Talk:Lewis and Clark Expedition

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)

reading

reading boocks abut lewist and clark then we have a test. 2600:1700:5720:2190:BA5B:B876:A3F8:3C61 (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

Remove the section stating that this expedition was an exercise in white supremacy. 2601:6C0:C286:400:8DB9:C915:5768:C36 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done SLAY for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Pinchme123 (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

. The expedition was to make native people understand that their lands now belonged to the United States and that "their great father" in Washington was now their sovereign; hence, it was an exercise in white supremacy.[89

this White Supremecy statement is one of the reasons I don't like using Wikipedia. People are not being truthful while rewriting history. It was an expedition to explore and map not flex "White Supremecy"! 2601:40D:8201:F1E0:3DB8:D473:6265:CE8D (talk) 23:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition, the phrase "hence, it was an exercise in white supremacy" suggests that this statement logically follows from the statement before the semicolon, which it does not. Maxsklar (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree with the points made here and have removed that phrasing from the article. I don't have access to the book used as a reference for that sentence, but it looks like that part of the sentence was introduced in this edit by Absecon 49, whereas the rest of the surrounding context was added years earlier with this edit by NYCJosh, so I'm assuming the insertion of the reference to white supremacy doesn't come directly from the source referenced in the inline citation (though I'm happy to be proven wrong if it actually is part of that source).

I don't have a strong opinion on whether it's right or wrong to claim that white supremacist attitudes may have had some significant degree of influence on the expedition, but adding such a claim to this article should include a reliable source and better avoid WP:OR.

(CC'ing others on this talk page involved in this discussion: Maxsklar, Pinchme123)

Rovenrat (talk) 08:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Legacy and Honors (addition to section)

The U.S. Army Friends of Civil Affairs organization views the Corps of Discovery as a precursor to the Civil Affairs branch and the regimental award medallions bear the name Lewis and Clark. The Corps of Discovery, while not officially a Civil Affairs operation, conducted what is now referred to as Civil Reconnaissance and Civil Engagement during the westward expansion. Reference: https://friendsofcivilaffairs.com/lewis-clark-nomination Wphurt86 (talk) 22:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Usefulness of first paragraph ('Motivations')

The first paragraph was named 'Overview'. I changed that to 'Motivations' because that fits the paragraph way better with what it is. However, the lead section introduces the motives too, and the 'Motivations' paragraph then states almost the same thing as the lead did. I believe the 'Motivations' paragraph is still necessary, but needs a rehaul since it stands useless right now.

Qwaabza (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2024 (UTC)