Talk:Lewis and Clark Expedition/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

NPOV

Tobby72 placed the NPOV designation on the article.[[1]] I'm not sure why, though I've asked for a reason on his talk page so whatever problems can be addressed. Ebanony (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The editors are supposed to adopt a “neutral point of view” (WP:NPOV). I'm having problem with the following sentences: [2], [3]
"Its goal was to establish U.S. dungasovereignty over the tribes along the Missouri River, open trade and claim the rights of "discovery" to the Pacific Northwest and Oregon territory before the British." Voyage of Domination, "Purchase" as Conquest, Sakakawea for Savagery: Distorted Icons from Misrepresentations of the Lewis and Clark Expedition", James Fenelon, Mary Defender-Wilson. Wíčazo Ša Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, American Indian Encounters with Lewis and Clark (Spring, 2004), pp. 90-1
"The Lakota nation (whom the Americans called Sioux or "Teton-wan Sioux") did not welcome the visitors, and refused to be placed under American colonial control. Lewis and Clark wrote about them as "savage and warlike" for defending their rights as an independent nation. The soldiers carried gifts, weapons, flags and medals, and distributed them to symbolize U.S. colonial rule over the inhabitants, and displayed their military firepower to ensure the nations would submit." Voyage of Domination, "Purchase" as Conquest, Sakakawea for Savagery: Distorted Icons from Misrepresentations of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, James Fenelon, Mary Defender-Wilson. Wíčazo Ša Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, American Indian Encounters with Lewis and Clark (Spring, 2004), pp. 88, 90
"Jefferson had the expedition declare "sovereignty" and demonstrate their military strength to ensure native tribes would be subordinate to the US, as European colonizers did elsewhere. This was "An extension of American power", not simply a scientific journey, though it added a significant amount of knowledge to scholars. Expansion by American settlers would begin over the next few years." Voyage of Domination, "Purchase" as Conquest, Sakakawea for Savagery: Distorted Icons from Misrepresentations of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, James Fenelon, Mary Defender-Wilson. Wíčazo Ša Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, American Indian Encounters with Lewis and Clark (Spring, 2004), pp. 87-8, 90-1 Tobby72 (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
The 2nd point you raised on the Lakota nation has been changed, and now describes the problem between the two groups, and has Clark's comments. This relies on Harry Fritz pg 14, 15 & Stephen Ambrose, pg 170 & James Ronda, not on the article Voyage of Domination, which is not used as the basis for any text in the article. So that concern has been addressed. Credibility problem on that article? The evidence?
Point 3 on "declare sovereignty" & "demonstrate their military" for control when meeting tribes. This reflects the sources cited: "Soldiers would present arms. Captain Lewis read a long proclamation, emphasizing American sovereignty over the area" & the use of "uniforms...medals...the air gun" ..."to impress the natives". The Lewis and Clark Expedition, Harry Fritz, pg 64, 13 [[4]] When Jefferson bought the Louisiana area, he "rushed word to Lewis to start advising the Western Indians of the change of sovereignty" - The way to the western sea, David Lavender, pg 90. How is this not neutral, and what is your suggestion to improve it?
"Point 1 you raised on claiming the Pacific Northwest, "It was the publication of their explorations [Gray and MacKenzie] that had induced Jefferson and Congress to mount an armed excursion up the Missouri and down the Columbia". And "Jefferson began to plot an American expedition to connect the upper Columbia and Missouri" Acts of discovery, Albert Furtwangler pg 56, 78. [[5]] And "Jefferson outlined...precise goals...the fur trade, and he wanted to lay claim to the Pacific Northwest" Fresonke & Spence Ibid pg 70. So how is this not neutral, and what do you offer to improve it? It's easier to tear down than build up. Ebanony (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Tobby72 you say: "some editors use Wikipedia to push their POV" [[6]]. And you present no evidence for this claim or any other. If there is a NPOV dispute WP:NPOVD, "make a new section entitled NPOV dispute" in the talk page, which you did not do (which is why I started this thread). Then "clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why." You have not explained anything: "I'm having problem with the following sentences", tells me very little. What specific NPOV problems do you see ie. undue weight, fringe etc? What is your justification for making these claims? The sources say those things.
I will gladly remove this source [[[7]] or any other source/text if you show it has a problem. But you need to present evidence. The text above is based on Lavender, Ronda & Miller etc, and you ignored the fact they are cited in the article. "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Wpedia also says, "Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." WP:NPOVD I have asked you this at least 3 times for your suggestions, and I have already removed one of the the sentences you did not like. Please communicate & cooperate to reach a WP:CONS decision because "Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged." WP:NPOVD Ebanony (talk) 04:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Tobby72, since Dec 24th, I asked you to explain the specific NPOV problems, your justification & evidence for it & your proposals for improvement. The guidelines for NPOV dispute require this, and say: "In the absence of an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page, any editor may remove this tag at any time." WP:NPOVD You made unfounded allegations, and have refused to comply with the guidelines.Ebanony (talk) 04:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Tobby, when he added the NPOV tag, said "rv Ebony, be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first per WP:EDIT". [[8]] Section 18 "Problems with Stated Mission" has the discussion & it was made by consensus. Tobby72, you have made obviously false claims. Now it has been a week. Neither Tobby72 nor anyone else has provided any reason/justification for this NPOV allegation, the NPOV should be removed, and will be unless there is a legitimate objection.Ebanony (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Tobby72 you filed NPOV dispute & used it just to add your own POV. Your edit was not a consensus decision. [[9]]. Your edit overemphasises science & exploration; and by writing "According to some historians, another goal" next to majority POV's, you portray them as minor POV's. It should be "in rough proportion to the prominence of each view" WP:UNDUE. Yes, they explored & did science, but that is not why Jefferson & Congress sent them:
Pg 228 of the book you cited: "it was to be an expedition to establish the boundaries and chart the details of land not owned by the United States as well as a diplomatic mission to promulgate its authority over the area and the Indian nations over whom it now claimed sovereignty." Pg 104 "Jefferson wanted to ensure not only that the Indians accepted the new sovereignty, but that they would transfer their trading connections form the British and the French to the United States. Thus, in his mission objectives, Jefferson devoted much attention to the Indians..." [[10]] Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov.
That book cites James Ronda - 94 times. Ronda says: "once the [Louisiana] purchase was diplomatic reality, announcing American sovereignty to native people became a vital part of the expedition's Indian policy" & pg 6 says"proclaiming United States sovereignty...were unchanging objectives of the mission" pg 134. Science was not the goal: "Ethnographical research was neither the prime nor the sole duty of the expedition."(pg 4). [[11]] Lewis and Clark among the Indians James Ronda. Your justification for claiming this was about exploring and science as opposed to establishing rights to take the natives land?
These POV's on sovereignty do not come from "some historians". These well known professors wrote the books that Woodger's Encyclopedia cited (Ronda & Fritz), and all of them -including Miller & Lavender- put sovereignty & expansion as more important than science. That Jefferson wanted to claim the Pacific Northwest is not disputed - period. This looks like WP:WEASEL words, specifically "Unsupported attributions". These are not 2 opposing POV's. The one you wrote is simply myth. I will revert your edit this time, and again ask you to use the talk page. See WP:NPOVD WP:CONS. If not, then we can ask for comment. Ebanony (talk) 16:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I just reverted your last two edits for the above reasons. You should work with other editors and discuss edits. Editors have an obligation to "Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense." WP:CONS That includes you Tobby72. I have asked you for days to discuss this article, and you just refuse.Ebanony (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Section break 1

Removal of sourced content

Ebanony, you completely rewrote the Lewis and Clark Expedition article. Unfortunately, you failed to reach consensus.

Please explain to me why this was deleted: [12], [13].

"The object of your mission," Jefferson wrote, "is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal stream of it, as, by it's course ... may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce." Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. p.150. ISBN 0816047812. Another goal was to gain an accurate sense of the resources being exchanged in the Louisiana Purchase. In July 1803, as the expedition was still in its preparation phase, the United States purchased from France the Louisiana Territory. Jack Uldrich, Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (2004). "Into the unknown: leadership lessons from Lewis & Clark's daring westward adventure". AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. p.41. ISBN 0814408168.
The expedition also collected scientific data, and hoped to find a Northwest Passage. Lewis and Clark's mission was one of the great scientific accomplishments of the Age of Enlightenment. Harry W. Fritz (2004). "The Lewis and Clark Expedition". Greenwood Publishing Group. p.59. ISBN 0313316619. Following detailed instructions from Thomas Jefferson himself, Lewis and Clark became ethnographers, botanists, zoologists, astronomers, carthographers, diplomats, and reporters. Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. ISBN 0816047812.
In his instructions to Lewis, Jefferson emphasized the necessity for treating all Indian tribes in the most conciliatory manner. "Treat them in the most friendly and conciliatory manner", he admonished, and learn all you can about them. Harry W. Fritz (2004). "The Lewis and Clark Expedition". Greenwood Publishing Group. p.13. ISBN 0313316619. There were very few hostile encounters, and relations with most tribes were as friendly as Jefferson had hoped they would be. Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. p.174. ISBN 0816047812.

Ebanony, you say: "Your edits do not match the sources cited" [14], "this edit misrepresents the sources cited, and is an unfounded POV" [15]. And you present no evidence for this claims.

"Lewis and Clark were the Enlightenment's advance agents in the American West. Their duties, as assigned by Jefferson, were preeminently scientific — to explore, to discover, to "take careful observations," "to inform yourself, by inquiry, of the character & extent of the country,” to acquire knowledge. Specifically, they were instructed in geography, astronomy, ethnology, climatology, mineralogy, meteorology, botany, ornithology, and zoology" Harry W. Fritz (2004). "The Lewis and Clark Expedition". Greenwood Publishing Group. p.59. ISBN 0313316619
"Finally, their commitment to a higher purpose shielded them against disappointment when they failed in their primary goal of finding a "practical all-water route" to the Pacific." Jack Uldrich, Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (2004). "Into the unknown: leadership lessons from Lewis & Clark's daring westward adventure". AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. p.41. ISBN 0814408168
"Thomas Jefferson's instructions to Meriwether Lewis were explicitly geographical. "The object of your mission," he wrote in his first real command, "is to explore the Missouri river & such principal stream of it, as, by it's course and communication with the waters of the Pacific ocean, whether the Columbia, Oregan, Colorado or any other river may offer the most direct and practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce" Harry W. Fritz (2004). "The Lewis and Clark Expedition". Greenwood Publishing Group. p.63. ISBN 0313316619
"Although Jefferson was a visionary, he was also a practical man, and he looked for practical benefits from the expedition. An extract from his mission objectives to Lewis make the point, leaving the explorer in no doubt on his primary purpose: “The object of your mission is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal streams of it, as by it's course ... may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce "Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. p.150. ISBN 0816047812
"Lewis and Clark's expedition had no greater advocate, and no greater beneficiary, than the American Philosophical Society (APS). The United States's first scientific organization..." Elin Woodger, Brandon Toropov (2004). "Encyclopedia of the Lewis and Clark Expedition". Infobase Publishing. p.29. ISBN 0816047812
"All told, Lewis and Clark recorded more than 200 plants and animals that were new to science and noted at least seventy-two different Indian tribes." Jack Uldrich, Meriwether Lewis, William Clark (2004). "Into the unknown: leadership lessons from Lewis & Clark's daring westward adventure". AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn. p.37. ISBN 0814408168

Tobby72 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tobby72 said: Ebanony, you completely rewrote the Lewis and Clark Expedition article. Unfortunately, you failed to reach consensus. Please explain to me why this was deleted: [16], [17].
First, changes were made by consensus with Pfly who said "Yep, looks alright to me". See [[18]] & [[19]]. So your claim on ignoring consensus yesterday as well as Dec 24 [[20]] have no basis. Second, I already explained the 2 edits I made yesterday (revert #1 [[21]] & #2 [[22]] ) in section 22 NPOV, please read [[23]] & [[24]] Third, you added POV on Dec 24, so it cannot be removed until it is resolved WP:NPOVD. You changed my edits & even my 1 reverts [[25]] [[26]]. Best to read policy on edit warring WP:EW & WP:POVPUSH, because you used the NPOV just to get your edits in without any discussion. Fourth, your edits lack NPOV because putting science & exploration as the main objective gives WP:UNDUE & WP:GEVAL to minority writers or distorts what they wrote.Ebanony (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Science & exploration were important, but "Ethnographical research was neither the prime nor the sole duty of the expedition."- pg 4. Rather "Trade and diplomacy, commerce and sovereignty were all parts of the engine that drove American expansion and guided the Lewis and Clark expedition." pg 9 Lewis and Clark among the Indians, James Ronda [[27]], an expert in the field, and the same expert Elin Woodger & Brandon Toropov cited 94 times in the book you used. They're minor writers. The experts like Ronda say:
You cited Fritz pg 59: "The object of your mission, is to explore the Missouri river, & such principal stream of it, as, by it's course...may offer the most direct & practicable water communication across this continent, for the purposes of commerce". But pg 2 says: "Robert Gray" went to "the Pacific Northwest" in 1792 and "named the river...the Columbia', and "Alexander Mackenzie" went there in 1793, and "envisioned a lucrative British economic monopoly in the entire Columbia drainage". "He published Voyages from Montreal. Jefferson read the book in 1802, and alarms sounded. The United States was in danger of losing the Pacific Northwest without a fight." Also pg 3 "in 1802. Jefferson was nervous. He felt threatened. The British threatened to create an economic bastion in the Northwest..." [[28]] Fritz highlighted Jefferson's instructions to map the course of the Columbia River. Why?
"Jefferson...needed to prefect and complete the 1792 first discovery of the Columbia River by Robert Gray by occupying the area within a reasonable time...to turn...newly discovered lands into a recognized title. This was one of the primary reasons Jefferson created and dispatched the expedition is why from the very beginning he directed Lewis and Clark to the mouth of the Columbia River. The Pacific Northwest was always Jefferson's primary objective for the expedition" pg 108 Robert Miller [[29]] My edits reflect the sources, yours do not.Ebanony (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I should say my "Yep, looks alright to me" was about the desire to establish claims "by right of discovery". I'm not sure that the desire to find a "practicable" water route was not also important. I always assumed Jefferson hoped they'd find such a route, but even if he didn't there was certainly a general hope that such a route existed. And if it did, then the "right of discovery" would be all the more important--especially if it could be accessed via Canada or the United States (as it would if it existed where Lewis and Clark crossed the Rockies). Of course as it turned out the best route was via South Pass, not a water route but definitely a US one, so the route issue never became a matter of international dispute. Pfly (talk) 01:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Pfly thank you for the clarification, and my apology for the error. The desire for the water route was very important, and they did want to find it. They still managed to get a significant part of the fur trade & compete with the British for the discovery rights, achieving major goals. THey pretty much had to map the rivers to their sources & get evidence of their trip (and visit to ocean, hence the carving in trees & recording so much data). You're right, the south was a much better route. Hard to believe that was 200 yrs ago.Ebanony (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
For the reasons stated above (undue weight, reliable sources & npov), I have made the following change [30] to reflect the sources, relying on Ronda, Miller & Lavender, whilst reducing undue emphasis to writers like Topolov and others cited - including one who is not even a historian. NPOV should be removed.Ebanony (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
removed npov dispute - no reason ever provided for it; incorrect assertions corrected (then added 2nd time); no active discussion.Ebanony (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit requests including Tdynes, 19 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change heading "Geography, mapping, scientic data" to "Geography, mapping, scientific data" because scientific is spelled wrong.

Tdynes (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for noticing the typo. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Request 3.5.13 - Typo The Journey section says: "The expedition faced its second bitter winter, and on November 24, 1806 voted on whether to camp on the south side of the Columbia river". 1806 is a typo. The correct date is 1805. Source: L&C Journals, F Bergon editor, Penguin 1989.

 Done, Thanks for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


Request 9.8.13

It's a small change in the section about Sacagawea, but it could be better to change " Her labor was slow and painful and so the Frenchman Charbonneau, with whom she had arrived on the scene..." so that Charbonneau is described as the father or the husband. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.151.21 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Trail Watch Blog as a resource

The | Lewis And Clark Trail Watch Blog looks like a useful resource for further information on the current cultural significance of the expedition, but I don't think it should go into the external links. When you get the time, I suggest mining it for data! rewinn (talk) 06:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The actual journals?

So where did the actual handwritten journals go after the expedition was over? The article doesn't mention it. --98.232.176.109 (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There should in fact be a separate article for the journals, as they've had an interesting history. Jmj713 (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Obscurity of expedition

The bit about the expedition falling into obscurity in the lead is interesting but needs to be paid off: When did Lewis & Clark achieve their current prominence in American historical consciousness? Nareek (talk) 14:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The two references, linked, have more info. Looks like new interest began in the early 20th century, especially, I think, around the time of the Lewis and Clark Centennial Exposition. I don't have time at the moment to edit the page... Pfly (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Made some time and added some info about this. Pfly (talk) 07:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Confusing

These to sentences are linked with the connector "However", but I don't think it's clear how they relate to one another. Anyone care to shed some light on it? : "These military- or militia-issued rifles were of civilian style, and it has been very difficult for collectors to identify the rifles from this contract. However, the military issued them to regular troops and militias and recalled them back to the arsenals as needed." Thank you Doniasis (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

File nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lewis-Clark-Sacagawea-baby J-B Charbonneau.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Lewis-Clark-Sacagawea-baby J-B Charbonneau.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Celilo mural salem capital.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Celilo mural salem capital.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Celilo mural salem capital.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Overview, "...increasing American owned land"

Should this not be, at the least, "... impact on increasingly American-owned land."?

The phrase "increasing American owned land" is very grammatically unclear. Is this land that is 'increasing' American land that also happens to be owned land? Even with the suggested change, is the sentence referring to the efforts to increase the amount of American, owned land, or to the process of more land becoming American-owned?

Nitpicky but bothersome...

Yea, I agree. It isn't even clear what this bit of text is supposed to mean. For example, does "American owned" mean land owned by individual Americans? The whole nation? Neither of the two sources cited seem to say anything about "increasing [or increasingly] American owned land" (although I can't view p. 160 of the 2nd source on Google Books). So I just took out "...despite having had a significant impact on increasing American owned land." Pfly (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Undue weight

This page had a clear undue weight issue regarding the 'Before Lewis and Clark' section, which was almost the longest section on the page. The page should mention that various explorers discovered various points of interest, maybe with a few links to the most notable examples and that should be enough. As it was, the section was more than a page long and didn't serve to expand on the Lewis and Clark journey itself and needed to be cleaned up. The page is not an outline of European exploration in the 19th century. There are dedicated pages covering these things. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur and would actually eliminate this section and instead include two or three sentences relative to the specific explorations that L&C benefited from in their preparations. This should be part of the Preparations section. Unfortunately, I don't have sufficent background available to know specifically what prior explorations L&C relied on to make the change myself --Mike Cline (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

they also sought the Northwest Passage

For awhile now I've wondered if/how this article should mention the term 'Northwest Passage' as it was assumed/hoped to exist then, the 18C-19C concept of a navigable trade route from the new Louisiana Territory to the Pacific Ocean. Several sources, notably the Burns/PBS documentary and Ambrose's book, refer to one of the expedition's goals of finding the Passage, as well as Lewis' great disappointment in realizing that it didnt exist. Unfortunately and somewhat confusingly the term is now used for the arctic route only, as far as wikipedia is concerned, it seems. Please also see some discussion at Talk:Northwest Passage with other (older) comments in support of its mention. As I say there, I'm not sure how to include it here. I see the Passage mentioned in an earlier thread above, but I'm surprised to see no mention of it in this article's archived discussions. El duderino (abides) 04:18, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Stratovolcano mountain?

The eight paragraph of the "Departure" section states that "Lewis used William Robert Broughton's 1792 notes and maps to find the stratovolcano mountain for navigation."

Which stratovolcano? Mount Hood, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry Thorgaard (talk • contribs) 00:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

girl? woman? wife?

Seems to me the correct way for the sentence...

"They were accompanied by a fifteen-year-old Shoshone Indian woman, Sacagawea, the wife of a French-Canadian fur trader"

to read would be something along the lines of...

"They were accompanied by a fifteen-year-old Shoshone Indian girl, Sacagawea, whom a French-Canadian fur trader had taken as his wife."

Does anyone object to this change? My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

How is she referred to in the Journals of the Expedition? While not completely dispositive, this would seem to be important. The phrase "taken as a wife" seems to have implications that may or may not be supported by the record. rewinn (talk) 05:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
I am going by the main article on Sacagawea, from which it appears the current wording is inaccurate. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Just wanted to note (sorry I am not expert in Wikipedia editing) that in 1805, when Sacagewea voted, it was legal and not unusual for women to vote in New Jersey (until 1807). Irwin Gertzog, Female Suffrage in New Jersey, 1790-1807 (Hawthorne Press, 1990), 51-52. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.38.77 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Organization of "Journey" Section

Just noting that the organization, chronologically and terminologically, of the Journey section of the article (which seems pretty important) is pretty confusing. It begins with no heading and this paragraph:

"There were 33 people, including 29 participants in training at the 1803–1804 Camp Dubois (Camp Wood) winter staging area, then in the Indiana Territory, near present day Wood River, Illinois on the east bank of the Mississippi. In March 1804, the Spanish in New Mexico learned from U.S. General James Wilkinson, later discovered to be a paid agent of the Spanish crown,[note 1] that the Americans were encroaching on territory claimed by Spain. On August 1, they sent four armed expeditions of fifty two soldiers, mercenaries, and Indians from Santa Fe northward under Pedro Vial and José Jarvet, to intercept Lewis and Clark and imprison the entire expedition. When they reached the Pawnee settlement on the Platte River in central Nebraska they learned that the expedition had been there many days before, but because the expedition at that point was covering seventy to eighty miles a day Vial's attempt to intercept them was unsuccessful.[37][38]"

Which is for the most part a description of the Spanish interception attempts... not of the Journey itself. Then it regresses with the heading Departure, which in fact describes the entire journey, including the return and arrival in St. Louis. Then after that, there's another section titled Return trip. While noted that it's still under construction, it seems like that should be integrated with the existing material to avoid repetition, and furthermore, additional headings added to break up the account and establish more clarity about the events of the expedition. Importemps (talk) 09:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Then, take the initiative to reorganize and rewrite it! I don't think anyone will object if the content is supported by sources. --Mike Cline (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2013

The second sentence in the Observations section has the word "witnesses" when it seems like it should be "witnessed" Original: "By western standards the Indian way of life seemed harsh and unforgiving as witnesses by members of the expedition." Seems like it should be "...as witnessed by members...". RCFlesher (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 August 2013

In the very first paragraph, it is stated that the Lewis & Clark expedition started in St Louis on the Mississippi river. This is false. The expedition used the Missouri river (not the Mississippi) as their start point at Wood River, Illinois, near St Louis, Missouri. (Note that the Mississippi extends from North to South and ends up in New Orleans on the Gulf of Mexico so it could not have been used for the westward expansion project.)

So, at a minimum, the first paragraph should read:

The Lewis and Clark Expedition, also known as the Corps of Discovery Expedition, was the first American expedition to cross what is now the western portion of the United States, departing in May, 1804 from St. Louis on the Missouri River, making their way westward through the continental divide to the Pacific coast.

For reliable information, please check:

http://lewis-clark.org/content/content-article.asp?ArticleID=3018

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/lewisandclark/journey_leg_1.html

Hamidisber (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Wood River, Illinois is indeed on the Mississippi and not the Missouri, slightly upriver from the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. BryanG (talk) 17:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested added External Link

I'm recommending adding

http://lewis-clark.org/

to the External Links because it offers a wealth of articles, written by experts, on various aspects of the Expedition. It may be the most detailed website on Lewis & Clark history.

Gooseterrain2 (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The site appears to meet the guideline for external links. Rivertorch (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Category discussion

Hi, I started a discussion at the category about whether we should be including every location (and person) visited or even discovered during the expedition. If anyone has any other views on the scope of the category, feel free to comment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2014

There is some info wrong with it Rufusrene (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a specific change. If you wish to suggest a change, please make the request in form of "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2014

--76.126.35.247 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)--76.126.35.247 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)--76.126.35.247 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)--76.126.35.247 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)--76.126.35.247 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)--76.126.35.247 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)'Italic text''Bold text''Bold textBold text''''''

76.126.35.247 (talk) 04:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank. Stickee (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

other ethnographical expeditions in north america

Stephen Powers could be added here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.82.102 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography format and use of bold lettering

The use of bold lettering in bibliographies is allowed and for good reason. Bolding the last names of authors in the bibliography make it easier for the reader and student of history who actively goes back and forth from text to bibliography numerous times during a reading session to quickly find a name -- very useful, esp in long bibliographies. It also helps these readers who have less than perfect eyesight. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Gwillhickers:, you may have good points here, but I'm wondering whether the Manual of Style backs this up somewhere -- can you point me to that? (I looked at your link and this kind of bolding wasn't discussed.) I've never seen another Wikipedia article formatted in this way. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Observations

I removed a considerable amount of material, because most of it was not referenced, and the rest had references over 100 years old. If you want to quote what Lewis or Clark wrote about Indians that would be proper in this article, but to quote a book published in 1893 and another published in 1905, seems improper, when on the face of it they are used to support obviously prejudiced statements. This matters. In 1900 the United States had just completed the conquest of, and destruction of, the Indian tribes. At that time almost all of the literature about them was deeply prejudiced against them, as indeed was all anthropology literature written by western Europeans about non-Europeans. Another problem is the global generalzations, the Indian nations, across what is the United States, were of many cultures, that were no more alike than the English were to the Egyptians or to the Japanese, at the time of this expedition. Nick Beeson (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not true. Only observations were mentioned, and it's quite debatable that all the literature was prejudiced against the American Indian, much less that of Lewis and Clark's findings, who maintained good relations with the Indian throughout the expedition. Also, simply because a source is dated, doesn't automatically mean it's prejudiced. Last, Indians were not wiped out in the capacity you seemed to have been led to believe. "Genocide" is a 20th century politically and/or racially motivated myth. While many Indians and whites were killed, esp during the early days of settlement, can you actually name one Indian nation that was exterminated by white settlers? There were many wars, esp between Indians themselves. Most Indians killed were done so by other Indians, by far, for reasons of simple demographics. This is esp true in regards to the wars perpetrated by the Navaho and Sioux. You need to look beyond your own views and perhaps examine any prejudice you may be harboring and kick the 'blame the white man' habit that was largely promoted during the 20th century. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
@Nwbeeson:, do you agree with the changes? I'm not acquainted enough with the material to be able to evaluate it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of the term "Indian"

While obviously contemporary writers would have used the term Indian for native American surely it should not be used now except in a direct quote? The time line uses it several times. Billlion (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pierre Dorion

In the timeline, on June 12, 1804 it says that they ran into Pierre Dorion. The link for that name takes you to a Canadian hockey player born in 1972. Seems incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.58.88.54 (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The error has been corrected. It now links to Pierre Dorion, Jr., who is the person Lewis & Clark encountered. Good catch on your part. Thanks!--JayJasper (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2016

Overview section has "Infinite Warfare" as last paragraph. Not sure why, but seems like a graffiti type tag. Pollardld (talk) 05:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Done That was vandalism to Template:Timeline of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Gulumeemee (talk) 11:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017

209.189.162.11 (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

lewis and clarke had to eat wax along their trip when they were stuck in a blizzard

 Not done Request wasn't made in a "Change X to Y" format, and no reliable sources were given to back up the statement. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 16:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

President Thomas Jefferson commissioned the expedition shortly after the Louisiana Purchase in 1803.

He asked Congress for funding for this expedition in January 1803 and asked Lewis to head the corps even before news of the Purchase reached the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.225.46.245 (talk) 01:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis and Clark Expedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lewis and Clark Expedition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

The second sentence of the second paragraph of the Aftermath section begins, "When Louis was appointed Governor of Missouri Territory..." I believe this should be changed to "When Lewis was appointed governor of Louisiana Territory," and should link to the Louisiana Territory page rather than the Missouri Territory page. Lewis held this position from 1807 until his death in 1809. The Louisiana Territory was not renamed to Missouri Territory until 1812.

This[31] appears to be the source for this paragraph, which is a slight paraphrasing of the original document and contains the same Missouri/Louisiana mixup. I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's editorial standards to say whether this is close enough to be considered plagiarism but I believe it should be looked at.

Amentch (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2019

Lewis and Clark brought along the wonder drug of the day, mercury chloride (otherwise known as calomel), as a pill, a tincture, and an ointment. Modern researchers used that same mercury, found deep in latrine pits, to retrace the locations of their respective locations and campsites.

Reference https://io9.gizmodo.com/archaeologists-tracked-lewis-and-clark-by-following-the-1727887223?commerce_insets_disclosure=on 107.0.161.3 (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add this to the overview section, not replace any text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.161.3 (talk) 15:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: per WP:BLOGS. This author doesn't appear to be a published expert in this area (their most recent articles deal with cat houses, tadpoles, Epi-pens, robots, Harry Potter, and logging), and they're citing a Wordpress blog as a source. Can you provide a published source that directly cites the modern research? Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Something like this?

http://mentalfloss.com/article/68080/mercury-latrines-helped-historians-follow-lewis-and-clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.0.161.3 (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The original sources (Archaeological Institute of America, Chicago Tribune) don't seem to tell us that they were able "to retrace the locations of their campsites", but seem to only say "In one campsite, traces of mercury vapor could be found, which strengthens the latrine's association with the expedition". I'm not sure this fits into the "Overview" section since it seems to only be suggestive for one campsite. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

American referring only to White Euro-Americans

Particularly in the section on Geography and Science, there are assertions that "Lewis and Clark were the first Americans to cross the Continental Divide, and the first Americans to see Yellowstone, enter into Montana..."

This is completely Eurocentric, and denies the rights of Native peoples of the North American Continent to be, literally, "American."

Instead, the article might read, "Lewis and Clark were the first Americans of European descent..." or "...first US citizens..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbandos (talk • contribs) 22:48, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Timeline, October-December 1805

The timeline for this period is confusing, and the most important date of all is probably incorrect.

  • Oct 9–Dec 7: Traveled down Clearwater...Snake...Columbia River(s) to ocean.
  • Oct 18: Clark sees Mount Hood, which means they are now back in previously explored territory.
  • Oct 25–28: Camped at Rock Fort...first met the Chinookan-speaking people...
  • Nov 7: Clark wrote in his journal, "Ocian [ocean] in view! O! the joy."
  • Nov 20: Encounter of the Pacific Ocean at the mouth of the Columbia River.

The date range (Oct 9-Dec 7) is too vague, but given the dates that follow, Oct 18 is problematic. Furthermore, what's missing is that while Clark did record sighting the Pacific on Nov 7, he was mistaken. The expedition reached Gray’s Bay on that date, still 20 miles from the ocean. So Nov 20 would appear to be correct, except I've found references elsewhere to Nov 15/16. So when did they discover their error and why 13 more days to reach the ocean? I'll add a few words to Nov 7 to mention the mistaken sighting but don't have the details/sources needed for improving the sequence. Added to my list of things to do, but expert help would be greatly appreciated. Allreet (talk) 16:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I have resolved these problems and more by creating a new timeline, fully sourced. However, I also eliminated the expandable timeline section which seemed out of place (disruptive or distracting) in the middle of the narrative, replacing it with a section that links to the timeline. This approach is used in music articles that link to discographies rather than have a long listings of works within artists' biographies. I also did this because having two timelines - the expandable section and standalone article - requires double maintenance, not very practical. All of the above is IMHO and I'd welcome feedback on my changes. For other comments justifying these changes, see Talk:Timeline of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Allreet (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2020

lewis brought his slave on the journey. 173.187.147.151 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
I think the point of the original comment is that York, Lewis's slave, deserve mention. He does receive one acknowledgement deep into the article - in November 1805 when the Corps votes on their winter encampment after reaching the Pacific. Certainly his presence is more notable than that, so I added him in correcting the number of men in the expedition in the Journey > Departure section.Allreet (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Spanish Interference???

Lewis and Clark were basically trespassing. Had been the other way around, they would had been shot by the US Border Patrol.

--178.237.229.242 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like you have it backwards.--MONGO (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Camp Station

The timeline mentions Camp Station but it isn't in this article. Seems odd, considering that it was the ultimate destination of the expedition. Is there a memorial there? I have a vague recollection of visiting a Lewis and Clark memorial close to the beach on the Oregon coast in the 1980s. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 04:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

PeterEasthope, see my remarks below on sighting the Pacific. You're correct. More detail on Camp Station is appropriate and should be worked in as part of expanding the text on the expedition's final leg. Allreet (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sighting and reaching the Pacific...dating is incorrect

The article states that they sighted the Pacific on November 7 and reached the ocean two weeks later. Not so. What they saw on November 7 was the Columbia River's estuary. The mistaken sighting is widely known. Not as clear is when they reached the Pacific. As I've found, it "only" took eight more days to get to the ocean. I stress "only" because the weather made the last leg treacherous. But even without the severe winds and heavy rain, the Columbia is difficult to navigate as it meets the ocean.

Normally, fixing the dates would be easy, but given the above information as well as the importance of the final 20 miles to the "story," this should be fleshed out a bit more. I'll do that as soon as I can find the time, though of course anyone is welcome to pitch in. For dates, sources and the essential details, see the 1805 section of the Timeline of the Lewis and Clark Expedition. Allreet (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Allreet, I wonder whether a memorial remains for their campsite adjacent to the beach. The site I remember from the '80s was probably in a state or national park. I don't remember specifics. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

i want to edit nd rh gj dj g j gj hgj ghk gkyu k gy 96.4.238.169 (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Conifer (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Change “American Indian” to “Native American “

Change “American Indian” to “Native American” Wilkosoft (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2021

"Native Americans" should be changed back to "American Indians." They have been called "Indians" for over 500 years, and "American Indians" is the standard terminology. You should not change words merely to pander to the woke police. Headystorm (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I understand many indigenous Americans prefer "(American) Indian" to "Native American", as that is what they have always called themselves. Koro Neil (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

“American Indian“ and “Native American” are both acceptable I believe, so in this case the status quo should be preserved. Swyix (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

67.231.194.182 (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

American Indians should be changed to Native Americans. Since "Indians" is just a mistake made by Christopher Columbus.

I did it, although some quotes couldn't be changed obviously.βӪᑸᙥӴ • Talk • Contribs 17:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
We go by Common Name - that, and the vast majority of the indigenous lower-48 state American First Nations PREFER to go by "Indian." HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Better summary information?

There's some basic summary information that I had trouble finding in this article: how many members did the expedition have, and what were there names? How many died on the trip? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Thurston (talk • contribs) 11:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath: Stephen Ambrose sentence

The Aftermath section has a full sentence apparently taken directly from “Reporting to the President, September 23-December 31, 1806” by Stephen Ambrose without attribution:

In the course of their journey, they acquired a knowledge of numerous tribes of Native Americans hitherto unknown; they informed themselves of the trade which may be carried on with them, the best channels and positions for it, and they are enabled to give with accuracy the geography of the line they pursued. 2600:6C4A:413F:97A0:217F:C530:692D:BA0A (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 April 2023

Can you use the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/York_(explorer) 2601:646:8400:C150:C8CF:AF5C:BF9B:EC4D (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Link already present in article Tollens (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

York was freed by Clark. Why isn't this mentioned?

Ambrose who was and probally still is the most reliable source stated york was freed by clark after clarks refusals many times. Seems the article is more bias to fit a political narrative instead of giving true context. All the bad parts of how clark treated him are clearly laid out with nobody putting that into question. But any mention of clark doing something good for york is met with heavy scrutiny. And why is york given his own sub page? He should have his own sub page on the "corps of discovery" wiki page. 2603:9001:56F0:F80:C1CB:99F6:CD71:26F9 (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lewis_and_Clark_Expedition/Archive_3&oldid=1224625246"