Talk:Donner Party

More on "Bear Valley"

I agree that the identification with a river in Alpine County is completely wrong and that the specific Bear River in question is the Bear River (Feather River tributary). It was known by the Mexicans as "Rio Oso". I moved to Grass Valley, California about three years ago, and cross that river frequently on two different highways. The question I have is where along that river the sanctuary of "Bear Valley" was located? I cross that river on California State Route 49 between Grass Valley, California and Auburn, California, where it flows pretty calmly, and also a bit uphill higher and further to the east as California State Route 174 near Colfax, California, and the river is clearly a bit more rugged and mountainous at that crossing. Over its 73 mile length, that river gradually transforms from a very rugged mountain gorge to a calmer stream much closer to sea level approaching the Sacramento River system. But where I live is about 50 miles from Sutter's Fort, a several day's journey back in those days. Where along that river was the "valley" of refuge located? Was it a native American village, possibly Nisenan? Dutch Flat, California is in the area but that article mentions nothing about the Donner Party. Since the locations of the worst suffering of the Donner Party are so well understood and well documented, I would like to know more about the location and conditions of the "Bear Valley" place of refuge, which seems to be the place where many of the survivors concluded that they had actually survived their terrible ordeal. Cullen328 (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Forlorn Hope Rescue - "Nisenan" not "Native American"

Recent research has confirmed it was specifically the Nisenan, who aided William Eddy and eventually the rest of the Forlorn Hope survivors to reach Johnson's Ranch in January, 1847. I am requesting we change the current text to read "Nisenan" in place of "Native American" to reflect the accurate historical fact based upon these discoveries: https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Requested-Donner-Party-Wiki-Page-Alternation.png

Below are the following academic sources which substantiate the evidence above:

1) Five Rivers - by Gregory G. White, Ph.D. (Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Davis, 2003 M.A., Anthropology, University of California, Davis, 1987 B.A., Anthropology Sonoma State University, 1983): https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FiveRivers-07-2022.pdf

2) Except from Five Rivers, p74: https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Excerpt-from-pg-74-of-Five-Rivers-re-Nisenan-and-Forlorn-Hope.png

3) Email from Nick Potter, Head Archeologist and Interpreter, California State Parks and Overseer of Donner Memorial State Park and Museum:https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Email-from-CA-State-Parks-Archiologists-and-Interpreter.png

4) Revised DMSP Museum panel regarding Forlorn Hope, William Eddy crediting Nisenan: https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Revised-DMSP-Museum-Panel-referencing-Nisenan-rotated.jpg

Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to your response. Imcrowley (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

 Done. Please let me know where I can find more details on the "Five Rivers" source; I do not see an author or publication date in the PDF. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until we have a reliable source for this? This "Five Rivers Run Red" source by Gregory G. White doesn't seem to be such a thing. As far is I can tell it's just "a PDF" without any indication that it went through peer review or was indeed published anywhere. Maybe it's awaiting publication but until that has happened I don't think we can treat it as reliable. Gawaon (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted the change for now and would propose to restore it once the source situation has been sorted out. Gawaon (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

That's fair. Though tough to cite, I feel like the interpretive placard could be a reliable source since it's maintained by California State Parks. It looks like it has been changed recently since if you do a Google image search for "relief but not rescue" you can see the old version which said Miwok Indians. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, if they have changed it, the change must be based on RS which we can then cite. So let's see what OP knows regarding this. In the meantime, the old version is in any case not wrong. Gawaon (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that OP had argues for this change to "Nisenan" already four years ago, see Talk:Donner Party/Archive 4#Nisenan Maidu rather than Miwok Native Americans. Unsuccessful at that time, though they succeeded in having "Miwok" changed to "Native American", which remains the current version. Let's see if new reliable evidence has emerged since then. Gawaon (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Five Rivers is a PDF only, not a published book. You can see the author's credentials here: https://independent.academia.edu/GregoryGWhite/CurriculumVitae, here: https://independent.academia.edu/GregoryGWhite, here: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Gregory-G.-White/author/B001JPC2QK?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true and here: https://core.tdar.org/browse/creators/15443/greg-white. Dr. White has assisted with several Donner related archeological projects over the years including at Alder Creek and Camp of Death - the latter which was written up in the Oregon California Trails Association (OCTA): https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Axe-article-pgd.pdf. The Donner Memorial State Park Museum is regarded as the epi-center for the Donner Party worldwide. They have, based upon the identical facts I've laid out here and with their own independent research, changed the panel in the museum to read "Nisenan". The panel had read "Miwok" for two decades. They admitted it was incorrect due to the new evidence, which included consultation with the Washoe, Nisenan, Maidu and Miwok Native American historical leaders in California. I hope we can agree to change wikipedia page to match the authority's findings so there is no confusion over this minor but important matter going forward. Imcrowley (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

We should evaluate sources, not authors. We are totally unqualified to do the latter, plus as far as I can tell there is no evidence that the Gregory G. White you mention did even write the PDF you linked. If it's a manuscript for a book to be published, as it seems to be from its format and scope, let's wait until a (reliable) publisher has actually accepted and published it, then it'll be fine to use. The Donner Memorial State Park Museum is a reliable institution, but a mere photo of a plate is not a reliable source. If they publish something linkable on their website, it would be something else. I have tried to search on site:parks.ca.gov for something connecting Nisenan to "Forlorn Hope", but come up empty-handed. Gawaon (talk) 07:23, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Here are the references utilized for the Five Rivers document by Dr. White: https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FiveRivers-07-2022-References.pdf. To be fair, the original reference used by wikipedia to cite it was a "Miwok" settlement the Forlorn Hope encountered, was George Stewart's Ordeal By Hunger, a non-fiction narrative about the Donner Party. This was not a peer-reviewed academic report, but instead a historical novel published by H. Hold & Company in 1936. Dr. White's research and plethora of academic and peer-reviewed references cited (see above attachment), should be held to the same standard as the often referenced George Stewart and Ordeal By Hunger, cited frequently within the Donner Party Wiki page. The specifics of the original use of "Miwok" in the Donner Page Wiki page referenced a passage within Ordeal By Hunger in which Stewart states it was a Miwok Settlement that the Forlorn Hope stumbled upon after their second crossing of the North Fork of the American River. Stewart narrates that, after 33 days, the survivors of the Forlorn Hope "came into view of an Indian village" and were aided by its inhabitants, who gave them acorns and other food. The text refers to these people as Miwok, based on the location and historical context of the villages in the Sierra foothills. But Stewart provides no further reference as to why he believed it was the Miwok, the Forlorn Hope encountered. This was the original argument we all used to make the change a few years ago to "Native American" in the Wiki page. Today, 89 years later, new evidence has emerged that definitively proves that it was in fact, the Nisenan, not the Miwok that the Forlorn encountered and subsequently saved the Forlorn Hope. The references utilized and cited by Dr. White to create Five Rivers (provided above) is an exhaustive list of academic research, that makes it self-evident that the Nisenan settlements were populated along the Bear River year around, in precisely the location the Forlorn Hope encountered the Native American settlement (outside of today's Colfax, CA). The Miwok had settlements further west in the Sacramento Valley and today's Bay Area, no where near the Bear River. It is this preponderance of evidence that led Dr. White to conclude that it would have been impossible for the Forlorn Hope to have encountered Miwok settlements. The evidence, which he cites, concludes it must have been Nisenan. Furthermore, the California State Parks, specifically those in leadership of the Donner Memorial State Park, have, through the years, conducted their own investigation, which included discussions with the Miwok, Nisenan, Maidu and Washoe tribes and their oral history of the incidents surrounding the Donner Party and specifically the Forlorn Hope. Their oral histories are congruent with Dr. White's findings, thus they recently made the panel change to "Nisenan" in the museum (https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Compare-Eddy-Panel.png). Dr. White and the archeologists at the California State Parks believe Stewart used what evidence was available to him at the time to deduce it was Miwok the Forlorn Hope encountered. They also believe he may have been confused his facts as Luis and Salvador, who were deceased members of the Forlorn Hope Party, were both Miwok. Lastly, it is possible Stewart believed the narrative was more compelling using Miwok as the settlement, given the surviving seven members of Forlorn Hope would have encountered the settlement with some remnants of the butchered bodies of Luis and Salvador in their packs, upon which they had fed upon the days before the initial settlement encounter. The irony of being saved by the same tribesman as those in which provided them sustenance is harsh and clear. But historically inaccurate and cannot be referenced. But the evidence it was Nisenan can, and has indeed been referenced. We hope you will agree to our petition to change the Wiki narrative to reflect the current facts and evidence to assure consistency with what the history, academia and the stewards of the Donner history, the Donner Memorial State Park, all agree. Your wonderful Donner Party page is read by millions each year. Assuring it is factually accurate is yours - and our joint mission. Imcrowley (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Stewart's book seems to only specify "Indians". It never uses the term Miwok. I propose we just change it to "Native American" until there's a reliable source that we can cite (peer-reviewed paper, published book, reputable website, etc.). I have no doubt that Nisenan is correct but remember Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

"Native American" already is the current wording, and has been for four years (thanks to Imcrowley's earlier intervention). Gawaon (talk) 17:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Otherwise I agree with you, and Imcrowley, you might have noticed that the current version already is factually accurate? We neither can nor have to include every detail at the edge of research. Better stick with what's known with certainty, as reflected in the recent academic literature. Gawaon (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I must have been thinking of the old park placard that said Miwok. I agree we should just keep it as is until we have a reliable source to change it. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I truly appreciate your diligence and vigilance here. Much respect. I must continue pursue what we all desire, verifiable factual proof. The supplied documents - and you're either going to have to trust me, Dr. White, California State Parks archeologist and Donner Memorial State Park interpreter - or read the Five Rivers book - provide self-evident facts that prove that it was Nisenan that the Forlorn Hope survivors encountered. Along with the collective oral histories from the Nisenan, Maidu, Miwok and Washoe tribes, gathered by the State Parks as part of their research and the fact that they were convinced, beyond any doubt, that it was the specifically Nisenan, neither "Miwok" nor "Native Americans" that saved the Forlorn Hope. What more evidence is required? This isn't on the edge of research but one of the conclusions of a seminal piece of Native American research, the result of decades of studies, research and primary interviews, that has resulted in this discovery and correction (along with many other inaccurate historical facts). If I provide a letter from the California State Parks authorities who changed the Donner Memorial State Park panel to reflect "Nisenan", would that be sufficient to convince us all that we can rely upon their diligence, vigilance and persistent stewardship pertinent to the accurate history of the Donner Party? Imcrowley (talk) 23:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Additional academic documents - peer reviewed, demonstrating the location of Nisenan tribe and specifically along the Bear River: https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Kroeber-references-re-Nisenan.pdf and https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Nisenan-Wilson-and-Towne.pdf.

In response to the question of whether Stewart explicitly refers to the settlement as "Miwok", Stewart’s identification of the Native Americans as "Miwok" is found in the Notes and References section at the back of the book. In the 1936 Jonathan Cape edition, this is typically on page 335 or later, depending on the edition. Stewart writes in his notes (paraphrased):

"The Indian village encountered by the Forlorn Hope was almost certainly Miwok, based on the location and ethnographic evidence."

Imcrowley (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

The texts by Kroeber and Wilson and Towne don't refer to Forlorn Hope or the Donner Party, so we can't use them here. That would be OR, which does not (and cannot) happen at Wikipedia. So we'll have to wait until this connection actually makes it into the published (and preferably peer-reviewed) literature. Gawaon (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't use personal correspondence in this way. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

We submit the attached document , The Nisenan Settlement and the Forlorn Hope Party Rescue: A Comprehensive Case for Correcting the Historical Record as a collaborative report, among academics, historians, authors, California State officials and Native Americans, assembled by the undersigned within, to justify the undeniable new evidence that the change should be made to reflect that the Nisenan people were those that encountered and saved the Forlorn Hope Party. We hope, after reading our report, you will collaborate with us, follow our lead, to recognize the Nisenan people's role in saving the Forlorn Hope Party, deserving of proper recognition and acknowledgment in the historical record. Thank you. Imcrowley (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

@Imcrowley: There's no way to attach files here and the title doesn't match anything on Google. Is there a URL you can share?

Also, I noticed in Dan Brown's The Indifferent Stars Above he says the people that saved the Forlorn Hope were likely Maidu. Would this be an improvement? Even better, maybe somebody with better access to the book can check his references. –CWenger (^ • @) 18:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Here is the URL to the document as you requested above: https://historyexp.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/The-Nisenan-Settlement-and-the-Forlorn-Hope-Party.pdf

Daniel Brown has been a trusted resource to us throughout this research since 2009. He admits speculating it was Maidu without having primary sources to substantiate his claim. His book, albeit wonderful, is historical fiction. He has however, reviewed the collective research you will see preeented within the linked document and concurs with our conclusion: they were Nisenan. Many also confuse Nisenan with Maidu, much to the Nisenan’s frustration. The Maidu and Nisenan peoples are closely related Indigenous groups native to Northern California. Their relationship is best understood through their shared linguistic, cultural, and geographic ties.

• The Nisenan are considered a southern branch of the larger Maidu (Maiduan) family. The Maidu people are traditionally divided into several groups based on geography and dialect:
  • (in the north)
  • (northwest)
  • (Butte County)
  • (southern/valley region)
• All these groups speak related languages within the Maiduan language family.
• The Nisenan are sometimes referred to as the Southern Maidu or Valley Maidu, but they have their own distinct identity and dialect.

Imcrowley (talk) 19:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

By the way, I too am an Office and Indiana Jones fan ;-) Imcrowley (talk) 19:14, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Imcrowley, unfortunately, the PDF you've shared is still only "a PDF", it's not a usable reliable source (RS). You'll have to go through the academic peer-review process or find a reliable publisher to get there.

Even if we had an RS for Nisenan, we now have the problem that Dan Brown's book, which is an RS, says something else. Right now it seems we have two options: change "Native American" to "Maidu", citing Brown's book as source, or leave everything as it is. Maybe the latter is the easiest and less disputable option? Gawaon (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

The document we shared cites numerous RS. It is not meant to be the source but leads you to the sources.

How can a fictional novel (Brown’s book) be a reliable source when scientific and academic published works are not? The logic doesn’t make sense to me. Please explain.

all we are trying to do is assist you and fellow editors by leading you to the preponderance of sources that clearly articulate and make the case for,”Nisenan”. If it,helps, I can pull out each of those sources and cite each which could then be referenced in the wiki page. 2601:204:D200:6217:2062:EB60:773F:CE9E (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You could change to “Maidu-Nisenan” or Nisenan-Maidu” but as the Nisenan people point out, lumping them together with Maidu is inaccurate and insulting.

https://www.nisenan.org/ Imcrowley (talk) 13:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Is there a single RS which explicitly says that the people who aided William Eddy and the other Forlorn Hope survivors were Nisenan? If yes, please tell us specifically which one is it. We can change the text quickly, but only if we know about that RS. Don't expect us to read through dozens of documents to find a hint that may or may not be there.

And Brown's book is nonfiction, unless I'm mistaken? If it was a novel, then, of course, we couldn't use it. Gawaon (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

"Mishaps" word use

Im not a seasoned editor, but it feels like the word mishaps being used in the first paragraph is maybe too unserious for such a serious topic? Spooky Spookhouse (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Catholicism

'During the 1840s there was a dramatic increase in settlers leaving the east to resettle in the Oregon Territory or California, which at the time were accessible only by a very long sea voyage or a daunting overland journey. Some, such as Patrick Breen, saw California, then a part of Mexico, as a place where they would be free to live in a fully Catholic culture; others were attracted to the West's burgeoning economic opportunities or inspired by manifest destiny, the belief that the land between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans belonged to European Americans and that they should settle it.'

How common was the first reason? I should have thought that the second reason (looking for economic opportunities) was far more common. The source cited for the first reason (Enright), judging by the title, is about the Breens specifically. Does it claim that this was a motive not just for the Breens, but for a large part of the settlers? Conversely, the source cited for the second and the third reasons (Rarick) is a general source about the Donner party and thus probably more indicative of the overall standard view of the issue. Anonymous44 (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Well the Murphy family of the 1844 Stephens–Townsend–Murphy Party seem to have been looking for religious security as well economic opportunity. Note there was a lot of anti-Catholic and in particular anti-Irish Catholic feelings in 1840s US (see 1844 Philadelphia nativist riots) Erp (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Word use

Near reference 7 that's states Rarick. The sentence reads "wagons find it relatively easy to negotiate" I believe they mean for it to read "Navigate" instead of "Negotiate. I am very new to editing Wikipedia so im not sure if there's a way to directly include the location, nor find if this is supposed to be a quote from Rarick. And I didnt not want to edit since its a significant document. MirageegariM (talk) 14:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

"Navigate" would also be possible, but I'd say that "negotiate" is fine here and no change is needed. Sample sentence from Wiktionary where it's used with the same meaning: "We negotiated the mountain track with difficulty." Gawaon (talk) 03:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree no change is needed. "Negotiate" implies the trail didn't have many physical obstacles such as loose boulders, too steep, too narrow, potholes. Erp (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

@Gawaon Thank you so much! I learned something new today amazing! MirageegariM (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Great, you're very welcome 😊 Gawaon (talk) 12:05, 4 July 2026 (UTC)