![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This one is painful. Later today I have to return to RWC Archive room. To do a complete follow up on this.
I was doing research on the pre-mission explorers when I found an Indian map I had not seen before. As I read the article (Calfornia Historical Quarterly) Heizer, had written several pages and a two (2) page opening section. As it turns out, a person named Taylor had compete falsified indian accounts and had them published. In short, this person may have been a conman. That material was used as reference material by Hubert Howe Bancroft and A. L. Kroeber, making some material by them doubious. Heizer in the later pages of the article notes who quote from him and where. The conman lived in Southern California. Most of his fabricated material is of Northern California!!! The Heizer's article seems to have been published before 1970(I forgot the date), so later writers may not be influenced. My plan is to photocopy the entire article and post it later tonight, as scans.
To round out the night I went to Kepler's. The authors of fiction material were talking about their books. All the books were related to conmen in some fashion. Bizarre day. -- meatclerk 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the issue, the name is Alexander Smith Taylor. Here is a link to the article. I'll let you guys decide, if it is important for you. I'm tired tonight, so not too much. I'll look at intro tomorrow, again. Also tommorrow I will get a copy of Margolin, Malcolm - The Olhone Way. Just to cover my bases. -- meatclerk 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I added another paragraph in the usual style I use. About one sentence for each major section. I think you can fix it up. After that, I think next week once all the cleanup work is done. We should have a good-enough article to get rid of the "underconstruction".
Then if there is not anything major, we could ask for a WP:Peer Review. If so, then perhaps do all the work in the sandbox, then move once we all agree. I say this because some of the things I think Bruce and at least I want to add (like use of aquafood) should be more indepth.
-- meatclerk 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently my pervious feelings about The Ohlone Way were founded. Mr. A.S. Taylor is listed with his Indianology of California. (I think since, the articles about Mr. Taylor were during WWII, some people missed it. Teixeia lists him also.) I did not read Ohlone Way, but I did outline the index for review. Of the section I have read, I am in doubt of:
That's it. Bed time and work tommorrow, so you won't hear from me till late. -- meatclerk 07:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
We need an instructional element to writers, for the the tribe and village template. I suggest the below. Goldenrowley 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should leave some "suggestions", but let's put this on the "Village stub" page in its own section. From there we can tweek it, then sign it. -- meatclerk 05:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That's it. I don't plan to add anything new in the next 60 days. If I do have something major, it will go on the talkpage first - so we can hash out any issues.
I suggest to compare the aricle against the ethnic groups wikiproject... LOOk they suggest an outline for ethnic articles with topics to touch on (and other advice): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups/Template
Having so noted do you want me to rearrange the article in that order? I am open to it. Guess what I learned some new words today from the featured article Mandan on Native Americans today that apply to Ohlone I wish I knew these words already: exonym and endonym I can't wait to say both Ohlone and Costanoans are exonyms... Now, we all want an A on the article (or at least I do) but we lack a few important topics. According to Native American grading scale we might not even make a grade if we lack an important topics! Heres the 3 big topics I see missing: "Religion" and ""Present Day".... hmm. How about also the optional one "Classification...larger ethnic classifications under which this group falls." Goldenrowley 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I added Religion and Present Day headings already...as they won't overlap anyone's work, actually just the basics is all I am looking to do very short there.
Goldenrowley 02:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to produce an effective introduction, the following link ( Talk:Ohlone/New Intro) points to a combined effort. Unaware of our efforts, Goldenrowly and myself (meatclerk), BruceHallman chimes in with. (His comments moved from Talk:Ohlone/New Intro to here.)
Sorry, I missed this colaborative work on a new intro, and posted my suggested intro directly into the article. My main concerns:
1) This article is, foremost, about the Ohlone people. (Not foremost about a linguistic group, or about the etyomology of the word 'Ohlone', which is dehumanizing.) The intro should be foremost about: the Ohlone people.
2) From the perspective of 'good writing' we should refrain from too many 'asides' and 'qualifiers' in the first opening sentences. Because, this article is most likely to be use by 4th grade Californians doing their 'Mission project' mandated by the California board of education. The first few sentences should be simple and declarative (with no 'big' words), and easily understood by a 4th grader.
Which exactly is the 'current' consensus for the intro? BruceHallman 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ohlone Divisions from North to South | ||
---|---|---|
Division | Location and Details | |
Karkin (also called Carquin) |
Resided on the south side of the Carquinez Strait. | |
Chocheño (also called Chochenyo, Chocenyo) |
Resided in the East Bay, primarily in the western portion of what is now Alameda County. | |
Ramaytush (also called San Francisco) |
Resided between San Francisco Bay and the Pacific in the area which is now San Francisco and San Mateo County. | |
Tamyen (also called Tamien, Santa Clara) |
Resided on Coyote and Calaveras Creek. | |
Awaswas (also called Santa Cruz) |
Resided lived on the Santa Cruz coast between Pescadero and the Pajaro Rivers. | |
Mutsun (also called San Juan Bautista) |
Resided lived along San Benito River and San Felipe Creek | |
Rumsen (also called Rumsien) |
Resided from the Pajaro River to Point Sur, and the lower courses of the Pajaro, as well as the Salinas and Carmel Rivers. | |
Chalon (also called Soledad) |
Resided on the middle course of the Salinas River. |
There were eight major regional, linguistic divisions or subgroups of the Ohlone [1]. Note that "Language group designations are spelled as commonly found in English language publications... however many tribal, village and personal names which are not commonly found in literature present a problem. They were written by Spanish settlers who were trying to capture the sounds of languages foreign to them." [2]
Within the eight regions listed above, there were over 50 tribes and villages who spoke the Ohlone-Costanoan languages, before being absorbed into the Spanish Missions circa 1795.
I've completed the article on Mr. Taylor from CHSQ articles. Your comments and suggestions welcome. -- meatclerk 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A few points:
In scholarly writing, it doesn't seem appropriate to cite a modern newspaper article as a "source." That's particularly true when there much better, more authentic accounts are available.
Moving the traditional narrative source listing away from the discussion of the narratives largely eliminates the value of that listing, which was make the readers aware of the published sources where they can read the narratives for themselves.
The link to Theodora Kroeber's Almost Ancestors just goes to the same newspaper article.
RhymeNotStutter 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
"Theodora Kroeber" was Alfred Kroeber's second wife. There's an article on her in Wikipedia. For a proper bibliographic citation, use mevyl.cdlib.org. As far as I know, "Almost Ancestors" hasn't been posted on-line, though. RhymeNotStutter 00:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Theodora Kroeber was four years old in 1901. Please don't include references you haven't consulted yourself and whose relevance you haven't verified. That's not accepted scholarly practice. RhymeNotStutter 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the correct citation:
For books like this, there's reliable citation information easily available on the University of California's on-line Melvyl catalog. For articles, you can get slightly less reliable information by using Google or another search engine to check for on-line listings (you'd find many for "Almost Ancestors"), and then doing a little checking for discrepancies between the listings.
My point is that you shouldn't be citing a source you yourself haven't seen and whose relevance or irrelevance to the subject at hand you don't know.
I really appreciate the energy and enthusiasm you're putting into the Wikipedia project. I realize that you aren't professionally trained in anthropology or history, but I don't think that disqualifies you from making valuable contributions. However, I think a collective enterprise like Wikipedia needs to be conservatively and solidly constructed. If you don't have the opportunity or the inclination to investigate a topic closely, it would be better to leave it alone, for now. Better to leave Wikipedia readers without information on a given topic (for now) than to give them misinformation. Better to leave informed contributors' contributions alone than to interlard them with inaccurate additions. If informed contributors have to plow through and edit a mass of poorly informed material, they're more likely to abandon the whole project. On the other hand, anyone is likely to make a slip on a fact or miss a significant detail, and thoughtful, informed, conservative editing by many sharp-eyed contributors can make the whole product richer. RhymeNotStutter 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Results of research: Theodore Kroeber's book "Almost Ancestors", I have checked that out from the library. She indeed gives a wonderful earthmaker mythology from California Natives...however she did not attribute where it came from, so it could be anyplace in California. McArdle just misled me on this matter. I promptly took McArdle's ideas out of the articles on Ohlone. Goldenrowley 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok I am motivated today. There was a motion on the table from Bruce to close "Intro side bar" (archive it) and work only on the "live" version. I would be okay with this. Is everyone ok with that? Goldenrowley 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Per the manual of style, the Intro should summarize the article, so by this logic, the detailed etymology of the words Costanoan and Ohlone probably should be moved down into the body of the article. Indeed, the 'summary' of the dichotomy of the words are captured by Oholone(Costanoan) in the first sentence. BruceHallman 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
main page -- meatclerk 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you want footnotes or references to correct it?
-- meatclerk 05:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia style guide was a tremendous help to me thank you. Now I can see why meatclerk wanted a little more he wants to "prepare the reader" for the nuances of the article. As for first sentence "also known as" part, I merely did what the style guide suggested for multiple names. I am in legal dept and "also known as" (aka) is nothing more than a way to put it on the table the different names a group is known by so I agreed it with the idea. ... You'd have to tell me why calling them Ohlone/Costanoan and Muwekma is incorrect, or suggest a rephrase, because I don't see it (right off the bat). Goldenrowley 06:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
All Names are Inventions by the way...I see your reasoning Meatclerk I just ran out of time for the eve. Happy Halloween! Goldenrowley 07:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Question was -- Do you want footnotes or references to correct it? Answer - instead of footnotes in an introduction I think a parenthetical phrase might be more attractive, if any. Bruce seems to think discussion of names would be an aside or qualifier. I am on the fence, so I would suggest we compare to what other ethnic groups do. Goldenrowley 18:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
On the intro, I see my suggestions as being counter-productive. We can always fix it later. Right now there are many more things that need to be done. I plan on continuing programming until I can move my notes online. I don't see me being much help talking about it; I see my self helping more by getting the book research done, via whatever notes need to be made. Anyway more later. -- meatclerk 06:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
This one is painful. Later today I have to return to RWC Archive room. To do a complete follow up on this.
I was doing research on the pre-mission explorers when I found an Indian map I had not seen before. As I read the article (Calfornia Historical Quarterly) Heizer, had written several pages and a two (2) page opening section. As it turns out, a person named Taylor had compete falsified indian accounts and had them published. In short, this person may have been a conman. That material was used as reference material by Hubert Howe Bancroft and A. L. Kroeber, making some material by them doubious. Heizer in the later pages of the article notes who quote from him and where. The conman lived in Southern California. Most of his fabricated material is of Northern California!!! The Heizer's article seems to have been published before 1970(I forgot the date), so later writers may not be influenced. My plan is to photocopy the entire article and post it later tonight, as scans.
To round out the night I went to Kepler's. The authors of fiction material were talking about their books. All the books were related to conmen in some fashion. Bizarre day. -- meatclerk 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
With regards to the issue, the name is Alexander Smith Taylor. Here is a link to the article. I'll let you guys decide, if it is important for you. I'm tired tonight, so not too much. I'll look at intro tomorrow, again. Also tommorrow I will get a copy of Margolin, Malcolm - The Olhone Way. Just to cover my bases. -- meatclerk 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I added another paragraph in the usual style I use. About one sentence for each major section. I think you can fix it up. After that, I think next week once all the cleanup work is done. We should have a good-enough article to get rid of the "underconstruction".
Then if there is not anything major, we could ask for a WP:Peer Review. If so, then perhaps do all the work in the sandbox, then move once we all agree. I say this because some of the things I think Bruce and at least I want to add (like use of aquafood) should be more indepth.
-- meatclerk 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Apparently my pervious feelings about The Ohlone Way were founded. Mr. A.S. Taylor is listed with his Indianology of California. (I think since, the articles about Mr. Taylor were during WWII, some people missed it. Teixeia lists him also.) I did not read Ohlone Way, but I did outline the index for review. Of the section I have read, I am in doubt of:
That's it. Bed time and work tommorrow, so you won't hear from me till late. -- meatclerk 07:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
We need an instructional element to writers, for the the tribe and village template. I suggest the below. Goldenrowley 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree we should leave some "suggestions", but let's put this on the "Village stub" page in its own section. From there we can tweek it, then sign it. -- meatclerk 05:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
That's it. I don't plan to add anything new in the next 60 days. If I do have something major, it will go on the talkpage first - so we can hash out any issues.
I suggest to compare the aricle against the ethnic groups wikiproject... LOOk they suggest an outline for ethnic articles with topics to touch on (and other advice): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups/Template
Having so noted do you want me to rearrange the article in that order? I am open to it. Guess what I learned some new words today from the featured article Mandan on Native Americans today that apply to Ohlone I wish I knew these words already: exonym and endonym I can't wait to say both Ohlone and Costanoans are exonyms... Now, we all want an A on the article (or at least I do) but we lack a few important topics. According to Native American grading scale we might not even make a grade if we lack an important topics! Heres the 3 big topics I see missing: "Religion" and ""Present Day".... hmm. How about also the optional one "Classification...larger ethnic classifications under which this group falls." Goldenrowley 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I added Religion and Present Day headings already...as they won't overlap anyone's work, actually just the basics is all I am looking to do very short there.
Goldenrowley 02:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
In an effort to produce an effective introduction, the following link ( Talk:Ohlone/New Intro) points to a combined effort. Unaware of our efforts, Goldenrowly and myself (meatclerk), BruceHallman chimes in with. (His comments moved from Talk:Ohlone/New Intro to here.)
Sorry, I missed this colaborative work on a new intro, and posted my suggested intro directly into the article. My main concerns:
1) This article is, foremost, about the Ohlone people. (Not foremost about a linguistic group, or about the etyomology of the word 'Ohlone', which is dehumanizing.) The intro should be foremost about: the Ohlone people.
2) From the perspective of 'good writing' we should refrain from too many 'asides' and 'qualifiers' in the first opening sentences. Because, this article is most likely to be use by 4th grade Californians doing their 'Mission project' mandated by the California board of education. The first few sentences should be simple and declarative (with no 'big' words), and easily understood by a 4th grader.
Which exactly is the 'current' consensus for the intro? BruceHallman 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Ohlone Divisions from North to South | ||
---|---|---|
Division | Location and Details | |
Karkin (also called Carquin) |
Resided on the south side of the Carquinez Strait. | |
Chocheño (also called Chochenyo, Chocenyo) |
Resided in the East Bay, primarily in the western portion of what is now Alameda County. | |
Ramaytush (also called San Francisco) |
Resided between San Francisco Bay and the Pacific in the area which is now San Francisco and San Mateo County. | |
Tamyen (also called Tamien, Santa Clara) |
Resided on Coyote and Calaveras Creek. | |
Awaswas (also called Santa Cruz) |
Resided lived on the Santa Cruz coast between Pescadero and the Pajaro Rivers. | |
Mutsun (also called San Juan Bautista) |
Resided lived along San Benito River and San Felipe Creek | |
Rumsen (also called Rumsien) |
Resided from the Pajaro River to Point Sur, and the lower courses of the Pajaro, as well as the Salinas and Carmel Rivers. | |
Chalon (also called Soledad) |
Resided on the middle course of the Salinas River. |
There were eight major regional, linguistic divisions or subgroups of the Ohlone [1]. Note that "Language group designations are spelled as commonly found in English language publications... however many tribal, village and personal names which are not commonly found in literature present a problem. They were written by Spanish settlers who were trying to capture the sounds of languages foreign to them." [2]
Within the eight regions listed above, there were over 50 tribes and villages who spoke the Ohlone-Costanoan languages, before being absorbed into the Spanish Missions circa 1795.
I've completed the article on Mr. Taylor from CHSQ articles. Your comments and suggestions welcome. -- meatclerk 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
A few points:
In scholarly writing, it doesn't seem appropriate to cite a modern newspaper article as a "source." That's particularly true when there much better, more authentic accounts are available.
Moving the traditional narrative source listing away from the discussion of the narratives largely eliminates the value of that listing, which was make the readers aware of the published sources where they can read the narratives for themselves.
The link to Theodora Kroeber's Almost Ancestors just goes to the same newspaper article.
RhymeNotStutter 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
"Theodora Kroeber" was Alfred Kroeber's second wife. There's an article on her in Wikipedia. For a proper bibliographic citation, use mevyl.cdlib.org. As far as I know, "Almost Ancestors" hasn't been posted on-line, though. RhymeNotStutter 00:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Theodora Kroeber was four years old in 1901. Please don't include references you haven't consulted yourself and whose relevance you haven't verified. That's not accepted scholarly practice. RhymeNotStutter 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's the correct citation:
For books like this, there's reliable citation information easily available on the University of California's on-line Melvyl catalog. For articles, you can get slightly less reliable information by using Google or another search engine to check for on-line listings (you'd find many for "Almost Ancestors"), and then doing a little checking for discrepancies between the listings.
My point is that you shouldn't be citing a source you yourself haven't seen and whose relevance or irrelevance to the subject at hand you don't know.
I really appreciate the energy and enthusiasm you're putting into the Wikipedia project. I realize that you aren't professionally trained in anthropology or history, but I don't think that disqualifies you from making valuable contributions. However, I think a collective enterprise like Wikipedia needs to be conservatively and solidly constructed. If you don't have the opportunity or the inclination to investigate a topic closely, it would be better to leave it alone, for now. Better to leave Wikipedia readers without information on a given topic (for now) than to give them misinformation. Better to leave informed contributors' contributions alone than to interlard them with inaccurate additions. If informed contributors have to plow through and edit a mass of poorly informed material, they're more likely to abandon the whole project. On the other hand, anyone is likely to make a slip on a fact or miss a significant detail, and thoughtful, informed, conservative editing by many sharp-eyed contributors can make the whole product richer. RhymeNotStutter 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Results of research: Theodore Kroeber's book "Almost Ancestors", I have checked that out from the library. She indeed gives a wonderful earthmaker mythology from California Natives...however she did not attribute where it came from, so it could be anyplace in California. McArdle just misled me on this matter. I promptly took McArdle's ideas out of the articles on Ohlone. Goldenrowley 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok I am motivated today. There was a motion on the table from Bruce to close "Intro side bar" (archive it) and work only on the "live" version. I would be okay with this. Is everyone ok with that? Goldenrowley 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Per the manual of style, the Intro should summarize the article, so by this logic, the detailed etymology of the words Costanoan and Ohlone probably should be moved down into the body of the article. Indeed, the 'summary' of the dichotomy of the words are captured by Oholone(Costanoan) in the first sentence. BruceHallman 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
main page -- meatclerk 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you want footnotes or references to correct it?
-- meatclerk 05:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia style guide was a tremendous help to me thank you. Now I can see why meatclerk wanted a little more he wants to "prepare the reader" for the nuances of the article. As for first sentence "also known as" part, I merely did what the style guide suggested for multiple names. I am in legal dept and "also known as" (aka) is nothing more than a way to put it on the table the different names a group is known by so I agreed it with the idea. ... You'd have to tell me why calling them Ohlone/Costanoan and Muwekma is incorrect, or suggest a rephrase, because I don't see it (right off the bat). Goldenrowley 06:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
All Names are Inventions by the way...I see your reasoning Meatclerk I just ran out of time for the eve. Happy Halloween! Goldenrowley 07:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Question was -- Do you want footnotes or references to correct it? Answer - instead of footnotes in an introduction I think a parenthetical phrase might be more attractive, if any. Bruce seems to think discussion of names would be an aside or qualifier. I am on the fence, so I would suggest we compare to what other ethnic groups do. Goldenrowley 18:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
On the intro, I see my suggestions as being counter-productive. We can always fix it later. Right now there are many more things that need to be done. I plan on continuing programming until I can move my notes online. I don't see me being much help talking about it; I see my self helping more by getting the book research done, via whatever notes need to be made. Anyway more later. -- meatclerk 06:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)