Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Donner Party/archive1

TFA blurb (2024)

James and Margaret Reed of the Donner Party

The Donner Party was a group of American pioneers who set out for California in a wagon train, but became snowbound in the Sierra Nevada mountains in November 1846. Running out of food, some resorted to cannibalism to survive. The journey west usually took between four and six months, but the Donner Party had been slowed by following a new route called the Hastings Cutoff, which crossed the Rocky Mountains' Wasatch Range and the Great Salt Lake Desert in present-day Utah. They lost many cattle and wagons in the rugged terrain, and divisions formed within the group. Their food supplies ran low after they became trapped by an early, heavy snowfall high in the mountains. In mid-December some of the group set out on foot and were able to obtain help. Of the 87 members of the party, 48 survived to reach California. Historians have described the episode as one of the most spectacular tragedies in California history. (Full article...)

Edits and comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 02:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Jappalang's comments

Resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede

• "... and several rescue attempts were made."

  The question that came to me when reading up to this point was "by who?".

  • Changed to "Family members in California made several rescue attempts." Malleus Fatuorum 15:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Just over half of the party survived the trip ..."

  The underlined word might be of unnecessary stress (and possibly introduces a bias); sure, it was a tragedy, but it need not constant stressing of what degree the losses were (otherwise, it might invite comparisons of "which disaster was even worse").

  • Changed to "Of the 87 members of the party, 45 survived the trip to California." Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Background

• I think the first paragraph can do with a bit of reorganization. The status of Oregon and California are unknown or in confusion currently; were they unoccupied states (not likely since much later it says they had been settled by Spanish and Mexicans), were they not part of United States then? If so, why are the settlers called "pioneers" since the definition of one is "one who ventures into unknown or unclaimed territory to settle."[1]
  • California was not part of the United States, no, it was Mexican territory. The Mexican–American War war, which resulted in the annexation of California by the US broke out as the pioneers were travelling to California. Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • So I guess the settlers were called "pioneers" because the US views the two states as "unclaimed or unsettled (by Americans or Europeans)"? Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • They weren't then states, they were part of Mexico. Malleus Fatuorum 23:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Hmm... in my reading, I feel as if the article is asserting that the areas were already designated as the two states. Perhaps, "... to settle in the regions that later became Oregon and California."? Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
          • The regions were already called Oregon and California, it was just that their ownership was disputed. The article is quite explicit in making clear that California was not then a US state. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Because travelers needed a steady supply of water, wood, and fodder for the animals, ..."

  Anyway to reword this? It sounds like wood is needed for the animals... (I would presume you meant water and wood for the people, water and fodder for the animals).

  • I don't agree this needs changing, as the comma after "wood" makes it clear what's meant. Had it said "water, wood and fodder for the animals", I would have agreed that it was ambiguous. Malleus Fatuorum 14:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Lansford W. Hastings had gone to California ... To entice settlers to an empire he envisioned himself at the head of ..."

  Sure, there is a link, but I am not too enamoured with jumping to it to find out how he would have the influence to start an "empire". Even then, the linked article seems lacking to explain this. Who was he, a reputable soldier, a politician, a well-known explorer? Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• "As of 1846, only two men, including Hastings, ..." "At the time of the book's publication, Hastings had not traveled any portion of the route; he remedied this in early 1846 ..."

  A bit jumpy here as the date of the book's publication cuts in timeline of 1846. Perhaps word of Hastings' lack of exploration of the region he espoused should be with the introduction of the guide instead of here?

• "Their height and proximity to the Pacific Ocean mean the Sierras receive more snow than most other mountain ranges in North America."

  I think a bit more explanation (forced precipitation of humid sea-air) than "height and proximity to the Pacific Ocean" should be here. See snow for reliable sources needed to back up the explanation.

  • I don't agree; this isn't a meteorological article. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Families and progress

• "In the spring of 1846, over 500 wagons headed west from Independence."

  This might need to be more explicit; are all these wagons following Hastings' recommended trail?

  • None of them were, as Hastings' trail didn't start at Independence, it started at Blacks Fork, several hundred miles away. Malleus Fatuorum 14:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "He carried with him wife Margaret, daughters Patty and Virginia, sons James and Thomas, and mother-in-law Sarah Keyes, ..."

  "Carried"? Seems to me, the article puts him as Samson-incarnate. Would "brought" be a better word?

  • Changed to "His wife Margaret, daughters Patty and Virginia, sons James and Thomas, and 75-year-old[note 2] mother-in-law Sarah Keyes travelled with him." Malleus Fatuorum 14:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "... and was accompanied by hired several young men hired and a girl to drive the oxen, along with a hired girl."

  A suggested rephrasing.

• "Lewis Keseberg, a German immigrant, joined with his wife and daughter; a son was born on the trail."

  Okay, what happened to baby Keseberg? The article later states that Lewis and his wife survived, but his daughter perished. Nothing is later mentioned about his son.

  • I've added a little bit to the Mortality section saying that the baby was one of the 62.5% of children under six who died. Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

• "None of the Donner Party members ever received Bryant's letters warning them to avoid Hastings' route at all costs."

  Did any source state why Bryant's letters failed to reach the party?

• "He built an ornate, custom-made, and unusually large wagon for his family, ..."

  "Custom-made" would imply a commission, while "built" might connotate self-labour; I think there is a conflict in their use here. If he did not do it himself, perhaps "ordered" instead of "built"? If he did, perhaps drop the "custom-made"?

  • Changed to "custom-designed". Malleus Fatuorum 23:40, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Wasatch Mountains

• "... on the advice of 'a selfish adventurer'."

  Would she be referring to Hastings or Reed (since the latter was seen as haughty and pushing to turn off the trail as well)?

  • Hastings, clarified. Malleus Fatuorum 16:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "... the party found a letter from Hastings, advising them to stop until Hastings could show them an alternate route from that taken by the Harlan-Young Party."

  From the previous section, "Hastings had already left on his route, leading the 40 wagons of the Harlan-Young group." Without reading the footnote (which also did not fully explain the event), why was Hastings not leading the Harlan-Young Party? I think this deserves a bit more exposition in the main text since I found it a bit jarring to be told he was leading the Harlan-Young, then later to find he was not.

  Apologies. On re-reading, it seems clear Hastings is leaving the Harlan-Young to show later parties another route. Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Great Salt Lake Desert

• "Lighter wagons and stronger oxen pulled some families farther ahead while the weaker ones fell behind."

  I believe wagons, being inanimate objects, cannot pull objects. "Families with lighter wagons and stronger oxen pulled farther ahead of the others."?

  • Changed to " Families with lighter wagons and stronger oxen pulled ahead of the others." (Farther than what?) Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Reed forged ahead on horseback to move faster to see if he could locate water."

  Seems redundant to me (single horserider versus wagon train).

  • Done. Malleus Fatuorum 15:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Irreparable damage had been done to some of the wagons;"

  By who?

  • By the journey. Changed to "The rigors of the journey resulted in irreparable damage to some of the wagons". Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Reed banished

• "... the Donner Party rejoined the traditional trail along a stream ..."

  I thought the trail proposed by Hastings was a new trail or one not in main use by any others? Why is there a "traditional trail"? Which is it?

  • Hastings Cutoff was a more direct route between Fort Bridger, where it forked from the traditional trail, and the Humboldt, where it rejoined it. Again, the map makes this clear. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "By taking the shortcut, they had likely lost a full month of progress."

  No mention of a shortcut until now, unless the theme was along the line of Hastings' proposal being one. If that is the case, they had not finished the journey at this point.

  • The last paragraph of the Families and Progress section explains that the cutoff was claimed to cut the trip by 350 miles. Malleus Fatuorum 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Disintegration

• "Spitzer and Reinhardt found the party to report that they and Wolfinger, who had stopped to "dig a cache", or bury his wagon to keep it from being vandalized by animals or Indians, had been attacked by Paiutes, and Wolfinger had been killed."

  Going with an "event B, event A" structure halted my reading here for a while (I stopped at "found the party", wondering when did the two ever split off)? I suggest starting with the trio's stoppage to cache their stuff, then go with Spitzer and Reinhardt's return.

Resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• "To counter this bad news, Stanton, who was one of the two members of the party who had left a month earlier to gain assistance in California, found the company and ..."

  I doubt Stanton came back specifically "to counter this bad news".

  • Changed to "Countering this bad news, Stanton, one of the two-man party who had left a month earlier to gain assistance in California ...". Malleus Fatuorum 15:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• "... Luís and Salvador, converted Indians hired by Sutter."

  I suspect "converted Indians" are native Americans who have converted to Christianity, but I think there might be readers not familiar with US's Wild West history who would not readily assume this.

• "... according to author Ethan Rarick ..."

  I would prefer to list the book in question here, "... according to the author of Desperate Passage: The Donner Party's Perilous Journey West, Ethan Rarick ...". It might be wordy, but it lends authority to his words, rather than seeing him as simply a writer and wondering what are his credentials on the Donner Party.

Reed attempts a rescue

• "... expected to find the Donner Party near Bear Valley ..."

  Why Bear Valley?

  • Because that was where the trail they were taking led to, out of the Sierran Nevadas, as the map shows, and Reed expected that's how far the group would by then have got. Reed and McCucheon didn't know that the party had been trapped by snow on the other side of the pass. Malleus Fatuorum 16:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That might be hard on readers who cannot look at the map to know why (since the route taken, as described in text, did not speak of Bear Valley) but I am not going to oppose on this. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The Forlorn Hope

• "... Charles Burger and 10-year-old William Murphy. He and his older brother Lemuel ..."

  Would "he" refer to Charles Burger or William Murphy? Note: I had not expand the collapsible "Members of Forlorn Hope" when I was puzzling this out.

  • William, clarified. Malleus Fatuorum 16:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "After two more days of not eating, Patrick Dolan finally suggested ..."

  The opening words do not sit well with me, how about "Deprived of food for two more days, Patrick Dolan finally suggested ...".

  • Changed to "After two more days without food ...". Malleus Fatuorum 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• Was Eddy's suggestion (refrain from cannibalism until someone dies) the one finally taken by the group, or were they still deliberating when Antonio died?
• "After taking two shots, with Mary Graves behind him weeping, ..."

  Who wept? Eddy: "After taking two shots, weeping with Mary Graves behind him, ...", or Graves: "After taking two shots, as Mary Graves wept behind him, ...".

  • Changed to "As Mary Graves wept with emotion ...". Malleus Fatuorum 16:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "... he was forced to raise the gun higher than his target and try to hit the deer on the way down. His third shot was successful."

  As the deer came down or bringing down the deer with the downward trajectory of the round? This could be clarified instead as, "... he compensated for the extreme range of the target and fell the deer with his next shot."

  • This has been rewritten. Malleus Fatuorum 16:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
• "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."

  It seems strange to say "propelled [the group] forward" when they "simply laid down in the snow".

• "During the night Jay Fosdick, who was with the rest of the snowshoe party, died, leaving only a total of seven to continue the journey.

  I suggest the above to cut down redundancy.

• "... took a pistol and shot the Indians, allowing Salvador to say a final prayer before stripping the bodies of muscle and organs."

  Salvador was still alive after being shot and before his body was butchered, or was he allowed to say his prayer before being shot? Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Truckee Lake

• "... the Graves came by to claim their payment of the oxhides Mrs. Reed had ..."

  The Graves took the oxhides for the "double" payment promised earlier by Mrs. Reed, or did they ask for something else (and did Mrs. Reed oblige)?

Rescue

• I think this was not made clear. Since Reed was laid over in San Jose until February and the Forlorns reached Sacremento in January, did they receive news of each other? Did they communicate as well? Did the McCutcheons reunite? As such, was Eddy's rescue party operating in tandem/knowledge of Reed's efforts?

Considered resolved. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

First relief

• "... one of the young men asked her to marry him."

  Out of curiosity, would this be Paul Murphy, her future husband?

  • Sources don't say who it was, but she turned him down anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 17:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Second relief

• "The second relief evacuated seventeen emigrants, ..."

  The table lists 16 rescued...

• "In a day, they met Reed helping his children, frostbitten and bleeding, but alive."

  Seems a bit anal, but would it seem possible to miscontrue "frostbitten and bleeding" as applying to Reed as well?

Third relief

• "... where they found both of their children dead and Keseberg under suspicion for being responsible."

  They "suspected Keseberg responsible for the deed" or they found that the camp suspected the man for it?

Response

• "The areas inhabited by the party were so notorious that they became known as Donner Pass, Donner Lake, and Donner Peak."

  I might seem ridiculous, but would this statement need sources? Drake Hokanson, The Lincoln Highway, p. 70 can vouch for the name of the pass was due to the incident...

  Leaving this unstruck, although I consider this resolved and non-opposable. Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Resolved. Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• ... to greet Mormon settlers coming in from the east, ..."

  Seems redundant?

• "... but a few forty-niners used the same route ..."

  Is "forty-niners" a commonly used term for those travelers in 1849?

  • It is indeed. Do you remember the song "Oh my darling Clementine"? Malleus Fatuorum 15:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ashamedly, I can recite only a few stanzas of that campfire song... Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Survivors

• "... and persuaded him to return to his family. Eddy did, and in a year told his recollections of A year later, Eddy recollected his experiences to J. Quinn Thornton, ..."

  Since "persuaded" without any other qualifier would mean they successfully did so.

Claims of cannibalism

• "Further archeological evidence of the Alder Creek camp attesting to cannibalism is inconclusive."

  This sentence seems to imply that evidence was found at the camp of cannibalism, but the source cited disputes it. Is that the case? If so, who said the findings proved the act, and who disputed it. If not, why not "Archeological findings at the Alder Creek camp proved inconclusive for evidence of cannibalism."?

• "Margaret Breen remained steadfast that the Graves family members in the snow pit with them cannibalized the others, but the Breens did not."

  Sounds like the Graves ate every one (dead and alive)... How about "Margaret Breen remained steadfast that she and her family did not join the Graves in cannibalizing the dead while in the snow pit."?

Images

• File:Donner Party Memorial.jpg

  This needs a date and transfer history (did Seano really release under that license)? I have broached the question to Seano at User talk:Seano1#Regarding File:Donner Party Memorial.jpg, but an administrator looking at the local file history could help to speed things up.

Dealt with this one. NW (Talk) 04:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I guess the local file link could help administrators, but I was looking for data to fill the Transfer history like that in File:Butte in Great Salt Lake Desert-750px.JPG#Original upload log, so non-admins can have an inkling too. Furthermore, creation date is yet unknown (although that is a very minor point). Jappalang (talk) 05:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I would not have thought that would be necessary, but I shall add the information. NW (Talk) 02:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

• File:JeanBaptisteTrudeau.JPG

  Superior versions of this file can be found at http://www.archive.org/stream/expeditionofdonn00hougrich#page/n15/mode/2up and http://www.archive.org/stream/donnerexpedition00hougrich#page/34/mode/2up if anyone is up to it. This is purely a suggestion for improvement, not opposable. Jappalang (talk) 14:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

As of this revision. Jappalang (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC) this revision. Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC) this revision. Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC) this revision. Jappalang (talk) 03:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC) this revision. Jappalang (talk) 22:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Jappalang, for these detailed comments. I've addressed the latter half of the text issues (from Second relief down through Claims of cannibalism.) I don't think it's necessary to cite the info about Donner Pass/Lake - I think this counts as really common knowledge, but if others disagree we can source that. Karanacs (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No problems, I left the site-naming unstruck but consider it non-opposable. For your ease, I highlighted my more serious concerns in light red. Jappalang (talk) 00:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the open issues I've addressed the background concern, Families and Progess, and the latter two in Disintegration. Karanacs (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit comments

Here are my suggestions for what could be cut. I'm not particularly interested in debating any of them, so you can make the decision yourselves. Interspersed with my suggestions for deletions are other thoughts I had while reading the article, most about the strong narrative feel of it.

• The background section, while helpful, tries to cover too much material. Here are some examples:

• The west of North America had been settled by the Spanish and Mexicans; Mexico governed California and disputed American claims to parts of the continent east of the Continental Divide. In late spring 1846, the two countries declared war, leaving American emigrants uncertain what to expect upon their arrival in California. - Explaining the various claims to land is not necessary to understanding the Donner adventure.
• The journey to the west took about four months for most emigrants.[6] Most wagon trains followed the same route west from Independence, Missouri to the Continental Divide. The main trail, which had acquired permanent ruts in the ground, allowed a wagon train to progress 15 miles (24 km) a day.[7] Because travelers needed a steady supply of water, wood, and fodder for the animals, the trail generally followed rivers to South Pass, a mountain pass relatively easy for wagons to negotiate.[8] After crossing South Pass, wagon trains could choose which route to take to their intended destination.[9] The trail to California took a winding route northwest to Fort Hall, before turning south. - Since this is not the route that the Donner party took, I don't think it is necessary to explain it in such detail. I would suggest cutting down this paragraph and even perhaps joining it with the previous paragraph, making a paragraph about pioneers who traveled to the West.

• I think that's a fair point, and I've done some pruning in that area. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Families and progress

• The Reeds hoped that the climate in the West would help Margaret, who had long been sickly. - This detail doesn't add much, as the issue never returns.

• It explains the Reeds'motivations for undertaking the journey. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Reed had amassed considerable wealth in Illinois from his furniture factory, sawmill, and work as a railroad contractor. - I'm wondering if the details regarding where his wealth came from would be better suited to his biographical article.

• I'm inclined to agree, so I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 00:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• The first four paragraphs of "Families and progress" drag, as they are essentially a list of people. I'm wondering if it would be better to present this material as a table somehow.
• The other males in the group were European immigrants, young, and for various reasons, not considered to be ideal leaders, except for James Reed. Donner and Reed were friendly and respectful of each other, but where Donner was charitable, Reed seemed aristocratic and ostentatious with his wealth to the other members of the party. He was an immigrant as well, but had been living in the U.S. for a considerable time and had military experience. Reed was quick to make decisions, sometimes not taking into account others' opinions, making him seem imperious. He had already alienated one of the members of the wagon train with his ways. - I'm wondering about this material - how did the sources come to these conclusions? Much of this seems like reported emotion that should be credited as such.

• Hastings' route

• Several years of migrant traffic on the main Oregon Trail had left an easy and obvious path, whereas the Cutoff was more difficult to find. - I don't think there is a need to compare the route to the Oregon Trail here - I think we can just say that the trail was hard to find.
• Tamsen Donner attempted to put it back together to see if it was a warning or another change in direction - This is unnecessary, because the phrase following tells the reader what was in the letter.
• I'm curious how we obtained reports of the crossing of the Great Salt Lake Desert and how reliable those are, considering these people were hallucinating as they were crossing. The article has an air of certainty about the story that I'm not sure is warranted.

• • I suppose it's possible they were hallucinating, but I'd interpreted that to mean they saw mirages. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

• The first day of autumn passed and the trail wound south, then north without any apparent reason. - Doesn't seem necessary, as the date and length of the trip is established in the next sentence.
• The "Reed banished" subsection seems like it could be two paragraphs instead of three. I would suggest joining and condensing the last two paragraphs - the intricate details of the fight and debate are not what is most important.

• Last advance

• The Eddys' oxen had all been killed by Indians and they were forced to abandon their wagon. The family had eaten all their stores, but the other families refused to assist their children, a 3-year-old boy and an infant girl. Eleanor Eddy had to carry the girl and William Eddy carried his son, who were so miserable with thirst through this phase that Eddy was certain they were dying. Margaret Reed and her children were also forced to leave their wagon and carried only a change of clothing. - I can see that you are trying to use these human details to make the story more real, but that can be overdone. I suggest cutting the sections crossed out and rewording.
• They waited a few days to consider their decision. - Repetition of previous sentence

• Winter camp

• When they arrived in Bear Valley they found instead a pioneer couple, emigrants who had been separated from their company, trying to reach Sutter's Fort. The couple offered Reed and McCutcheon their roast dog. A storm had made it impossible for them to cook, so the men had not eaten for 24 hours. After a moment of hesitation Reed and McCutcheon accepted, and found the roast dog very palatable.[78][79] In return, Reed and McCutchean shared some of their provisions with the couple. - Too much detail on this couple we know nothing about and excessive detail on the dog. This is an example of the "cannibalism porn" that the article at times succumbs to (I'm making an analogy to "disaster pornography" here").
• The bitter divides between the members only became worse in camp; Graves had an ox that starved to death, for which he charged Eddy $25 ($600 in 2010) - I am really against these monetary conversions - clearly money had a very different meaning on this journey than it even did in regular 19th-century culture - it can't just be converted via inflationary rates.
• It is not until "The Forlorn Hope" section that the reader has an inkling of clashing narratives - this is a problem.
• "The Forlorn Hope" section becomes a story - it is structured like a novel. I feel like the reader is not reminded enough of the doubts we have of the narratives and the conflicting stories that are told of these events.
• "The Forlorn Hope" section is much too detailed - here is one example: Following an initial look of astonishment... much to the consternation of the rest of the group...overcome by exhaustion and emotion....with Mary Graves behind him weeping, he was forced to raise the gun higher than his target and try to hit the deer on the way down. His third shot was successful.[102] - These are some of the details that are unnecessary in this section.

• Rescue

• Twenty-three people were chosen to go with the rescue party, including the Reeds, three adolescent Graves children, two older Murphy children, Mrs. Keseberg and her 3-year-old daughter Ada. - The names are listed in the chart at the right, so this seems unncessary.
• The young children were listless and had not been cleaned in days. - I'm not sure why this qualifies as evidence of "passed the limits of description and almost of description" - This seems obvious for nearly starving, weak people.
• The second relief evacuated seventeen emigrants, only three of whom were adults, from Truckee Lake. Both the Breen and Graves families prepared to go. Only five people remained at Truckee Lake: Keseberg, Mrs. Murphy and her son Simon, and the young Eddy and Foster children. Tamsen Donner elected to stay with her ailing husband after Reed informed her that a third relief party would arrive soon. Mrs. Donner kept her daughters Eliza, Georgia, and Frances with her. - It is hard to keep track of who all these people are, so I'm wondering if this kind of information can be incorporated into the table.
• In the "Second relief" section, I'm worried that disputes about what exactly happened are relegated to a footnote.

• Legacy

• Charles McGlashan, whose history of the Donner Party predates Stewart's, wrote that the story is "more thrilling than romance, more terrible than fiction". - This is filler, as it does not really illuminate the event at all.
• The appeal according to Johnson, writing in 1996, is that the events focused on families and ordinary people instead of rare individuals, and that the events are "a dreadful irony that hopes of prosperity, health, and a new life in California's fertile valleys led many only to misery, hunger, and death on her stony threshold". - I feel that this quotation is more of an emotional reaction rather than an analysis of the event and therefore not really necessary - readers can rely on their own emotions for this.
• Lansford Hastings received death threats, but started a law practice in California. An emigrant who crossed before the Donner Party confronted Hastings about the difficulties they had encountered, reporting "Of course he could say nothing but that he was very sorry, and that he meant well".[183] Hastings was a Confederate sympathizer who dreamed a plan to make Arizona and California a part of the Confederacy, but nothing came of it. At the time of his death, he was trying to establish a colony for Confederates in Brazil - This seems like too much of a tangent for the article, especially the material about the Confederacy.
• J. Quinn Thornton, writing in 1864, attributed the discrepancy in survival rates between males and females to differences in temperament: "The difficulties, dangers, and misfortunes, which frequently seemed to prostrate the men, called forth the energies of the gentler sex, and gave them elevation of character, which enabled them to abide the most withering blasts of adversity with unshaken firmness". - I'm not sure why such an outdated view needs to be included - this view has been superseded by more scientific views.

• Agreed, so I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• All of the uncertainty about what happened regarding the cannibalism is moved to the end of the article, so readers who don't make it to the end of the article don't get this view. I don't think it is a good idea to return to a topic in this way - disputed narratives should be introduced in the main text. I would suggest condensing this section and adding it into the main narrative.

I hope these are helpful! Awadewit (talk) 23:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

These are very much helpful, thank you. In the latest copyedits, Yomangan and I have addressed much of this through the Last Advance section. Karanacs (talk) 17:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to reread the article, but I can't promise that I will have time to do so until after the weekend. Let me know when/if I should reread it. Awadewit (talk) 02:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Tex

Collapsing comments Tex (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• "The journey west usually took about four months, but the Donner Party was delayed by their choice to follow an untried shortcut called the Hastings Cutoff" - I see what this sentence is trying to say, but is "untried" the right word? I liked the previous version where it was in two sentences saying that they followed the shortcut and the next sentence revealed that Hastings himself had not taken that path.
• "It wound through the Wasatch Mountains and the Great Salt Lake Desert, resulting in the loss of many of the party's cattle and wagons, and fragmentation of the group into bitter factions." - The fact that the path wound through the mountains and desert did not result in those things, it was the fact that the party had to go days and days without water that eventually lead them to let the cattle go to find their own water.
• "Family members in California made several rescue attempts, but the first relief party did not arrive until the middle of February 1847." What family members are we talking about here? Reed is the only one already in California I know of that had family members still with the party.
• "men aged between 20 and 39 suffered the highest mortality rate" - While this may just be a British/American difference, to my American ears "men between the ages of 20 and 39" sounds much better.
  • I'm American and have heard both variations used. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Background

• "from where wagon trains had a choice of route to their destinations." - Sounds better to say they had a choice of several different routes to their chosen destinations."
  • I've changed this slightly to say "... from where wagon trains had a choice of routes to their destination." I think "different" would be redundant, as if they weren't different there would be no choice to make. Malleus Fatuorum 21:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Hastings had not traveled any part of his proposed short-cut until early 1846, on a trip from California to a scant supply station run by Jim Bridger and his partner Pierre Louis Vasquez, located in Blacks Fork, Wyoming, to persuade travelers to turn south on this route." - This sentence seems like someone combined several sentences. Does the "to persuade travelers" portion of the sentence belong with "on a trip from California" portion? That's hard to make out.
• "Timing was crucial to ensure that after leaving the civilization of Missouri to cross the vast wilderness to Oregon or California, wagon trains would not be bogged down by mud created by spring rains, or massive snowdrifts in the mountains from September onwards, and their horses and oxen would have enough spring grass to eat." - Again, this seems like run-on sentence made up of several shorter sentences. Seems awkward.

Families and Progress"

• "Reed had amassed considerable wealth" - how did he amass his wealth?
  • We're between a rock and a hard place here, See Awadewit's comment on this above. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I've reworded this to note only that Reed was wealthy. I agree that the wording "had amassed considerable wealth" certainly makes one speculate on how that amassing took place; I think (hope!) that just noting "wealthy" won't bring about the same question. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Levinah Murphy was a widow with seven children, two of whom married and five of whom were adolescents" - Two of whom married? Married what? Married when? Is this just a mistake and the word "were" was lost somewhere?
  • I've reworded this; I had the same problems you did with it. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "On July 12, the Reeds and Donners were delivered a letter from Hastings" - Who delivered this letter and how did Hastings even know the Reeds and Donners?
  • Further explained. Karanacs (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hastings' Route

• "Donner hired a replacement driver" - Why? What happened to his other driver?

That's as far as I've gotten so far, but the prose looks much better this far into the article. I'll be back with more later. Tex (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• I see that now we are getting into the conflicting advice FAC! I ask for less detail and Tex for more. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, indeed. I thought the article was much better before all the cutting. Just my opinion, of course. The rest of my comments are below:

Last Advance

• "who had stopped to "dig a cache", or bury his wagon to keep it from being vandalized" - Are you sure this is acurate? My understanding of "digging a cache" is to burry food, supplies and valuables; I've never heard of anyone burying an entire wagon.
  • McGlashan explains that it wasn't the entire wagon that was cached, but just the bed of the wagon (i.e., sans wheels and top), filled with whatever it was they were trying to hide, presumably including the wheels and top in this case. Do you feel that needs to be clarified? Malleus Fatuorum 21:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That's interesting. If that's what McGlashan says, then I'm OK with it. It just seems like a lot of work when they had already left other wagons abandoned along the trail. Tex (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The Forlorn Hope

• "The mountain party at Truckee Lake began to fall." Began to fall off the mountain? Should that be "fail"?
• Why did William Foster kill the two Indians? For food? That should be mentioned.
  • For food, yes. I've rewritten slightly to make that clearer. Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

• "Lansford Hastings received death threats, but started a law practice in California. An emigrant who crossed before the Donner Party confronted Hastings about the difficulties they had encountered, reporting "Of course he could say nothing but that he was very sorry, and that he meant well". - Does that sentence belong in the "Legacy" section? It seems very out of place with all the talk of the monument above it.
  • I've moved that to the end of the Response section. Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Mortality

• "children aged between 6 and 14" - Again with the aged between. Doesn't sound correct to me.
  • It sounds fine to me. Malleus Fatuorum 17:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• "The survivors were on average 7.5 years younger than those who died; children aged between 6 and 14 had a much higher survival rate than infants and children under the age of 6, of whom 62.5 percent died, including the son born to the Keseburgs on the trail, or adults over the age of 35." - Again, it looks like several short sentences were combined to make one long one that is difficult to read.
• "Deaths among males aged between 20 and 39" - between the ages?

That's about all I have, but I noticed several places where commas are needed, but I can make those changes myself Tex (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Bigtimepeace

On the whole this was very well done, and it reads quite well. Some issues in particular sections:

Background

• First sentence: ...people who left their homes in the east... This is somewhat misleading as worded. The homes they left were obviously east of California, but most migrants had previously lived in what was then "the West." My source for this claim is John Mack Faragher's Women and Men on the Overland Trail (Yale University Press, 1980, page 16) which is a bit dated but still well regarded. Per Faragher, Francis Parkman had reported in 1846 that the migrants came from "the extreme Western states." Faragher estimated that 3/4 of the travel narratives used in his study were written by people who left Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Missouri, with most of the rest coming from surrounding areas. I suggest revising the sentence to explain that most migrants started in "the West" of the day and citing it to the page in Faragher's book (I can take a stab at this).
  • Please feel free to explain this as you see fit. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• The motivations ascribed to western migrants in the second sentence are, to my mind, relatively trivial ones, and I strongly suggest replacing them even though I understand these were sourced. I could not track down numbers for Catholic migration to the West, but as late as 1850 Catholics were less than 10% of the U.S. population. Unless the source makes a strong argument to the contrary, I would suggest that Catholic migrants who wanted to "be free to live in a fully Catholic culture" were very much in the minority and as such not worth mentioning. Actually, and this ties in with Manifest Destiny, which was a deeply Anglo-Saxon (i.e. Protestant) idea, the impulse to Protestantize (or whatever) a Catholic territory was probably just as strong of a motivation. As to Manifest Destiny, it did not gain real purchase as an idea until 1846. Large wagon trains had already come over in 1843, 44, and 45. Additionally, Manifest Destiny was an ideological abstraction which probably did not actually "inspire" all that many people to move Westward (I'd be curious to hear what Rarick said about this).
  • My thinking was to show the range of motivations within the members of the Donner Party, hence the mention of Catholicism, rather than a more general analysis of the motivations of emigrants. Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• The most critical motivation for migrants was the obvious one—they wanted better land. I'll quote Faragher, here from pages 16-17: "Most of the emigrants took up the move with a farmer's motives; they wanted to claim new and better farmlands. Over a quarter of the writers of the diaries and recollections stated unequivocally that the new agricultural land was the motive in their decision to emigrate...Many were leaving a bad economic situation: unable to find cheap but productive lands, unhappy with the out-of-the-way location of the lands they owned, burdened with debt." I think this should be mentioned as one of if not the primary reasons for migration.
• Another major reason folks let out for Oregon or California was due to the climate, which was perceived to be healthier and more pleasant (e.g. less conducive to malaria, milder winters). This basic general fact can be cited to page 17 of Faragher's book. I think it's particularly worth mentioning because it links well with the sentence "The Reeds hoped that the climate in the West would help Margret, who had long been sickly" in the "Families and progress" section.
• I'm willing to work on adjusting the "why the moved" sentence if anyone wants me to, or others can have a go at it—basically I think we should drop Catholicism and Manifest Destiny and talk about desire for land/improved economic conditions and a better climate/environment.
  • As I said above, I wanted to put some focus on the motivations of at least some of the individuals in the party, so I'd be reluctant to lose the Murphy family's motivation (Catholic culture in California). Malleus Fatuorum 20:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• More trivially, I think the first sentence is worded too passively in its first few words, "In the 1840s the United States saw a dramatic increase..." is a bit better I think.
  • Changed to "During the 1840s, the United States saw a dramatic increase of pioneers". Malleus Fatuorum 20:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Disintegration

• Last paragraph: Spitzer and Reinhardt found the party to report that they and Wolfinger, who had stopped bury his wagon to keep it safe from animals and Indians... This is only the second mention of Spitzer, Reinhardt, and Wolfinger. The first was to point out that they had joined the larger party led by William H. Russell, from which the Donner Party split. It's confusing to read that Spitzer et. al. "found" the Donner Party—had they not joined it when it split, and if not had they eventually become split from the larger "Russell" party that took the traditional route? One of the general difficulties with this article is the sheer number of names and people, and at points it might be necessary to remind the reader who is who more directly.
  • I don't think the Spitzer et al story is significant, so I've removed it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Snowbound

• Third sentence: William Pike was killed when a gun being loaded by William Foster discharged accidentally, an event that seemed to make the decision for them... Why? It's not at all clear from the context why Pike accidentally being killed would cause them to decide to press on. If there's a reason it should be mentioned, otherwise I'm not sure this should be discussed at all, and we could maybe just say that they decided to press ahead without alluding to any sort of deliberation (this would also cut down on prose length).

• I'm inclined to agree, so I've changed that to what McGlashan says, "an event that 'cast a gloom over the entire company'". I think it's far more likely that the obviously worsening weather was what galvanised the group into resuming their journey. Malleus Fatuorum 00:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Truckee Lake

• End of first paragraph: One of them, Reinhardt, confessed on his death bed that he had murdered Wolfinger. A bit more info and context on this would probably be useful. Again, these two are barely mentioned in the article, and some readers might forget that and think Reinhardt murdered Wolfinger in the Donner camp which he did not. Did he say why he did kill him? In general the experiences of this sub-group comes off a bit hazy in the article.

Response

• The last half of the first paragraph could use some work. It's not entirely clear what is meant by the sentence "Reporting on the event across the U.S. was heavily influenced by the national enthusiasm for westward migration." The sentence that follows seems to imply this influence caused papers to limit reportage out of fear that it would discourage migration. If so that should be said more directly. The following sentence about graphic details does not seem directly connected with the enthusiasm for westward migration, while the final sentence of the paragraph is clearly related to that phenomenon. I think these sentences might need reordering and/or restructuring but it's hard to tell without looking at the original sources.

General observations/questions

• The Donner Party split off from a larger party at Little Sandy River. I assume the larger group made it without too much difficulty? If so this is probably worth mentioning. Also if some of them tried to come back and help the Donner Party that should be mentioned (it might have been and I missed it). The decision to split off was obviously the fateful one, and that fact can be better highlighted with reference to the original (larger) group.
  • The Donners were following in the tracks of the Harlan-Young wagon train, which reached Sutter's Fort in California on October 8. Some members of the group did go back with Reed on his initial unsuccessful rescue attempt. I've added a sentence saying that. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Obviously the cannibalism is the most lurid and disturbing part of the story, the aspect in which many readers will be most interested. The article does a good job describing the conflicting accounts given by survivors. However there is no specific data regarding a couple of obvious (if admittedly morbid) basic questions: 1) How many members of the party were at least partially eaten after their death? 2) How many members of the party engaged in cannibalism? I'm guessing the second question is considerably more difficult to answer than the first, perhaps to the point of impossibility. If historians have given estimated answers for either of these questions then they should probably be provided. If that has proven too difficult to do with any accuracy (which might well be the case) then we should say that. I personally don't find it edifying to linger on these numerical details, but it is the kind of question which many readers would probably expect to find answered (or explained why it isn't answered) at the end of the article.
• I'm wondering if it's possible to add something to the "Legacy" section, assuming it's mentioned in a source (If not then don't worry about it). I think the Donner Party tragedy has arguably had a significant effect on the collective historical memory as it pertains to the Western pioneers. It's the one story almost everyone knows, and it's absolutely horrifying. As the article says it was in fact an "insignificant" event in the scope of all Westward migration during this era, but I think it has had a disproportionate impact on the public consciousness. Specifically, if this is all you know about traveling the overland trails you'd think the journey was much worse than it was. Of course it was hard, but not nearly as difficult or insane as we often think (for example there's a belief that migrants were regularly under siege from Indians, when in fact this was quite rare, particularly before the mid-1850s). If one of the sources talks about the effect of the Donner Party saga on our collective notions of Westward migration than I would strongly recommend mentioning it—the "Donner Party" was a sui generis event that is, I think, sometimes wrongfully used as a metaphor for the travails of all Western migrants. Again if this isn't in the sources then don't worry about it.

So there are some concerns here, but I think these are all very fixable and I'm confident I'll ultimately be supporting promotion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)