![]() | 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 |
-->missions shouldnt be very big on the village map, maybe village map should be marked year 1770. Perhaps we could merely point/link to a separate missions map, helping to orient where the people migrated? Is there one. Goldenrowley 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is another map from this book. My stuff almost organize.. maybe done next week. -- meatclerk 10:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.calsign.com/mining/countydata/sanbenito1.htm
New article. Review, if you have time. -- meatclerk 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
A new page was born on the Ohlone this weekend called 'Ohlone traditional narratives' that organizes the topic on all California Narratives. This explains why I am organizing that area of this page. Goldenrowley 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok what is left to construct, should we remove the notice or are you still working on things? It looks nice on my browser. I don't know what else is needed right now. Hollar if you need me to look up something in Teixeria or Milliken while I have the books checked out.. Goldenrowley 02:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The way that the population mixes a discussion of Native American population in the Bay Area with a discussion of the history of the population of the Ohlone people appears needlessly confusing. I suggest we limit the discussion to the Ohlone, and relocate, or edit out the discussion of Native American population in general. Also, I suggest using a line graph, instead of a table to better communicate the dramatic nature of the decline in Ohlone population. BruceHallman 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This version with 500 year increments on the X-axis probably is better to convey the uncertainty of the data.
BruceHallman
16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, like this, but I don't really like it. I believe we have the responsiblity to simplify the complexity of the data. I favor chart 2 (above) plus a detailed footnote explaining the uncertainty in the data.
BruceHallman
17:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I am OK with the above idea tp do an average (1 line) if titled an average, and if you note to "just based on sources listed and pending further data." Goldenrowley 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ---
These are popluation statistics from noted sources, tables developed but there is some discussion of accuracy.
Total Costanoan estimated by NAHBD [1] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 1800 | 1848 | 1852 | 1880 | 1900 | 2000 | |||
Population | 3000 | 1000 | 900 | 300 | 50 | 250 |
Total Native Americans in County Group VI estimated by Cook [2] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 1880 | 1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 |
Population | 459 | 131 | 134 | 286 | 587 | 646 | 1,452 | 4,588 | 17,017 |
Please stop putting inaccurate material that you haven't checked into these articles!
You cite Cook 1976 as a source for an estimate of 26,000 Ohlone in the San Francisco Bay area alone. The scholarly citation is inadequate; you don't specify which of the two Cook 1976 references you're citing, and you don't give a page number. However, it's evident that you mean The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970. If you had actually consulted this source (pp. 20, 42), you would have seen that Cook's figure of 26,000 referred to ALL of the Costanoan/Ohlone, plus all of the Esselen, plus all of the Salinan, plus the northern (Obispeño) Chumash.
By sticking in phoney "references" without checking them, you create an unfair burden for editors who are trying to build a factual encyclopedia. RhymeNotStutter 20:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"In a September 21, 2006, Memorandum Opinion, a United States District Judge has ruled favorably in our action against the U.S. Department of the Interior seeking review of the "Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe." The District Court has rejected the Department of the Interior's rationale for requiring the Muwekma Ohlone to proceed through tribal acknowledgment procedures that other tribes have been allowed to bypass. 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 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to say this other than this. It's not done Goldenrowley. On my last communications on this matter, I clear state
If you are asking me about Ohlone, then I need to fix the Intro. I think I have that down to six words.
It's that simple, but I have not added one word to the intro. If you want the six words, you'll have to wait. -- meatclerk 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read that according to the Muwekma Ohlone tribe, the word tribelet that was coined is "considered demeaning" to the people (for example, feels like a diminutive form of tribe)-- Bean p 300, article written by members of the Ohlone tribe, makes a whole case against the word Tribelet. I am concerned, I do not want to demean anyone. Goldenrowley 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have several other concerns less urgent with properly dealing with Kroeber and historian's coined labelisms this article has to translate to modern readers:
I've archived some old stuff. I appoligize, if I've mistakenly archive something needed. If you need it, let know know I will restore that item. Else, look Talk:Ohlone/Archive 003.
As you already know, the geographical boundary for the Ohlone (Costanoan) is a language boundary, and somewhat artifical. Even so, this does not fit well with what the missionaries did. However, the problem we have may be simpiler.
As it turns out I am reading Cook one last time to get my notes, when from the Index I go to page 8 and read about "Southern Patwin". They were sweep into the Missions around 1810. He says "(this) element almost nullified by the efforts of ethnographers". By this I think he means, they are almost forgotten by ethnographers. So I'm pretty sure he means the population count was "almost (...) nullified." His count for "Southern Patwin" is 5000.
The question is how much is Patwin, how much is Miwok, how much Ohlone? Please see the map on my website, here. It connects to my population page, but does not effect the numbers I need.
I think we can safely ignore the issue in our population count, but we should make a footnote on this. Something like, "Cook's boundaries don't match current known linguistic boundaries for Ohlone. Hence, there may be minor errors, which we cannot account for."
Specifically, this number raises the total for Coastal Miwok, Patwin and Ohlone, of course.
Your comments? -- meatclerk 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Goldenrowley 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"...However, Cook did more scientific research and revised his figures later in life to project 26,000 in his idea of the "Northern Mission Area" (which was about 50% larger than Ohlone-Costanoan territory). Per Cook, "Northern Mission Area" means "the region inhabited by the Costanoans and Salinans between San Francisco Bay and the headwaters of the Salinas River. To this may be added for convenience the local area of the San Luis Obispo even though there is an infringement of the Chumash"; page 40: "The Northern Mission Area...26,000".</ref>. The native Ohlone-Costanoan people, residing in 50% of the "Northern Mission Area", were projected at higher population densities than the southern areas <ref>Cook, 1976, "Population, page __?</ref>, so roughly are estimated to be about 70%(?) percent, or 18,200(?) plus or minus a few thousand in this model.
(1) It's not legitimate to change the wording inside a direct quotation. Cook didn't write "Ohlone", he wrote "Costanoan".
(2) If you multiply 70% times 26,000, you'll get 18,200, not 20,000.
(3) If you check a map (such as the one in the Handbook of North American Indians vol. 8 or Kroeber 1925) you'll see that the southern areas (Esselen, Salinan, Obispeño Chumash) amount to far more than 30% of the total area of those groups plus the Ohlone; more like 50%. (However, if you read Cook, you'll see that he also very reasonably projected lower population densities for the southern areas than for the northern ones.)
(4) In writing an article like this, it's legitimate to report what authorities on the subject have actually said. It's also legitimate to rework the presentation of their data IF you take the time to carefully check the original sources, do the math, etc. RhymeNotStutter 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Goldenrowley 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"...However, Cook did more scientific research and revised his figures later in life to project an estimated 26,000 people resided in the "Northern Mission Area".<ref>Cook, 1976, ''Population'', page 42-43: "The Northern Mission Area...26,000."</ref>. Per Cook, the "Northern Mission Area" means "the region inhabited by the Costanoans and Salinans between San Francisco Bay and the headwaters of the Salinas River. To this may be added for convenience the local area under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo even though there is an infringement of the Chumash".<ref>Cook, 1976, ''Population'', page 20<ref>. The native Ohlone-Costanoan people's territory was one half of the "Northern Mission Area", but probably more densely populated than the southern areas.<ref>Cook, 1976,''Population'', page ___ </ref>, so a reasonable estimate is 70 percent of the "Northern Mission Area" were Ohlone people, or 18,200 people, plus or minus a few thousand, using this model.
Cook's estimates for lower population density among the Esselen and Salinan is in his older work (Conflict, 1976a:187).
For balance, you might want to include the fact that subsequent to Cook's revisions, Richard Levy (p.485) again arrived at a lower population total of 9,800 (Levy, Richard. 1978. "Costanoan". In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).
A suggestion: if your library's hours are inconvenient, you might want to look into using interlibrary loan. Cook's two books aren't rare, so there should be no problem in getting hold of them. The drawback is that the process is slow, so you would have to plan ahead on what you're going to need. RhymeNotStutter 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Goldenrowley is trying to make the bottom menu small and flat like most other bottom menus. What do you guys think? LAST ONE removed, template renamed "Ohlone2":
Ohlone-Costanoan People of California | |
---|---|
Linguistic Divisions | |
• Karkin | South edge of Carquinez Strait |
• Chochenyo | East side of San Francisco Bay |
• Ramaytush | San Mateo & San Francisco Counties |
• Tamyen | Southwest side San Francisco Bay & Santa Clara Valley |
• Awaswas | From Davenport to Aptos in Santa Cruz County |
• Mutsun | Pajaro River, San Benito River & San Felipe Creek |
• Rumsen | Salinas, Lower Carmel & Sur Rivers |
• Chalon | Salinas Valley, Salinas River |
NEW ONE used instead, template named "Ohlone" :
Comments/feedback please? Goldenrowley 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, *I think* the new one is the normal shape and size for bottom navigational menus, so I am going to switch over to it barring any objections...
Goldenrowley
20:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The major revamp tag probably can come off, the article is pretty stable. No? BruceHallman 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In review of my numbers and the article Population_of_Native_California, it would be advised to make a general disclaimer with the current numbers. Cook's book is confusing at best. Of one page I scanned ( pg. 28), the terminology and "word exchange" are prime examples. For instance, in one section he says "West Bay" and "West Costanoans", my notes say I am assuming they are "one and the same". However, it's not clear, if that's what he meant. We could make a logical deduction, but that can be hazardous.
Further, just using the numbers for the missions (SF, SC and SJ), I get 12,220 Baptisms, or 18,330 derived using a multipler of 1.5 (as Cook does pg.24-25).
In summation, deriving a number plus or minus some specific number is hazardous. Cook even says he is guessing on which people are from where. True he is using good tools, but we don't have the benefit of those tools. For instance, seperating Northern Chumash from Ohlone is difficult unless we look at the raw data. The same is true for Coastal Miwok, versus East Bay natives (Berkeley/Oakland). Even later San Juaquin becomes an issue.
The point is if we want to write a PHD paper on this we could, but even Cook states the boundaries are fuzzy, at best. A general number followed with a strong disclaimer; such as,
While scholars continue to study the issue regarding the Population of Native California, even a general number is difficult. While some documentation exist, sophisticated methods and techniques continue to be applied, along with the careful review of given material.
Respectfully -- meatclerk 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, GR means Golden Rowley Goldenrowley. 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)
In the meantime, here is a link to the alternate citation style. -- meatclerk 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
All, am reordering the appendices to follow Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices. -- meatclerk 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
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:
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
No pressure at all just for whenever:
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?
TIA! Goldenrowley 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Was mission land "held in trust for the Ohlone people" [2]? 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)
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)
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 [3], 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"
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.
-- meatclerk 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
List of English words of Native American origin -- someone already noted "Abalone" is Rumsen - Goldenrowley 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Ronbo76 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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). — 210 physicq ( c) 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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>
• 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)
FourD
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | 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 |
-->missions shouldnt be very big on the village map, maybe village map should be marked year 1770. Perhaps we could merely point/link to a separate missions map, helping to orient where the people migrated? Is there one. Goldenrowley 19:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Here is another map from this book. My stuff almost organize.. maybe done next week. -- meatclerk 10:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
http://www.calsign.com/mining/countydata/sanbenito1.htm
New article. Review, if you have time. -- meatclerk 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
A new page was born on the Ohlone this weekend called 'Ohlone traditional narratives' that organizes the topic on all California Narratives. This explains why I am organizing that area of this page. Goldenrowley 21:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok what is left to construct, should we remove the notice or are you still working on things? It looks nice on my browser. I don't know what else is needed right now. Hollar if you need me to look up something in Teixeria or Milliken while I have the books checked out.. Goldenrowley 02:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The way that the population mixes a discussion of Native American population in the Bay Area with a discussion of the history of the population of the Ohlone people appears needlessly confusing. I suggest we limit the discussion to the Ohlone, and relocate, or edit out the discussion of Native American population in general. Also, I suggest using a line graph, instead of a table to better communicate the dramatic nature of the decline in Ohlone population. BruceHallman 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
This version with 500 year increments on the X-axis probably is better to convey the uncertainty of the data.
BruceHallman
16:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, like this, but I don't really like it. I believe we have the responsiblity to simplify the complexity of the data. I favor chart 2 (above) plus a detailed footnote explaining the uncertainty in the data.
BruceHallman
17:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I am OK with the above idea tp do an average (1 line) if titled an average, and if you note to "just based on sources listed and pending further data." Goldenrowley 19:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC) ---
These are popluation statistics from noted sources, tables developed but there is some discussion of accuracy.
Total Costanoan estimated by NAHBD [1] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 1800 | 1848 | 1852 | 1880 | 1900 | 2000 | |||
Population | 3000 | 1000 | 900 | 300 | 50 | 250 |
Total Native Americans in County Group VI estimated by Cook [2] | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Year | 1880 | 1900 | 1910 | 1920 | 1930 | 1940 | 1950 | 1960 | 1970 |
Population | 459 | 131 | 134 | 286 | 587 | 646 | 1,452 | 4,588 | 17,017 |
Please stop putting inaccurate material that you haven't checked into these articles!
You cite Cook 1976 as a source for an estimate of 26,000 Ohlone in the San Francisco Bay area alone. The scholarly citation is inadequate; you don't specify which of the two Cook 1976 references you're citing, and you don't give a page number. However, it's evident that you mean The Population of the California Indians, 1769-1970. If you had actually consulted this source (pp. 20, 42), you would have seen that Cook's figure of 26,000 referred to ALL of the Costanoan/Ohlone, plus all of the Esselen, plus all of the Salinan, plus the northern (Obispeño) Chumash.
By sticking in phoney "references" without checking them, you create an unfair burden for editors who are trying to build a factual encyclopedia. RhymeNotStutter 20:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
"In a September 21, 2006, Memorandum Opinion, a United States District Judge has ruled favorably in our action against the U.S. Department of the Interior seeking review of the "Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Muwekma Ohlone Tribe." The District Court has rejected the Department of the Interior's rationale for requiring the Muwekma Ohlone to proceed through tribal acknowledgment procedures that other tribes have been allowed to bypass. 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 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to say this other than this. It's not done Goldenrowley. On my last communications on this matter, I clear state
If you are asking me about Ohlone, then I need to fix the Intro. I think I have that down to six words.
It's that simple, but I have not added one word to the intro. If you want the six words, you'll have to wait. -- meatclerk 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I just read that according to the Muwekma Ohlone tribe, the word tribelet that was coined is "considered demeaning" to the people (for example, feels like a diminutive form of tribe)-- Bean p 300, article written by members of the Ohlone tribe, makes a whole case against the word Tribelet. I am concerned, I do not want to demean anyone. Goldenrowley 19:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I have several other concerns less urgent with properly dealing with Kroeber and historian's coined labelisms this article has to translate to modern readers:
I've archived some old stuff. I appoligize, if I've mistakenly archive something needed. If you need it, let know know I will restore that item. Else, look Talk:Ohlone/Archive 003.
As you already know, the geographical boundary for the Ohlone (Costanoan) is a language boundary, and somewhat artifical. Even so, this does not fit well with what the missionaries did. However, the problem we have may be simpiler.
As it turns out I am reading Cook one last time to get my notes, when from the Index I go to page 8 and read about "Southern Patwin". They were sweep into the Missions around 1810. He says "(this) element almost nullified by the efforts of ethnographers". By this I think he means, they are almost forgotten by ethnographers. So I'm pretty sure he means the population count was "almost (...) nullified." His count for "Southern Patwin" is 5000.
The question is how much is Patwin, how much is Miwok, how much Ohlone? Please see the map on my website, here. It connects to my population page, but does not effect the numbers I need.
I think we can safely ignore the issue in our population count, but we should make a footnote on this. Something like, "Cook's boundaries don't match current known linguistic boundaries for Ohlone. Hence, there may be minor errors, which we cannot account for."
Specifically, this number raises the total for Coastal Miwok, Patwin and Ohlone, of course.
Your comments? -- meatclerk 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Goldenrowley 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"...However, Cook did more scientific research and revised his figures later in life to project 26,000 in his idea of the "Northern Mission Area" (which was about 50% larger than Ohlone-Costanoan territory). Per Cook, "Northern Mission Area" means "the region inhabited by the Costanoans and Salinans between San Francisco Bay and the headwaters of the Salinas River. To this may be added for convenience the local area of the San Luis Obispo even though there is an infringement of the Chumash"; page 40: "The Northern Mission Area...26,000".</ref>. The native Ohlone-Costanoan people, residing in 50% of the "Northern Mission Area", were projected at higher population densities than the southern areas <ref>Cook, 1976, "Population, page __?</ref>, so roughly are estimated to be about 70%(?) percent, or 18,200(?) plus or minus a few thousand in this model.
(1) It's not legitimate to change the wording inside a direct quotation. Cook didn't write "Ohlone", he wrote "Costanoan".
(2) If you multiply 70% times 26,000, you'll get 18,200, not 20,000.
(3) If you check a map (such as the one in the Handbook of North American Indians vol. 8 or Kroeber 1925) you'll see that the southern areas (Esselen, Salinan, Obispeño Chumash) amount to far more than 30% of the total area of those groups plus the Ohlone; more like 50%. (However, if you read Cook, you'll see that he also very reasonably projected lower population densities for the southern areas than for the northern ones.)
(4) In writing an article like this, it's legitimate to report what authorities on the subject have actually said. It's also legitimate to rework the presentation of their data IF you take the time to carefully check the original sources, do the math, etc. RhymeNotStutter 02:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Goldenrowley 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)"...However, Cook did more scientific research and revised his figures later in life to project an estimated 26,000 people resided in the "Northern Mission Area".<ref>Cook, 1976, ''Population'', page 42-43: "The Northern Mission Area...26,000."</ref>. Per Cook, the "Northern Mission Area" means "the region inhabited by the Costanoans and Salinans between San Francisco Bay and the headwaters of the Salinas River. To this may be added for convenience the local area under the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo even though there is an infringement of the Chumash".<ref>Cook, 1976, ''Population'', page 20<ref>. The native Ohlone-Costanoan people's territory was one half of the "Northern Mission Area", but probably more densely populated than the southern areas.<ref>Cook, 1976,''Population'', page ___ </ref>, so a reasonable estimate is 70 percent of the "Northern Mission Area" were Ohlone people, or 18,200 people, plus or minus a few thousand, using this model.
Cook's estimates for lower population density among the Esselen and Salinan is in his older work (Conflict, 1976a:187).
For balance, you might want to include the fact that subsequent to Cook's revisions, Richard Levy (p.485) again arrived at a lower population total of 9,800 (Levy, Richard. 1978. "Costanoan". In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.).
A suggestion: if your library's hours are inconvenient, you might want to look into using interlibrary loan. Cook's two books aren't rare, so there should be no problem in getting hold of them. The drawback is that the process is slow, so you would have to plan ahead on what you're going to need. RhymeNotStutter 14:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Goldenrowley is trying to make the bottom menu small and flat like most other bottom menus. What do you guys think? LAST ONE removed, template renamed "Ohlone2":
Ohlone-Costanoan People of California | |
---|---|
Linguistic Divisions | |
• Karkin | South edge of Carquinez Strait |
• Chochenyo | East side of San Francisco Bay |
• Ramaytush | San Mateo & San Francisco Counties |
• Tamyen | Southwest side San Francisco Bay & Santa Clara Valley |
• Awaswas | From Davenport to Aptos in Santa Cruz County |
• Mutsun | Pajaro River, San Benito River & San Felipe Creek |
• Rumsen | Salinas, Lower Carmel & Sur Rivers |
• Chalon | Salinas Valley, Salinas River |
NEW ONE used instead, template named "Ohlone" :
Comments/feedback please? Goldenrowley 00:05, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, *I think* the new one is the normal shape and size for bottom navigational menus, so I am going to switch over to it barring any objections...
Goldenrowley
20:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
The major revamp tag probably can come off, the article is pretty stable. No? BruceHallman 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
In review of my numbers and the article Population_of_Native_California, it would be advised to make a general disclaimer with the current numbers. Cook's book is confusing at best. Of one page I scanned ( pg. 28), the terminology and "word exchange" are prime examples. For instance, in one section he says "West Bay" and "West Costanoans", my notes say I am assuming they are "one and the same". However, it's not clear, if that's what he meant. We could make a logical deduction, but that can be hazardous.
Further, just using the numbers for the missions (SF, SC and SJ), I get 12,220 Baptisms, or 18,330 derived using a multipler of 1.5 (as Cook does pg.24-25).
In summation, deriving a number plus or minus some specific number is hazardous. Cook even says he is guessing on which people are from where. True he is using good tools, but we don't have the benefit of those tools. For instance, seperating Northern Chumash from Ohlone is difficult unless we look at the raw data. The same is true for Coastal Miwok, versus East Bay natives (Berkeley/Oakland). Even later San Juaquin becomes an issue.
The point is if we want to write a PHD paper on this we could, but even Cook states the boundaries are fuzzy, at best. A general number followed with a strong disclaimer; such as,
While scholars continue to study the issue regarding the Population of Native California, even a general number is difficult. While some documentation exist, sophisticated methods and techniques continue to be applied, along with the careful review of given material.
Respectfully -- meatclerk 09:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hi, GR means Golden Rowley Goldenrowley. 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)
In the meantime, here is a link to the alternate citation style. -- meatclerk 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
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
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)
All, am reordering the appendices to follow Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices. -- meatclerk 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
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:
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
No pressure at all just for whenever:
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?
TIA! Goldenrowley 00:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Was mission land "held in trust for the Ohlone people" [2]? 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)
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)
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 [3], 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"
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.
-- meatclerk 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
List of English words of Native American origin -- someone already noted "Abalone" is Rumsen - Goldenrowley 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Ronbo76 02:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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). — 210 physicq ( c) 02:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
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>
• 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)
FourD
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).