Talk:Lewis and Clark Expedition

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Lewis and Clark Expedition is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Template Usage] [Watch Project Articles] [Project Talk]
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject South Dakota, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on South Dakota on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is part of WikiProject Oregon, a comprehensive WikiProject dedicated to articles about topics related to the U.S. state of Oregon. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or join by visiting the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the Montana WikiProject, a collaborative WikiProject designed to improve articles related to the U.S. state of Montana. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

An event mentioned in this article is a May 14 selected anniversary

---

This aricle is in sad shape (much shorter than it should be). Here is a sentence that should be put in when when the article is expanded:

Scouting ahead of the expedition, Meriwether Lewis and four companions sighted the Great Falls of the Missouri River on June 13, 1805, confirming they were heading in the right direction.[1]

-- mav 08:32, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Native Americans 2 Expedition Members 3 syphilis or 180 gallons of whiskey? 4 United States article on featured candidate nominations list 5 Missing key part of the story 6 William Clark 7 POV 8 Constant vandalism: call for semi-protection 9 L & C in popular culture 10 Not enough info. 11 Random sentence that someone really loves 12 Number of members listed 13 Lack Of Explanation

[edit] Native Americans

There could be more here on the expedition and Native Americans. I am thinking of how to add something short enough. I'm particularly concerned that verbage like "that was a "Real American Moment", for York, who was a slave, and Sacagawea, who was an Indian and a woman, voted along with the rest of the men of the party." misrepresents the ways the expedition fits into the negative aspects of early 19th century American history glossing over, conflict, exploitation, and disease. York, for example, was not given his freedom at the end of the expedition despite Clark's promise to do so. Sacagawea's democratic priviliges do not seem to have extended to having much input into the fate of her own son. While the party's interactions with Native Americans were often friendly and intimate (and regularly sexual) in nature, violence was also an aspect of the expedition. In addition the Corp's mission of extending U.S. sovereignty into the West would ultimately prove disastorous for the Native populations in the region.

I agree. Rather than just referencing a few meetings with Native populations, the article should have a section devoted entirely to Native American relations. Since Lewis and Clarke's journey was often the first meeting any of these tribes had with Europeans, there should definitely be some emphasis placed on that aspect of the expedition. Silly sad machine 16:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the recent addition "roughly a decade after Alexander Mackenzie, the first European to cross North America by land north of Mexico, arrived at Bella Coola on the Pacific coast in 1793" from the first sentence. Yes, t's an important fact, but hardly the most important thing about the voyage. Placing it where it was comes across as hamfisted criticism. -- Decumanus 16:30, 2004 Dec 28 (UTC)

This article should be much, much longer. Can anyone fix it?

This article needs a serious re-write. Much of if sounds as though it was written by a fourth grader.

"Lewis and Clark played a key role in the putting together of the United States. They had to act largely as diplomats for the President because when they met an Indian tribe, they had to tell them that the land now belonged to the United States. Without these calm meetings, the white settlers from the East would have stormed the Indian Country much too soon, and there would have been total chaos."

You gotta be kidding me. --64.30.11.107 19:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

...so fix it, then. - jredmond 19:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expedition Members

I have added notes to each of the expedition members, in part to forestall the creation of stubby articles on each that would have little hope of growth. I also wrote a few new articles. I have left only two redlinks, on members I think could maybe have decent articles, though if someone were to remove their brackets, I wouldn't object. We could change some of the stubbier existing articles into redirects to the main article, though I am not burning to do so. -- Mwanner 23:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] syphilis or 180 gallons of whiskey?

tt

What a random topic that "tt" has added, will you please explain?

[edit] United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing key part of the story

A key part of this story is that Lewis first met with Clark in the Louisville, Kentucky area (more specifically, at Clarksville, Indiana, at the Falls of the Ohio River). Also, Clark specifically recruited nine young men from the area to join the Corps of Discovery. Later, when they all returned from the Pacific, they traced back to Louisville, where they celebrated their homecoming at Historic Locust Grove (in current-day Louisville). Being a Louisvillian, I've been a bit shocked that Louisville's part of this was left out. Since I'm new to this specific article and its approach, I'll be happy to discuss how best to integrate this info. Please let me know how to proceed. Thanks. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 05:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about everyone else, but I think the key part that is missing from this whole article is the mention that Lewis and Clark traveled along "ancient indian trails". These trails had been in use for thousands of years and so should be acknowledged so as to not give people the impression that Lewis & Clark were complete "trail blazing discoverers". I'd like to make an overlay of their trail and all the known ancient indian trails but haven't had the time. Can anyone else help me? Any 4th graders out there with time to kill? --Lebite 18:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Precision Surveying of Historic Trails: Lewis and Clark in Idaho

Abstract: Indian trails and government wagon roads played a major role in the expansion of the nation westward in the 1800s. Modern road building and agriculture have erased the traces of these routes of commerce for much of the eastern and central United States. However, public lands in the west still preserve their erosion traces in spite of their lack of use for over a century. Our history concerning these routes can still be preserved if they are surveyed and photographically documented so land managers can protect them. The Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail in north-central Idaho has an erosion trace that was so deep in the soil that much of it still exists today. Until now, no one has known the precise location of this trail although many attempts have been made. In this talk we will use photographs, topo maps, precision GPS, and ARCVIEW to present the methodology of discovering and documenting this trail in one of the most remote and rugged areas of the continental U.S.

On the Clearwater and Lolo National Forests, in the mountains of northern Idaho and western Montana, there is an ancient trail system that has been used for hundreds of years as a land bridge between the Columbia River basin and the Missouri River basin. The approximate route of this trail is westward up Lolo Creek from Lolo, Montana to Lolo Pass and then along the dividing ridge between the North and Middle Forks of the Clearwater River until reaching the Weippe Prairie near Weippe, Idaho. Recent research, using a combination of historical records, computer analysis tools, and extensive field exploration has now provided conclusive proof that the erosion trace of this ancient trail system still exists and can be located in many places along the 130-mile length of the trail.

The first use of this land bridge, by aboriginal peoples traveling on foot, occurred at least hundreds of years ago and possibly more than a thousand years ago. These people left an archaeological record that is just now beginning to be examined. When the Native American tribes of the northwestern United States acquired horses over two hundred years ago, the land bridge increased in importance because of the improved transportation provided by these horses. The use of horses also caused increased erosion along the old trail and created the extensive and deep tread that can still be found today.

Meriwether Lewis is notorious for misspelling words in his journals. In this regard he did not discriminate between languages -- he also did not spell several Indian words correctly. One example is Cokahlarishkit (and he spelled this a couple different ways). His Nez Perce guides sent him on a route they called Ooq' aalx'Iskit which means Road to the Buffalo. Lewis translated the word as Cokahlahishkit.

Returning eastbound in 1806, the captains made a switch from waterborne craft to horse transportation here. Since the spring snow melt made rapids in the narrows impossible to pass, the party portaged overland on an ancient Indian trail that points upstream.

[edit] William Clark

The only reason I haven;t done this myself (yet) is because it would take a lot of research. Why is there not yet a William Clark page on wikipedia? It seems ridiculous, especially considering how many other Lewis(the first person spelled it wrong) and Clark oriented pages exist.--Dr who1975 21:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)--

William Clark exists. Perhaps it just appears empty -- this happens sometimes. Run the purge function on the page and see what happens. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 23:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That was weird.--Dr who1975 14:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article seems to be excessively positive and unquestioning about the highschool textbook account of Lewis & Clark. There is substantial academic opinion from historians that Lewis & Clark are mainly of symbolic importance today rather than practical importance during the pioneer years. See for instance this Slate article. The article should acknowledge these skeptical views and the historical fact that Lewis and Clark were not considered so important until the 20th century. The "Achievements" section particularly needs a going over. Bwithh 13:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of the Spanish section? I did a paper on it for graduate school, and I lifted most of the part about the Spanish from it? Besides, I don't want this article to be like the Wright brothers article, which is more interested in debunking the Wrights than actually discussing the brothers.--Bedford 13:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's always possible to create a separate article covering this skepticism, assuming that this is a topic that could get too lengthy and tangential to what needs to be concentrated on here. This article needs to concentrate on the actual expedition and not so much on its relative significance. After all, even if Lewis and Clark did just become historically important in the 20th century, it's not like we can decide to reverse that development. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the removal of the POV tag with the citation of WP:POINT and a curt dismissal offensive and patronizing by the way. That kind of thinking undermines the very purpose of the POV tag, aside from being condescending (why is it "absurd"?). I'm reinserting the tag. You can remove it again, but I'll hope you'll give a more reasonable explanation. Bwithh 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were changing it from one tag to another to another to try to make a (weak) point. And the last tag added was just plain absurd. If it's "curt", so be it. There's nothing much unusual about this article compared to other historical articles. If you want to be seen as acting constructively, give us examples of how particular parts of the article should read, in your opinion, for starters. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 04:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Before we do that, I think we need to see more than one article that debunk's the Expedition, especially since that article did not come from a scholarly work.--Bedford 14:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is based on scholars' opinions- read it through and you'll see that it's cites several books and quotes from academics. Even leaving aside the issue of academic's opinions, the article itself is a bit too gushy in style Bwithh 22:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I did read the article. Find us more articles backing that belief and then your point may be validated.--Bedford 00:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Constant vandalism: call for semi-protection

I have now reverted vandalism on this page several times in the past few days, and frankly it's getting old. Can we sprotect this page or something in the hopes of stemming this continual nonsense? This is one of those frustrating things about Wikipedia… --Makaristos 19:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I repeat this call. Is anybody paying attention while these IPs just eat up all our time making us revert their crap? --Makaristos 18:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thankfully, it's sprotected now. This article has been on WikiProject Louisville's special watchlist for some time now due to the rampant vandalism. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I plan to remove the semi protection in a few days, give me a shout if I forget! Ta/wangi 10:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been one days since the removal of semi-protection, and I count about ten instances of vandalism. This is such a pain to deal with, to have to revert constantly and perform maintenance rather than doing actual work on the article. Can we get the sprotection back, or something? --Makaristos 01:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I just had to remove some vandalism by some guy who put ' poop poop ben ALEXANDER was here dooop' inbetween the jefferson link and the words that folowed. Can someone make it right? I had to put what I thought went there because I didn't know what was origionaly there. F3CNW 1:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. I just de-vandalized the talk section below this talk article. This is getting rediculous, I have to write a paper on Lewis and Clark and how am I suposed to do that when there is vandalism all over the place? F3CNW 1:07, same day as before

[edit] L & C in popular culture

Does anyone object to a section for Lewis and Clark in popular culture? There are some references which may seem trivial but other articles have them and it does add interest at another levelJulia Rossi 06:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be all right. You may want to check out the last version of this article that had such a section and mine it for material. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 06:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link and the okay Julia Rossi 06:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not enough info.

Why did they start the expedition, hello? Add that.

Hey, Bwindex

[edit] Random sentence that someone really loves

Under the "Lousiana Purchase and a western expedition" section, someone has added a line they apparently really love. The statement is out of place and redundant, rehashing a sentiment that is apparent earlier in the article and is mostly apparent if you have common sense.

The paragraph is as follows: "Because of bureaucratic delays in the U.S. Army, Clark officially only held the rank of Second Lieutenant at the time, but Lewis concealed this from the men and shared the leadership of the expedition, always referring to Clark as "Captain". Many people back in Lewis and Clark's day did not know what the West held. [4]"

The line in question, obviously, is the last one — "Many people back in Lewis and Clark's day did not know what the West held." I have to restrain myself from saying "duh." The line also does not strike a scholarly tone, as it's fairly colloquial to use the word "day" to refer to someone's past. The line also includes a citation, but the citation refers to the line before the line in question — the one about Lewis always referring to Clark as "Captain."

I corrected this error last night, but when I rechecked this morning the line was back. Someone apparently really loves this line, but I can't understand why.

Silly sad machine 14:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of members listed

According to the article, The party of 33 included 29 individuals who were active participants in the Corps’ organizational development, but counting up the members listed gives 37 if you don't count Clark's slave or the interpreters. Can anyone resolve the discrepancy? --Blainster 17:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack Of Explanation

"Thomas Jefferson had long thought about such an expedition" It has no overview of the expedition on the article at the moment.. 76.168.59.171 15:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)