really supported by the strongest sources, so I left them out.

There are some details to this story that are getting into the gore-porn genre, but seem to be hotly disputed by historians and survivors, so they are directly related to the story. Keseberg is made out to be a ghoul. I'm anticipating the article may get a similar reaction to Gropecunt Lane, an angry barrage of "How dare you"s for merely representing the sources, specifically where it comes to cannibalization of children. What I've written so far is toned down from what Stewart (writing in 1936!) says. There are some things I simply cannot force my fingers to type.

Yet the issue of cannibalism is in the lead. I figure if people read it, they're forewarned.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? --Moni3 (talk) 01:28, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If people want to be protected from the idea of cannibalism then they ought not to be reading articles involving cannibalism. I expect there may be some new-age objection to the term "cannibalism" though; probably the politically correct name now is "same-species consumption". (Don't mind me, I've been tearing my hair out this week dealing with editors who object to the term "witch" in articles about witches.) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If the word cannibalism is in the lead, they are forwarned that the article could contain a certain degree of detail that may not be suitable for all audiences. I believe, however, that you're going to get more of the ghoulish people coming to this article that want to read the details than those who are offended by such. Tex (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Virginia Reed's letter quotebox

I really think it should be presented in proper English. Otherwise, it's almost unintelligible. I did not take too much care in how the note is worded. If someone else wants to take a crack at it, please feel free. The note is full of OR and SYNTH, but the objective is to make it understood, not to cause further confusion.

For posterity, it was written like this:

O Mary I have not rote you half of the truble we have had but I have rote anuf to let you now that you dont now what truble is but thank god we have all got throw and the onely family that did not eat human flesh we have left everything but i dont cair for that we have got throw with our lives but Dont let this letter dishaten anybody never take no cutofs and hury along as fast as you can.

--Moni3 (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Loose ends

• I've asked User:Kmusser to make a map of the western U.S. from Blacks Fork, Wyoming to Sutter's Fort, including all the important topographical features and Hasting's route.

• I've asked User:Mike Searson, who apparently lives within an hour of Donner Memorial State Park, to supply some sources on the history of the park.

• I might try to make a map of the vicinity of the two camps at Truckee Lake and Alder Creek. That's fairly simple enough, I think. I should be able to handle it. --Moni3 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Donner Party timeline needs a cleanup and better cites. Perhaps a roster of all 87 members w/ Luis and Salvador, indicating how each fared.
  • would the list of members (as I see you've started below) work better as a standalone List of Donner Party members? Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it might. That timeline does not look like it is well-maintained or cited. I think we can be WP:BOLD in reformatting some of it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

List of members of the Donner Party

The Donner Party was a group of American pioneers who traveled to California in a wagon train for several months from 1846 to 1847. Several delays and poor planning caused them to be trapped in the Sierra Nevada mountains during the winter. They set up camp near Truckee Lake (now Donner Lake) from November to March. They ran out of food and many of them succumbed to malnutrition and starvation, while others resorted to cannibalism. Historians generally recognize that the company consisted of 87 members, most of whom belonged to large families or were employed by them to drive wagons. Some were unaffiliated with any families. A little more than half of the original 87 members survived. Some members attempted to escape their improvised camp on foot in an excursion that has become known as "The Forlorn Hope". Rescuers arrived on February 18 in three relief parties that escorted survivors on foot. Not all who were rescued survived to California.

Family	Name	Age during winter of 1846–1847	End condition
Donner	George	62	Died at Alder Creek, March 1847
	Tamsen	44	Died at Truckee Lake (Breen cabin), March 1847
	Elitha	14	Rescued, 1st relief (February 18, 1847)
	Leanna	12	Rescued, 1st relief (February 18, 1847)
	Frances	6	Rescued, 3rd relief (March 14, 1847)
	Georgia	4	Rescued, 3rd relief (March 14, 1847)
	Eliza	3	Rescued, 3rd relief (March 14, 1847)
Reed
	James F.	46	Survived, settled in San Jose
	Margaret	32	Survived, rescued in 1st relief (February 18, 1847)
	Virginia	12	Rescued, 1st relief (February 18, 1847)
	Martha (Patty)	9	Rescued, 2nd relief (March 1, 1847)
	James	6	Rescued, 1st relief (February 18, 1847)
	Thomas	4	Rescued, 2nd relief (March 1, 1847)
Breen
	Patrick	51	Rescued, 2nd relief (March 1, 1847), left at "Starved Camp", came out with John Stark

I placed collapsible content headings in each of the relief sections, but I can't figure out how to right align them. Ideally, I'd like them to go under the images in these sections. Does anyone know how to do this? --Moni3 (talk) 16:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I can make it work if we put the collapsible stuff as part of the image caption - however, the headings are too long, which means that on my screen the show/hide buttons are on top of the words. If I add the recommended padding to the header, then the header name wraps around and covers up the first line of the names. Does this need to be collapsible? I might make them tables and embed them in the text - but that means we'd have to move and/or eliminate a few images. Karanacs (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

See what you can do. I'd rather not remove any images just yet, but let's see if we can make it work. --Moni3 (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Karen. My only suggestions with the table would be to see if the text can be made small and possibly knocking up (ha!) the Breen diary image to the top of the article? --Moni3 (talk) 20:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I figured out how to make a table collapsible, and I made it smaller. Alternatively, we can keep the hidden templates and wrap them in the infobox template to make them appear underneath the images or quote boxes. Which do you prefer? Karanacs (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it works this way fine. Someone will object to something, though. I suck at making tables pretty much. I usually end up stealing the formatting from some similar table, but this one is so specialized I don't even know where to prowl around to steal. Thanks! --Moni3 (talk) 20:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

My brain's tired, so forgive a stupid question...which way is fine? Tables or hidden template? Karanacs (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. The hidden template is the one I like. The tables knocked everything out of scale. If it's going to be hidden, though, it'll probably be ok to have the text normal size. I figured if the table was going to be there all long and stuff, it might save some space to make the font smaller. I have such a low tolerance for formatting code, though, mine usually looks like it's stuck together with gum and tissue paper. --Moni3 (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I wrapped the other two hidden templates in the infobox so that we could see how they look. On my screen, it overlaps a bit with the line of text at the top (for example, in second relief, the title of the hidden box overlaps some of the words in the first sentence of the paragraph "Seventeen from Truckee Lake..." I haven't been able to fix that yet. I prefer tables over text because it makes it lines everything up better - with a table I can quickly scan the ages or outcomes, with the hidden template it's a big block of text to read through. I'm a programmer by nature, so I'm very into everything being ordered. Maybe someone else will have an opinion? Karanacs (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like the table one better (the one under First Relief at the moment). I think it looks better and is easier to read. Tex (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Karen, if you don't mind taking charge of these tables/collapsible infoboxes, that'd be fine with me. Use your best judgment. I looked at it on my work computer which is 1200 px wide and my home, which is 800 px. The collapsible infoboxes in Second relief and Third relief did as you said on my work computer: it messed up the spacing around the text and images. But it doesn't do that on my home computer. The only thing I have any opinion on is that I think whatever format you choose should be hidden. If I haven't made myself clear, which is pretty understandable in light of the fact that I don't know what I'm talking about, let me know. --Moni3 (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

There are several pictures reprinted in Rarick's book. They are all noted as having come from the Bancroft Library, with no other copyright detail. One of the pictures is the lithograph of the cabins that is now in this version of the article. Also available are photgraphs of James and Margaret Reed, Patrick Breen, Lewis Keseberg, Charles Stanton (think this is a painting), William Eddy, John Stark, and Patty and Virginia Reed and Frances Donner at the dedication of the monument. There's also a photograph of the marks Reed left at the Big Blue River, a scan of a page of Partick Breen's diary that includes the first mention of cannibalism, a scan of the California Star from Feb 13, 1847, which was first public mention of cannibalism, and a drawing of Sutter's Fort from 1846. What should I scan? Everything? Karanacs (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sweet. Patrick Breen's diary, perhaps the image for the top of the article? I have a digital image of James and Margaret Reed, but no source for the image of both. I know it's Reed because I've seen his picture alone. If you can give me the page number for James and Margaret Reed, I'll upload that.

What do you think would be better? The current image of the monument or the one with the dedication? I'm fond of having unique pictures for articles, and the image of the monument already graces the State Park article. What do you think?

To recount: Kmusser is creating a map of the Hastings cutoff, I'm trying to create one of the Truckee Lake and Alder Creek sites, the Breen scan would be awesome, and perhaps replacing the monument for the dedication of the monument? Otherwise, the article may be too cluttered. Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no page number - the pictures are printed all together between two chapters. The picture of the grown-up girls at the monument dedication doesn't actually show the monument, just the women. I'd be happy showing just the women - it is nice to see proof that children survived. I'll upload a few of these maybe tomorrow. Karanacs (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

File:PatrickBreenDiaryPage28.jpg Karanacs (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC) I also found these online images that we may or may not choose to use:

• Eliza (Donner) Poor Houghton [1]. There are no details on who took this picture or when (only that she died in 1922), so this would likely have to be used as fair-use.
• Patrick Breen: [2] This is reprinted in Rarick's book. It should be PD because he died in 1868, therefore it's highly likely that the photographer has been dead 70 years. However, the picture quality is poor, and I'm not sure it is good enough for the article. Karanacs (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Leader of the Pack

Hi Moni, why no mention of Colonel Russell or ex-Governor Boggs? I understand that neither of them are major players in this story, but the way your page unfolds now, it appears that they just decided one day to elect a leader when they were more than half way to their destination. If what I have read is any indication, they joined up with Colonel Russell's group right outside of Independence and he was the leader until he fell ill, leaving Governor Boggs in charge. I'm not clear on why they decided to elect another leader on July 21, but they did have other leaders along the way. Do you think they should at least be mentioned? Tex (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought the most emphasis should be directed toward the time the party spent from when they split off on the Hastings Cutoff to their rescue. This is, of course, so far my judgment, but if others also think that Russell and Boggs should be mentioned, then it can be added in the prose or in a footnote. --Moni3 (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

What to research next?

I've finished the Rarick book (notes at User:Karanacs/Donner). What shall I research next week? I don't have any books accessible that haven't already been used, but I can get anything via Inter-Library Loan if need. Or, Malleus, do you want to split up the PDFs? Let me know what you've read already or especially want to read, and I can pick from the rest. Karanacs (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Karen, do you mind reading through the sandbox with Rarick nearby to make sure I've adequately represented what he's written? I tried to balance between the sources, some of which are quite emphatic about their views. --Moni3 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Trudeau

Moni, why is Jean Baptiste Trudeau referred to as Baptiste? Rarick always used Trudeau, and Baptiste is not a last name - "Jean Baptiste" is a very, very common first name in French culture. Karanacs (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Stewart referred to him as Jean Baptiste. I just haven't made it consistent in the sandbox. --Moni3 (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)