Talk:Ohlone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, which collaborates on Native American, First Nations, and related subjects 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.
??? This article has not yet been rated on the assessment scale.
Suggested article edit guidelines:
View comments (edit)
This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Note: Material archive is not linearly stored. Some articles out of order, temporally.

[edit] Please Read

The authors of this article deem it appropriate to track our decisions in a more formal manner. We've gathered and inserted Ohlone book reviews and additional information to this date (5 October 2006 (UTC)). Other authors/editors are encouraged to continue making notes and archiving them as needed. However, for clarity and efficiency to further editors, authors and readers please preserve the following archives:

Lastly, please use the blank headers below, as needed.

[edit] Currently Open Side bar conversations :

[edit] Lock Down

Bruce has expressed interest in removing the tag. Can I lock down the article this week? I have a few changes to the Intro, but everything else can wait.

What we will do is such:

  1. Lock down. No more additions to article until lock down complete.
  2. Align footnotes, resolve ambigous items.
  3. Review by all before unlock.
  4. Unlock.
  5. Refuse new addition that do not have citations.

The purpose should be obvious, but we may not be ready. It's up to you guys. If so, then the page tag will change to

The tag should be sufficient until all edit are complete.

Comments? --meatclerk 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

SURE. -- gOLDENROWLEY

I dont understand exactly how it works. If its locked then no one could make these edits? . My own plans are: still counting Munson tribe in present day, to cited all my sources by page #, do another spell check at end, do another English check at end. I agree its just cleanup time but consider with Thanksgiving people might be going out of town, the timing might not be perfect for an overall review.. Goldenrowley 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I finished the above planned addition of Mutson today, since I leave for vacation tomorrow (the current Amah Mutsun tribe and their enrollment estimate). I'm out of town several days starting tomorrow... When I get back I can help as needed to align footnotes, resolve ambigous, etc. just show the way. Goldenrowley 06:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this is the best time to cleanup. During vacations people tend to run in and fix wikipedia. So, locking down forestalls anyone thinking about working on Ohlone. Have a good time, see you when you get back. --meatclerk 08:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


None of us own Wikipedia, and a 'lock down' runs contrary to the collaborative spirit. Regardless, I think that 99.9% of the readers who see this article will appreciate the quality and move on an edit someother more needy article, so as a practical matter the restraint of a 'lock down' is not needed. Monitoring on our watch lists for vandalism is enough. BruceHallman 15:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I take you get the point, as it is physically impossible to control the page. The 'lock down' is, of course, in the cooperative and community sense. I'll start after the turkey. --meatclerk 00:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Intro change

Bruce, I'll wait until Goldenrowley comes back before implementing this change, but for your comment here it is. Feel free to make changes, and leave comments below.

You'll note I took the first sentence and changed it to four. The second sentence, I think, can be delayed till later in the Intro, but we should decide this first. If you have a different version you prefer, I think adding a new ';' and ':' section would work best. Comments? --meatclerk 07:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Current version
The Ohlone people, also known as the Costanoan and as the Muwekma, are the indigenous people of Northern California who have lived since 500 AD in the regions surrounding the San Francisco Bay and spanning south into the Salinas Valley.
Proposed change
Ohlone is a name given to an indigenous people of Northern California. They are also refered to as Costanoan and Muwekma (See Etymology for details). They lived in the regions surrounding the San Francisco Bay and spanning south into the Salinas Valley. It is believed they have lived there since 500 AD.
I liked compound sentences better than 4 short sentences. Grammatical error noticed: People "spanning south" means their tummies are getting fatter.Goldenrowley 22:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC) THUS:
Goldenrowley proposed
Ohlone is a name given to an indigenous people of Northern California (also refered to as Costanoan and Muwekma, see Etymology for details) who have resided in the regions of the San Francisco Bay area, Monterey Bay area and Salinas Valley since 500 AD.
Sorry, I don't yet understand 'how to diagram a sentence'. In any case, I don't favor compound sentences as it's too wordy (already stated), and cumbersome for fourth graders. Bruce, help on this please. --meatclerk 00:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think fourth graders are much smarter than people are giving them credit for. Good writers would vary long and short sentences it just felt well, dry.... Here is one much closer to your own wording where I've worked out the grammar thing: Goldenrowley 02:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Ohlone is a name given to an indigenous people of Northern California (also refered to as Costanoan and Muwekma, see Etymology for details). [or just put a "link" to etymology section] Their territory spanned from the San Francisco Bay in the north, to the Salinas Valley in the south. They have lived in this territory since 500 AD.

[edit] Citations needed

Bruce, I've marked up the article where citation needed. Most of the tags include a note in the form of an HTML comment. I encourage you to read and mark anything you might see as needing a citation or "re-structuring".

I also note, in frustration - knowing I have written it, "the Ohlone had no written language". That sentence and concept was dropped somehow. Anyway please read and markup the article, when you get a chance. --meatclerk 09:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi meatclerk, this sentence was found in the article intact, not dropped, at the bottom of the word list, rather than language. I just moved it into Language section. Do you know how to do key word searches? control plus F Goldenrowley 06:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I found the phrase after I wrote the comments, but decide not to move it. In as much as cleanup is frustrating, and a trial of patience and self-discipline, I knew you might be a bit roughed by it. Nonetheless, a fresh start in the AM and through the week will bring things a new. In any case, the final product will be a thing of pride, and perhaps a bit of selfishness. So when it is done, you might not want anyone to touch it, including oneself. --meatclerk 08:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Sympathetically to you, at first we had a lot of work to organize concepts into sections, and some of the meanings were unclear (at first), so we (I) might have accidentally moved or changed a few concepts you might have been trying to convey. On making changes: Citation is forcing me to make a few "minor" word changes here and there but it's in a positive way. Goldenrowley 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections to be reviewed

As the entire article has need of citations, if you'd like to fix a citation in a section - mark that section with your initials, then mark it again when complete. Although at this moment I am still working on adding marks for citation needed. --meatclerk 01:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. Culture GR - DONE *MC/DONE
    1. Religion GR - DONE *MC/DONE
    2. Traditional narratives - DONE/cited sources already. *MC/DONE
      1. Mythology GR - DONE/cited sources already. *MC/DONE
  2. History GR/DONE *MC/looks good to me/DONE
    1. The Mission Era (1769 – 1833) GR/DONE *MC/DONE
    2. Secularization and Survival GR/DONE *MC/DONE/with some changes
  3. Divisions - GR/DONE *MC/DONE
    1. Villages and tribes - GR/DONE *MC/DONE
  4. Present day - GR/DONE *MC/DONE (without comment)
    1. Federal Recognition GR/DONE *MC/DONE (without comment)
  5. Population - GR/DONE *MC/DONE
  6. Etymology - GR/DONE *MC/DONE (without comment)
  7. Language - GR/DONE *MC/DONE (without comment)
    1. Native Names - GR/DONE *MC/DONE (without comment)
    2. Spelling and pronunciation - GR/DONE *MC/DONE (without comment)
    3. Native Words - GR/DONE *MC/DONE (without comment)
  8. Ethnohistorians and Linguists - GR/DONE-2 *MC/DONE (without comment)
  9. Notable Ohlone people GR/DONE-1 *MC/DONE (without comment)
  • Need to validate these for style and other
  1. References
  2. Notes
  3. External links GR/DONE
  4. See also (=navigational menu)

Hi, GR means Golden RowleyGoldenrowley. I began to address your concerns, for the most part the citations are readily available in the main books (so far) Goldenrowley 02:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I am done for the evening, we're up to 73 citations and more to be addressed. Personally, I think this amount of citation looks busy and a little extreme?? Even A+ Mandan does not stop and quote its sources every sentence. However I'll admit that it has produced some better more verified citations. Goldenrowley 07:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi back to ya. *MC means Meatclerk meatclerk. Yes, I noted many citations but was unable to get to them before needing sleep. I'll continue on some tonight and tommorrow, then work on Tues.
On citations, I have a different style we could use that is valid. Basically, clump all footnotes into one per paragraph, or perhaps section. Monday evening I will post examples from a book. --meatclerk 09:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok ! Goldenrowley 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair

To be fair to all people equally, I feel honor bound to use Aleven's new contributions today that were cited, even minor issues that are uncited, as I think you may just need a nudge to remember to cite your sources or else later they'd be removed. That said, I am going to remove the number of 500 Muwekma because my source said 397 in year 2000, you changed that without citing a new source. I also will remove a few Esselen side tracks because this is not the Esselen article.Goldenrowley 03:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure where that '500' number is, but let me take a quick look. --meatclerk 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure which thing you are talking about. I don't recall this. --meatclerk 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh I am just addressing changes found today by 23:52, 27 November 2006 Aleventh under Present Day changes. I've already requoted my source. Goldenrowley 04:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay --meatclerk 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
One question to the team: Hall's credentials have not been established so should we remove the quote by Hall's version of what Ohlone means?? See the proposed quote from The History of San Jose and Surroundings by Frederic Hall (1871)... the quote seems very inaccurate compared to Milliken and other sources, but I could be wrong, as I don't have the book. Goldenrowley 04:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
On the Etymology of Ohlone, I have a complete article in pieces. Its not ready for prime time. As for Hall, likely correct (see Brown, 1st article in Bean/1994). However, Brown has at least three article, and possibly an upcoming four. I have been communicating with him via USPS (stamped mail). Brown does list 'History of SJ' as one cuplrit, but he lays the misunderstanding back to Beech's trip 1821(?). In any case, once we complete the lock down, sometime after the 1st of the year I will write a complete article on 'History of History of Ohlone as a name', or something like that. --meatclerk 09:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I see that Bean validates this is very important etimological(sp?) event. Thank you for your opinion and pointing out a source of reference Goldenrowley 01:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate citation style

In the meantime, here is a link to the alternate citation style. --meatclerk 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree one citation per paragraph would look nice, with much less programming, if you all agree and if allowed by "Wikipedia" community. Goldenrowley 16:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've re-read WP:Cite. There is specific guideline on this, except when going from one citation method to another. Guideline says,

Editors should not switch from one citation system to another without checking on the talk page that there are no reasonable objections. For example, editors should not switch from footnotes to Harvard referencing for citations, or vice versa. If no agreement can be reached, the system used by the first major contributor to use one should remain in place. Switching from one footnote style to another may constitute a simple technical improvement, but insisting on one style against objections can be inflammatory.

– WP:Cite, See WP:CITE#Issues


To use this quotation style (See Template:Quotation) --meatclerk at RWC Library 207.62.247.42 22:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok did you want to propose that we use the alternative citation style that you scanned and attached? I am not clear what you prefer? Goldenrowley

[edit] Breaking News

Be prepared for current affair news... yesterday something happened but I've yet to find out the results: "The Memorandum Opinion requires the Department of the Interior to complete an evaluation and submit a formal explanation of its rationale by November 27, 2006-- currently posted AT mUWEKMA site tribe " Goldenrowley 22:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Understand. Not withstanding a major change in the article, I will continue work reserving the section 4 Present Day. Also, will place new tag on article to reflect this news. --meatclerk 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I have nothing to report as of 11/29/06 on the Muwekma court battle, but here's the source I've been watching if anyone else is interested: http://www.muwekma.org/news/index.html Goldenrowley 03:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reordering appendices

All, am reordering the appendices to follow Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices. --meatclerk 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me except for one detail: "navigational footers should go at the very end of the article, following the last appendix section". Thus I am moving the navigational footer to the bottom. Goldenrowley 02:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology

I am doing the etymology section cleanup that I had previously offered to assign to myself and accidentally marked "done":

I moved this embedded remarks from the etymology section (embedded editor comments) to this page to get some more clarification:

Per MC: "We should reduce this section.* A. K. Brown, in his many writings, has described theories on how this came about.... GR disagrees, thinks the below content is very valid, would not reduce this explanation of the primary name."

I am just confused, I really don't know what to take out, it all seems valid and important looking to me?? Do you just mean to work on wordiness, but the concepts are okay? Goldenrowley

Current Etymology is sufficent. I have more to add, but I will do it in a seperate article. You can mark that section done for me as well. --meatclerk 06:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
ME TOO. Thanks.Goldenrowley 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Ideas for later

No pressure at all just for whenever:

  • Words - Wiktionary says the English word Abalone comes from the Ohlone ... isn't that interesting?
Conversation MOVED to Unresolved issue. SAVING for another day.
  • Picture - If anyone lives in San Jose you could take picture of these sculptures for Wikipedia public use it would be perfect
    • (1) mythology and narrative pages: scultpures to honor the Ohlone are on the Park Avenue Bridge (of Guadalupe River). These include the Coyote, the Hummingbird, and the Eagle...The Coyotes were created by artist Peter Schiffrin; the Eagle and Hummingbirds by Tom Andrews.
abalone and Answers.com mentions 'Rumsen' as the origin. BruceHallman 18:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Its a difficult claim to make as the abalone was found before the Ohlone. Writings from Baja California Missionization have notes about the shellfish. Would you like a citation? --meatclerk 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
There are good verifiable sources stating that the etymology of the word abalone comes from Rumsen word aluan.
A list of words contributed to the English language would be an interesting idea, I suggest save the idea for later. Goldenrowley 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (that is, after we finish this cleanup)
Yes, Its a good idea to save it for later. Goldenrowley can you add to 'Unresolved'? TIA --meatclerk 06:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
DONE.

[edit] Citations Requested

I wonder if one of you can cite & verify the below parts of the article? They are not in any of my sources, still need a citation:

# Divisions - GR/DONE-1 : "Awaswas" language statement?

I finally removed the uncited sentence 12-6-6. Goldenrowley 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  1. Ethnohistorians and Linguists - GR/DONE-2 : letters about ethnohistorians feeling hate and jealousy to Kroeber?
  1. Etymology - GR/DONE-2 : "Indian Service reports and correspondences": correspondance might be "original research" -? "The tribal term Ohlone during the 1960s was exclusively used in reference to the Mission San Jose/Verona Band of Alameda County Indians" -?

TIA! Goldenrowley 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)



[edit] held in trust for the Ohlone people

Was mission land "held in trust for the Ohlone people"[1]? Considering that the Spanish claimed the land for Spain as part of the Spanish colonization of the Americas. How is colonized land 'held in trust'? BruceHallman 20:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

it is a legal term Goldenrowley 00:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC). Land "entrusted" might be easier to understand. I work in a legal dept. I read the vast mission lands were held by the Franciscans (as the guardians)thinking one day the Indians will one day have the "skills" to own it themselves. Goldenrowley 01:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Land held in trust was the law and theory, but in practice this was not the case; the King of Spain, the Viceroy of New Spain and the Governor of California (wheter Spainish or Mexican rule) ordered as much. --10:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Please cite verifiable references about this "held in trust" concept. I see that the Spanish colonization was legally based upon the Inter Caetera, and was officially a conquest. I don't see how such a legal basis can be described as 'holding the land in trust'. BruceHallman 15:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
OK but it shall have to wait until evening. Goldenrowley 18:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Bruce, I changed the wording to be "administered by the Franciscans": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ohlone&diff=93079997&oldid=93060812 so not to sway the wording into land claims. Here's what I verified tonight: There seems to be a grey area who owned mission lands: Milliken footnote page 2 says there was a "heated debates" between "the Spanish State and ecclestiastical bureaucracies" over the government authority of the Missions; The Fransiscans claimed the missions Indian owned both land and cattle, and represented the Indians in court casesc against San Jose settlers: Milliken page 72 says in 1782 the priests at Santa Clara mission represented the Indians in a land dispute between settlers of San Jose. The fathers mentioned the Indians crops were being damaged by the San Jose settlers livestock, and also mentioned "livestock belonging to the Indians from the mission". last sentence on page "Indians are at liberty to slaughter such livestock as trespass unto their lands (Murguia and Pena [1782]"; Bean page 243 said "by law" the Mission property was to pass to the resident Indians, without saying if that was Spanish law or by Mexican law Now just memory: The Franciscans were mission administrators and they imagined they held the land in trust for the Indians. Goldenrowley 05:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Interestingly Bruce, I had this exact question months ago. So in the book "Lands of Promise and Despair: Chronicles of Early California, 1535-1846" on page 71, you can read the third full paragraph down (marked in pencil "plan"). The book does a good job of explaining why they broke away from Inter Caetera and the church, and what actually happened. Is this citation enough? If not, please let me know. --meatclerk 07:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I am happy, I appreciate your responses. BruceHallman 16:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It is an important issue: Land and property disuputes. I'd like to put a paragraph into the article now that we gathered some sources. I'll just move this to the earlier (pre-secular, Spanish) section. Okay meatclerk I hope you don't mind an addition at this stage, but it is like the most important topic and we forgot it (or avoided it till now) and we have our citations in order. I revised slightly in the final paragraph after checking my sources.. it was a "petition to the governor" not a "court case". I have a question to meatclerk on one of your recent additions. Can you clarify if the natives were allowed to apply for land grants from the Spanish government all along (in this quote: "the Indians were allowed to make claims for land grants")...or was it the Mexican government in 1834? Thank you Goldenrowley 18:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
OK I added a paragraph about land and property from the discussion above. In the end I removed "and the church" as an accidental point. That would be pretty radical concept if the missions broke off from the church. Goldenrowley 05:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
----
On Spanish land grants, I'm not sure of the procedure under Spanish rule. I haven't encountered that yet; neither reference to it, nor how it was done, if at all.
On Mexican land grants, the governor was the law (Judge and Jury). Local issues were handled by alcolades or sub-prefect(sp?), equivalent as mayor and sheriff (not completely sure, don't quote me). Petitions were made to the Governor, but I don't have any references on that area (indian land grants) yet; neither how, who, what, where, etc.
On (in this quote: "the Indians were allowed to make claims for land grants"), if I cited it, or okayed it, it was in reference to Mexican land grants. To date only two (2) decent reference
  • History of San Mateo County, California B.F. Allen, Publisher. 1883 (See pages, 173-214)
    • This is a subscription edition history book. Meaning, the book was pre-purchased with the understanding that the purchaser would have his (usually male) biography included. (Very popular after the civil war, good book on this somewhere - don't have reference for "subscription edition"). Anyway, 1/2 the book was biography of purchasers. Most US counties have at least one such book as part of their history. Lacking detail, such as: No bad guys in book, Indian accounts watered down and bigoted, women rarely mentioned, No bars, brothels or salons mentioned, etc.
  • Spanish And Mexican Land Grants. in The Mexican American ISBN 0-405-05670-2
  • Reprint of three (3) seperate articles on the subject.
    • William W. Morrow, 'Spanish and Mexican Private Land Grants. San Francisco, 1923,
    • Herbert O. Brayer, William Blackmore: The Spanish-Mexican Land Grants for New Mexico and Colorado, 1863-1878. Denver, 1949
    • Alianza Federal [de las Mercedes] Spanish Land Grant Question Examined'. Albuquerque. N. M., 1966
The first reference is mostly a document created by a "confidental agent" (William Carey Jones) , who searched for records for the "Secretary of State" (government) and the "Secretary of Interior" (indian affairs). Search prior to California starting on casework. The second reference includes works by "judge who worked on cases", a "scholar" reviewing the cases, and a "historian" disputing the outcome on behalf of the natives.
It's a very eosteric subject. I'm not sure if I will ever find, or have time to find, a decent reference on this exact question. This first reference is confusing, requiring me to outline it. The second is muddled, may require the same for 27+350+20=400+ pages.
I think that Kroeber may have written on this subject, but I'm not sure of the title. Teixera might have a reference for that.
but also see:
Hmm, I just noticed this ...
Is this helpful? --meatclerk 08:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes very helpful. I noticed the California mission page started to address the Spanish and Mexican land deed issue, but only skimming the surface, and only 1 reference. Thank you. Goldenrowley 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correction and fixes

Goldenrowly, I added some corrections, but I think it might be easier to get Levy 1978 from the library and make it one citation. Time for sleep now, though. --meatclerk 10:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. Are you able to help me with the citations I still have marked but cannot find under "notable people" and the one under "etymology"? I am fine with today's edits and updates. Goldenrowley 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think so. I think we can plan on removing the "under construction" tag late next week at this rate. --meatclerk 07:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
One word is questionable: Milliken is not "skewed". Goldenrowley 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)... however I am so cheerful that we are almost done! My library tells me to return my books this week: " Renew failed: Exceeded maximum renewal limit." Goldenrowley 18:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Levy is not on our reference list. Name of book please. Goldenrowley 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Levy is added. However, I have not found the book yet. USGS does not have a Call number. I found a copy at Menlo College and one at Stanford. 800p, $45 Abebook. Dont' know how much is Costanoan. --meatclerk 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay I'll search for the book too. Goldenrowley 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)... & I found Handbook of Indians v. 8 1978 is not listed under Levy, but we have dozens in our library chain[2] of what looks like the book under name Sturtevant, William C. I'll be able to review the book when I get my car back from the shop in a few days. Goldenrowley 03:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I have photocopied most of Levy and this changes things slightly... I recommend we spell out Chochenyo as the primary spelling. If so we match all his dialect/division spellings. I think this is the English equivalent to the special Spanish N with the wavy line. Concents or comments? Goldenrowley 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pulled Original Research

I moved this paragraph off the main page because it was not verified. I think it could be original research because letters usually are. If a published, non-original citation is found, I am not opposed to putting it back: Goldenrowley 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

"Historically, based upon Kelsey's 1906 Special Indian Census and later Indian Service reports and correspondences of the three linguistically surviving communities of Ohlone[1], only the Verona Band of Alameda County/Muwekma used the term Ohlone as a tribal identifier on their 1928-32, 1948-1957, 1968-70 BIA applications.[citation needed] The tribal term Ohlone during the 1960s was exclusively used in reference to the Mission San Jose/Verona Band of Alameda County Indians.[citation needed]"


[edit] Consolidate citations

Okay guys, I'm relisting the sections so you can tell where I am at. Please don't add any new material until I am done with that section. That is, you can edit above me (section I've already converted), but please wait until I finish before adding new "cited" material. (below current editing).

As such, once I'm done I'll write a new section called DONE. At that point, we can ask for a review. :-) --meatclerk 09:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Intro no citations per? No help here->WP:LAYOUT, WP:CITE, WP:STYLE. However, see Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Lead_section.

  1. Culture - DONE
    1. Religion - DONE
    2. Traditional narratives - DONE
      1. Mythology - DONE
  2. History - DONE
    1. The Mission Era (1769 – 1833) -
    2. Secularization and Survival -
  3. Divisions -
    1. Villages and tribes -
  4. Present day -
    1. Federal Recognition -
  5. Population -
  6. Etymology -
  7. Language -
    1. Native Names -
    2. Spelling and pronunciation -
    3. Native Words -
  8. Ethnohistorians and Linguists -
  9. Notable Ohlone people -
  • Need to validate these for style and other
  1. References
  2. Notes
  3. External links GR/DONE
  4. See also (=navigational menu)
Sounds "Groovy" to me... be careful not to drop any of the source notes and quotes, though. I am going to reinsert a few tonight, but only to the point you have marked done. Goldenrowley 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok I caught up with ya, every citation we used is done nicely through "culture". With the caveat on the final day I want to standardize abbreviation of page numbers and standardize capitalization and word use of "Native" or "Indian"....and where did shell mound dating quote go? Goldenrowley 08:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great etext link

--meatclerk 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology citation issue

Goldenrowley, I footnote [6] as Kroeber, 1907b; online as The Religion of the Indians of California. .... Just belowo in footnote [6] you quote a page, but this page number does not "align" with what is on the web. I beleive they start at 300-something.

Ohh... nevermind, I see the 1907a now.. --meatclerk 20:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I like your consolidation of footnotes. Keep up the good work. The reference designations for the Kroeber and Cook in 1907 and 1976 may be a little hard for people to follow. I found it in the Wiki. manual of style however I do not mind if we go back to the "short title word" instead of using 1907a and 1907b. Goldenrowley 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 12-21-06

Meatclerk I can help with footnote consolidation work for a bit tonight. I figured out how 2 people can work at once. You keep going from top to bottom. I'll start at the bottom of the article and work my way up, one section at a time.Goldenrowley 02:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

wiped out from holiday work. meatclerk 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing

Earlier, I ask that you not edit until I was done, but you did anyway. (This was days ago.) I thought the edit minor, so I did not make anything of it. But now I am reviewing the changes and your editings change the meaning.

Okay. Here is how I have been trying to do this. I have about 6-8 articles in the wings. I have not added them because it seems it would disrupt the cleanup of footnotes.

The footnotes were finished, so I proceeded to "consolidate citations". I asked that you not edit below me, but you have. Now I have to start over. I can't finish by Christmas now.

So I should say, I'm very happy you have additions, corrections, etc. I do also.

The article as it stand has about a dozen minor errors and glaring irregularities, but we need a strong foundation to work them out. Some of these errors overlap. If we start on the errors, we might get into a vicious circle, especially if we add while fixing misconceptions.

So, Goldenrowley, I really, really appreciate your assistance and editing, but if you add something while we are cleaning up, then we have to go back up to fix any errors.

NOW, I hesitate to mention any more errors than I have in the article (as hidden comments), as we might start a vicious circle.

ALSO, don't stop your "citation consolidation". That is very helpful. Just don't add new material OR make corrections on "errors concerning concepts". If we have a concept wrong, or we have things wrong - leave it. As long as the "citation" is correct for the sentence, paragraph or "article section", then leave it. Even if it wrong, as long as it matches the citation, it is okay.

For instance, Teixeira has several glaring errors. I have not fixed them, as that would distract things. Rather, I leave them, then later when a better reference is found - fix it.

The purpose of the citaions is not to be "right or wrong"; it is to give future editors a frame of reference. For instance, let us say that "Kroeber" made everything up, which he has not, but if he had then future editors can make appropriate corrections. This is one reason for citations.

Another reason for citations, is so that students and interested parties can dig into details. For instance, I have an article on "tule" balsa, the ohlone reed canoes. Even though this article is mostly from one source, I have several alternate references. One reference is from calflora.org. Calfora.org is run by UCB (Berkeley). In this webproject, persons are encouraged to add entries on the locations of natural flora, specifically native flora. So when I write the article it will say, "This tule has been found in XX, YY, ZZ and AA." As such, with the reference, a grade student can ask mom to take them, or take a ride to, the local marsh and get a sample tule stalk. (just one schenerio (sp?))

In any case, I think this is clear. If not, please ask. Once we are done with the citations, then we can remove the "underconstruction tag". Once, we do this other editors will jump in.

Anyway its late and I have standing rib roasts to sell tommorrow. --meatclerk 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Meatclerk, I appreciate your point of view after trying to verify other people's work and consolidate edits last night I learned how difacult to strike the right balance. On the history section I HIGHLY suggest we leave it almost untouched, and are allowed to be more generous with footnots and allow up to 3 per paragraph in the history section. Several reasons: history needs more proving, and the history section seems to flow well already, it does not need much consolidation. On other updates, and minor corrections this week, Luckily I am here you do not need to verify my work I am taking responsibility for my work. Honestly, I am sorry but I don't know what you're talking about was very disruptive to you, this is not my intent of course I am trying to validate and get it in perfect condition. I printed and am using our December 18th version as my reference point for this phase, anything before you started to consolidate on December 18 was valid and can stay because we both gave it our blessings on the "verify" phase. Not much has been added since then. Fink's reference to Sebasitan was to fix my own glaring error in saying he was (Sebastian) was not important... Now a few words about progress: I am happy with the entire article right now through end of "history". I do not need to write more or change the meaning. Perhaps fix only where we have already found and identified uncited materials. Yes, 3-4 days ago you asked no one to write anything new past your done mark. I respect that as long as you do not take a long holiday break. Goldenrowley 17:37, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the article is looking great, I find it hard to imagine how it can be improved. BruceHallman 17:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
...Thank you Bruce for your kind words! MC.... sorry, I dont know where I might have changed a meaning (disruptively) all I see are steps ahead with edit summaries. I leave an edit summary or a note on the talk page, when I change a meaning or delete somthing, Ive learned to do that now. I quote books as accurately as I can.. really I dont think you have to "redo" the citations that I already did. I give page #s. Sorry I just dont understand sometimes. Goldenrowley 06:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] grouchy xmas

I haven't read any of the comments, but I saw them in the logs. Sorry, if I'm grouchy. I appoligize if I wrote anything annoying or without comprehension. Sunday is the last full day of work. After the 1st, I will continue. In the meantime, if you guys finish without me, I would not consider it bad. --meatclerk 07:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merry Christmass

Ok. I hope you have a nice and Merry Christmas....!! I leave town for 3 days myself. I will check in from borrowed computer but not do any heavy work. I just finished consolidating the footnotes. On shell mounds: I retrieved and reinserted the Horizon Period shell mound quote as highly applicable to the history section, its better to cite the source than to summarize that one ...especially as it was used to "establish" the 4000BC village date. Goldenrowley 00:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Word Choices

I was wondering what to do with the words "Native American" and "Indian", one of my final Good English and political correctness questions. The following article gave good advice to be specific and use tribal names when possible: http://www.allthingscherokee.com/atc_sub_culture_feat_events_070101.html. This explains today's change, when possible outside of quotes, I've changed the word "Indian" to "Ohlone" or "Mission Indian" Goldenrowley 04:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ohlone topics on other pages

List of English words of Native American origin -- someone already noted "Abalone" is Rumsen - Goldenrowley 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Back

Okay guys. Thanks for the break. I have about a dozen things in the fire, including a section on salt. Right now, I am scheduled to work on Thu, Fri, Sat & Sun. I'll be cleaning up the books and notes till the first day off. I'll also work to clean up the footnotes, where needed. --meatclerk 07:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jesse Goldenrowley 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I would be interested in the native american wikiproject doing a neutral review now, are you ready? Goldenrowley
No, but go ahead. meatclerk 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice updating...did you see article has a B+ from Bay Area project. I am not entirely happy with the way I moved the pictures today. I could put them back but there is a large white space the other way. Goldenrowley 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC). OK nevermind figured out how to reduce the white space by reducing size of the top menu. Goldenrowley 03:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Done

It appears I'm done, for now. I'll start clean up a little later and those articles promised are almost done. meatclerk 07:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the new pages will be exciting i! I just reached out to our one reviewer from the Bay Area, and asked him if there is some area in particular he/she would recommend improvement, if any, before we try for GA class. I just need a fresh neutral opinion but will like to nom for GA or A class. Goldenrowley 02:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe you should ask for a copyedit and peer review first. There is a project that does article copyedits with this list:

Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Ronbo76 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My critique

I was the reviewer from Wikipedia:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area who added the SFBAProject template above. I was invited to give this article a review. I will focus not on content, but on prose and general feel.

Some of the sections can be combined to eliminate choppiness. For example, The Traditional narratives section can be combined with the Mythology section (and this new section could probably be combined with the Religion section), and the Villages and tribes subsection can be incorporated into the Divisions section. If combining isn't an option, expand the sections. Often, stubby sections tend to reflect poorly on the article, as it tends to denote missing or unincorporated information.

One more important point: lean towards converting lists into prose. For example, the Etymology section is now a list of words and their definitions. Try converting it into a summary (and move the section to near the top; the Etymology sections of articles tend to be quite important). Obviously, if there is a certain rubric prescribed for articles on Native Americans, please do follow that.

I cannot comment on content, as I know nothing about the Ohlones (other than that they were in the San Francisco area), but the good article criteria usually focus on structure of article, not the information of the article (though that is also important). —210physicq (c) 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, peer review is a great tool to determine fitness for good article status. —210physicq (c) 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
One more thing: the current citations tend to look like mini summaries of tidbits of the article. Please reduce them to only the book and page number, the website, or similar as prescribed in WP:CITE. Citations are not meant to elaborate on a point; instead, elaboration should be done in the article or not done at all. I have split the citation section into two columns (as customarily done on pages with numerous references) so that not only is space saved but it is easier to see how much the citations need to be condensed. —210physicq (c) 02:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I much appreciate these helpful comments, Physicq21. Your ideas make a lot of sense to me! Meatclerk I want to be careful but I can handle P's comments and move some of the footnotes into wiktionary or new topic stubs, for a start. i.e.The various definitions for "tribelet" and the correct "tule" you hoped to link to can become Wiktionary terms, that we could wiki-link to. Goldenrowley 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I've followed most of P's advice, except I am leaving most footnotes alone for a moment, the group wanted to do accurate/thourough notes and I think that is to be appreciated by the college student or serious person. As a graphic designer let me say that graphic design can manipulate what looks like clutter by breaking up the space with pictures and graphics, so rather than cut out anything major, I suggest we just rearrange them a little, some can go off-page to wiktionary definitions, or new sub-pages, some can be highlighted in quote boxes or move up the main article (as I did with etymology) Goldenrowley 03:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next steps March/April

I have begun a list of more this page's special terminology to turn into Wiktionary definitions complete with quotes and references, thus we built a linkable library for our pages. I am all prepared to draft them, except the only ones I feel speechless are the 2 plants. I am wondering if meatclerk wants to define the following plants? Or should I just list them as variations fornow of the Oak and the tule>

  1. Tribelet ---> done 3/23/07.
  2. Native informant
  3. Valley Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)?? -- confused what to say --> possibly means a Valley Oak. done 3/25/07 linked to existing.
  4. Big round tule (Scirpus lacustris)?? --- confused what to say --> add to Tule page. done 3/25/07. already linked.
  5. diseño --> done 3/25/07
  6. diseño de terreno --> done 3/25/07
  7. Ohlone (definition is there, make it better) -->done 4/1/07
  8. Amah --> done 4/1 but may fail as an "English word", not used in many English publications.
  9. Muwekma (definition is there, make it better) -->done 4/1/07

•Goldenrowley 03:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC) Updates noted. Goldenrowley 04:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC) Updates noted. Goldenrowley 21:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm finishing up some articles and following up on those plants in question. As such, "tule" is a variety of bullrush or rush; all similar marsh plants. The article on boats will cover this and give the correct floral reference. That said, Merriam seems to have lacked exactness on choosing his plants to evaluate. This is not his fault. To this date there are multiple scientific names for the same plant (multiple names for one plants). An agreement (on names) comes when a "standard reference" is agreed upon, and used. There are things like "Jepson's Reference" that lists all known names, but that does not tell us what Merriam was using. The solution maybe to find another (later) reference for Merriam, or reference his notes on this. The later might be a problem and beyond our capabilities. meatclerk 03:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

HI! I resorted to linking to the Genus pages like "scarpis" does that work? I've consolidated the notes since we received feedback without removing anything "essential" to the Ohlone. I may ask for a "Good article" classification in the next week. Goldenrowley 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
These particular concerns now completed to my own personal satisfaction. Goldenrowley 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karkin

Karkin page is the most stubby of the subgroups. If anyone feels like expanding. Goldenrowley 23:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/h/l/Talk%7EOhlone_991e.html"