Talk:Ohlone/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Map

I was driving to work and had an idea, should we put the 7 missions on the map? As little buildings with crosses. Just an idea. Goldenrowley 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A cross? How may pixels? BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In the case or Pruristac, the village was located 100 feet from the mission outpost, so the 'cross' would obscure the four pixels that is Pruristac. BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar, I think in San Francisco, though I am not sure which village was located next to the mission, was it Sitlintac or Chutchui? BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be hard to do, but the map is a bad scale, with 4 pixels per village dot. If it were a larger scale, the name of known village locations could be written. BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I see a dot next to Lake Merced in San Francisco, and I believe it to be a village site, but no name of that site is apparent to me at least. BruceHallman 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mission were frequently built within walking distance from villages. SF and SC were 1000 ft. and 2000 ft, respectively. I'm not sure of SJ. The ones on the Monterey bay were built close to the rivers, therefore close to communal (shared) grounds, like salmon runs. So perhaps a larger map would work best. --meatclerk 19:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

-->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)

I don't personally know of any maps that show migration from villages to missions. But would assume there is one, if unpublished. --meatclerk 19:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay the Spanish Missions in California Page has a missions map but its very hard to read, I still do not get for example where the missions are in relation to the Rumsien people. This Ohlone village map could be used as the starting template, just take out the village dots and put in missions and call it a new map like "Ohlone mission era map" (after they all moved to missions). But I do not have the expertise to make one, you guys seem to really know this map better than I do....they are already on California maps. I went to the Salinas mission based on the AAA road map once. Goldenrowley 16:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

We need some interative mapping software. I started an Ohlone Village and Mission sites map at http://quikmaps.com/edit/16238, though it crashed in Firefox, and worked in IE, though I got a error reloading it. :( BruceHallman 18:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

That software is buggy, perhaps wikimapia could be used, but I don't quite understand the interface. Hopefully we can filter the 'places' to show just villages and missions. BruceHallman 19:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool! I forgot about map software. Good thinking. Goldenrowley 19:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

here is the location of Pruristac, and Mission Outpost San Pedro Y San Pablo. Hopefully that link works. There is some trouble, because most of the villages we cannot pin point exactly and meet WP:V. Though we can make educated guesses for most or many. BruceHallman 19:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to see the map you began at quick maps but it says access denied? I found the map in the Milliken book is a good reference for the mission sites and presidios. It has all of the area missions except for Salinas. Goldenrowley 16:10, 4 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)

I bet Bruce will like this one. ! San Fran Peninsula in detail!

Ok admittedly I am having computer problems and can't see all the maps here. Is anyone taking map-making on as a project? If not, I'll do a rudimentary map of the missions, based on MIlliken, some time in the future. Goldenrowley 21:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, here is a third attempt to find some collaborative way to make a map of Ohlone villages, using flagr. Maybe this will work.BruceHallman 20:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

http://www.flagr.com/maps/1054

Third time is a charm... it works! Goldenrowley 04:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It works however (unfortunately) my computer is a dial up modem too slow for the Map. I can only do the Map when I go to the library or use my computer during work breaks. Goldenrowley 19:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Useful for the Map: County of San Benito Longitude and Latitude given here for: Chalon, Indian Valley, probably other Ohlone sites as well:

http://www.calsign.com/mining/countydata/sanbenito1.htm

Sherburne F. Cook

New article. Review, if you have time. --meatclerk 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice ! Goldenrowley 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

News

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)

The "narratives" pages looks visually good. --meatclerk 08:45, 7 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)

If you are asking me about 'Ohlone, then I need to fix the Intro. I think I have that down to six words. Other than that, seafood, native foods, and footnote cleanup - about a month. That's all I have planned. Pre-1769 contact will wait till the after the first of the year; too backed up. --meatclerk 08:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you I am also following up on the references. Goldenrowley 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

In my Firefox 1.0.7 browser, the wide tables in the Population section cause some 'overwriting' of text on widest table. BruceHallman 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

On my IE I am getting the same problem, is it because there are 2 tables in a row? what can we do. Goldenrowley 19:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC) -- OK I think I fixed it by separating them a little.

Fixed in Firefox too, thanks. BruceHallman 17:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Meatcleark thanks for the list of what's next. I myself plan going to the library tomorrow to confirm the mythology sources and read the recommended Bean. I came across something in prehistoric Oceania, just like Ohlone's method of Harvesting. It is called Fire-stick farming over there. Probably too original an idea to include but worth knowing that key word. I also keep running across Salmon in mythology... did you start a salmon talk area where you can receive info? Goldenrowley 06:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

On fire-stick farming, that's great. I'm glad to see hard work did not go to a waste.

On salmon myths, do you want to use my website? If so, I am planning to have anything written in a special hidden editing section able to add to the main website. Or you better, you could just add links to those myths to the Talk:Salmon page. Just start a new section. I plan to leave detail notes on the Salmon talkpage, just like here in Ohlone. For now the article (Salmon) has enough content for general use. --meatclerk 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Population

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)

I agree the discussion of non-Ohlone population table should probably move out, it's off topic. However I think the Ohlone table should stay that's reported data with reported figures for reported years *people want numbers*. The line diagram does not work *for me* it implies that there we exactly so many people on any given year (and fills in all the unknown years), I'd suggest change to a Bar Chart on only known years, and do it in addition to the table.Goldenrowley 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The line chart makes reasonable interpolation between known data points. I deliberately choose a 'smooth line' to imply the interpolation. Also, I deliberatly limited the scale points coarsely, 0, 5000, 10000, etc. to also convey the uncertainly of the numbers. I have a problem with showing only the fixed datapoints, because the undeniable reality is that people lived in the years in between the datapoints too. The specifics of the quality of the datapoints could be sufficiently covered in a detailed footnote to satify the people that want to know the numbers. Though I disagree that many people want hard numbers. I argue that the typical reader wants information. From the broad perspective, the most important information here is that the population underwent a dramatic decline, and that is better conveyed to the reader with the line graph than with the table. If precedence is needed, consider the chart in this article which is where I got the idea to use a graph here. I started out with a bar chart, but the data proved to be too spotty, so I settled on a line chart. Also, I argue that a chart like this is similar to a chart you might expect to find in a grade school level textbook on this subject (if there was one!). I see this article serving the purpose of grade school education material on this topic. BruceHallman 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I like a chart idea, and kids, but I am also trying to please a college age audience. Since it is supposed to be the most fantastic encyclopedia in the world I tink we should do both a table and a graph! Unless you have more sources than I located, I just feel we do not have enough for a true line curve. I like the chart with the bars you are pointing to it does show a line, and so it might here especially if you start with 26,000. How about a high and a low estimate for 1770. The massive decline will be obvious that way. Note will be difacult for people to edit as facts arrive, unless there is a wikipedia macro for charts? Note I think epidemics will cause a stair step sort of decline -- stairstep 1795 was a very bad year, and big stair step on the 25 percent who died in the measles epidemic. Check this diagram out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_of_Native_California Goldenrowley 03:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I like all of the charts. They suit me fine. I think, numbers and a chart might work best. That is, have chart with numbers at key points. For instance, in 1795 epidemic an arrow pointing to a point on the line chart might say "epidemic of 1795"; thereby lending more information and not looking too simplistic.

On some of the other numbers, it's important to point out that now after about 200+ years any "pure blood" Ohlone is extremely remote. Therefore, the remaing natives, Miwok, Essian, etc. must represent the Ohlone, if not by default, as "Coastanoans". Further many must have intermarried with Anglo and European stock. Should they be discounted? If so, then the group making claim in Woodside has no claim. As such, I strongly urge some numbers far greater than zero to represent Ohlone. We don't have the tools or writings to distinguish non-Ohlone, so the remaining Native population should default to the representation.

Respectfully --meatclerk 05:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There are also whats known as combination bar-line charts where the line joins the bars. I wonder where the Native Database came up with the 250 number for modern day, honestly that seems unbeliaveably slow growth since year 1900. If each of the current tribe web sites give a count, we can just add the counts together. Or Maybe National Geographic already did a full feature article with something like a chart. Goldenrowley 07:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 250 number is suspect, so are the other numbers. Though, we can reasonable interpolate. That is the reason I incremented the Y axis scale so coarsely. If we suspect the accuracy of the numbers, we can accomodate and communicate our uncertainty by using coarse numbers on each axis. I chose the starting number as between 15,000 and 20,000 as it is an average of 10,000 and 26,000 but I am open to suggestions if you think the 26,000 number is better. BruceHallman 16:28, 9 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)

As an idea, how about charting 2 lines, the max and the minimums, can you do that? So it shows the whole range from 10000 to 26000, and shade in between? I'd also like to do more research on the matter. Goldenrowley 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One idea is that if 90% of the people died by 1850, that would leave about 1000-2600, as the lowest figure, then extrapolate they started to grow after 1920 in a normal rate we might get roughly 3000-6000 people today. The other thing we do not have yet is census figures. Where do you get those? Goldenrowley 16:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The 250 in year 2000 number comes from the NAHBD chart presently in the article. A growth rate of 500% in a century doesn't seem far out of line, but I am just guessing. BruceHallman 17:12, 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) ---

as a note I don't want to discourage you I just put my cautionary advice hat on. The esselen tribe claims 500 members and I see other sites claiming 1500-2000 total today. This link -- the Muwekma application for regonition -- page 5 shows Muwekma membership of 397 in year 2000 (see page 5) : [1] Goldenrowley 01:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On final diagram you inserted today -- I admire the way you graphically handled the "uncertain" element. good job. I put the population tables below -- I need this data somewhere safe for reference. Goldenrowley 19:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ohlone Population statistics

These are popluation statistics from noted sources, tables developed but there is some discussion of accuracy.

I think population for years 1900 and 2000 seem too low in the NABD datase. I have established 397 minimum in yr 2000. Goldenrowley 22:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Total Costanoan estimated by NAHBD
Year	1800	1848	1852	1880	1900	2000
Population	3000	1000	900	300	50	250

Total Native Americans in County Group VI estimated by Cook
Year	1880	1900	1910	1920	1930	1940	1950	1960	1970
Population	459	131	134	286	587	646	1,452	4,588	17,017

Disputed

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)

Fellow Editor, thank you for your comments. As you have noted, the footnotes are of an inadequate nature. In addition, I note that the Reference "Cook/1976" is in conflict with our notes. We beg your indulgence. Unfortunately, our fast paced additions have lead to this rather unfortunate oversight. We thank you for your patience and kindness in pointing to this. We will endeavor to correct this, and any other possible oversights. In the mean time, feel free to make notes on any other observed errors, as we all would like a work to be proud of.

On the 26,000 number you have noted, the error is mine. As Cook defines the "Northern Mission Area" it is difficult to distingish boundaries. We have recently discussed this(Goldenrowley and myself - just days ago). The decision was to add further notes. You may read the discussion #Archive_and_Population_revisited. --meatclerk 21:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The additions I make were not exactly fast paced. I took hours researching this stuff, and when I add things, I have my sources in one hand, and I am not burdening anyone but myself. I'd really look forward to meatclerk help to review the population (one more time) and any other things Meatclerk says, because 9 times out of 10 he's been right, it just takes time to understand eachother in writing. Goldenrowley 09:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

BREAKING News

"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)

Reopen intro

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)

Okay with me. I just thought we were working on the main page rather than side bars, which is why I moved the Intro "conversation sidebar" to the "archive" section...I did not mean to imply we're done. Gee I did not say we were done I thought we all agreed it was hard to keep too many sidebars open. Goldenrowley 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You are correct on the "sidebar". In that Bruce sees it easier to work off the main page. Even so, other editors are jumping in, as happened today. They may need to communicate with us, as we with them, as we do with each other. On that, you'll note we have agreed (I think) on general references and their status. The point is to give people (that come after us) a point of reference. It also give new comers a place to start. They may have different ideas, but at least they know where to start as to how we think.

On the Intro, it is by no means finished, nor do I see it as being the final version. To add, or make changes, to it, would be distracting. The last time I made a small change, yourself and Bruce followed with several changes. As such, I fully expect than when my six (or so) words get added, there will be several more rounds of changes. Then the final points that should be on the Intro will be added to the sidebar, and incoming editors will see it as finalized(in a vague sense at least). Respectfully --meatclerk 08:40, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Tribelet Concern

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:

1. We call it Northern California, but on his maps and many references Linguists/ethnohistorians put this region in Central California. However, ask anyone in the Bay Are and they say they live in Northern California. I beleive Spanish called it Northern as well.
2. Kuksu -- Kroeber called it the Kuksu Cult. If you really review the religion, it is not a cult in the modern sense, the word cult denotes it was wrong/bad and not mainstream to the society. In actuality Kuksu was mainstream and not wrong or bad. I've downplayed the word cult. My obervation is that Kuksu was a religion or communal beleif system --- not a cult.
3. Also...one thing I am still working on is that there were many religions before and in tandem with Kuksu. I've located a Bear shaman and clues of a winter solstice ceremony. "Early witnesses" noticed the people having some sort of sun ceremony or ritual without being able to evaluate its importance. Goldenrowley 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bruce has concerns I'm sure. I'm not positive on how to handle tribelet. The first is we cannot make things up, including a definitive term that already has a meaning. If we can find another term, in another reference we could use that. Or we could be more descriptive. In any case, perhaps Bruce has some ideas. I'm not that attached to the term. --meatclerk 08:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

How about just keeping the tribelet definition of several households, without the word? I'll put the word in notes as a an "coined word". Goldenrowley 00:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tribelet, the word, seems demeaning to my ear. My vote is to use the words, 'tribe' or 'village' or 'band' or 'group' instead, and they effectively the same thing. BruceHallman 06:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, especially if the Ohlone think so. I've already adjusted a bit I took it out of the main article as a word, its only in the footnotes right now. Goldenrowley 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Archive and Population revisited

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)

If I recall Cook was using modern county boundary lines, and not tracking each village within the counties, so yes, his population stats are not soley speaking about Ohlone. Statistically, it also means farthest he gets from precontact year of 1770, the more his numbers will include the migrants into the region, and less accurate about the original people. The Patwin did not live in Ohlone places in 1769 (at all). Nor the Coast Miwok. However, I think in the east bay assume there are some Bay Miwok mixed sharing the Contra Costa/Alameda/Livermore region, and in the Monterey bay area, definitely assume some Esselen and Yokuts were mixed into the county counts. Goldenrowley 02:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should reiterate this directly.

1) Cook uses mission records for counts, not tribe counts. So even though for my purpose (Menlo Park and Redwood City) this not an issue, for tribe count (Ohlone/Costanoan) it is. It is becuase not all people in the mission were Ohlone/Costanoan, some especially in San Francisco were east bay and north, then later the valley - respectively this means Berkeley & Oakland, Marin County(Miwok) and eastward, then Sacramento Vally(Miwok). The broader point is the population was mixed in the Missions.

2) At the boundary conditions for Cook, more error creep (sp?) in. So if we follow the linguistic maps as ethnographers are doing now, then how many Costanoan, or Utian, speaking people are from Napa and Solano Counties?

To reiterate, No. 1 says we count too many becuase of the Mission count. No. 2 says we missed some because they are on the other side of the border.

So, I know we argree now that count is off somewhat. So, we have a range, that covers much discrepency. So my question is, Is the range enough for both of you?, or do we want to leave more notes?

--meatclerk 05:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree we should have a note when we speak of Cook's numbers to say exactly what he counted. I did not think there are any Costanoans in Napa or Solano counties I thought they stop at the southern side of the Carquinez straight. Perhaps they moved across the straight for fishing and/or those who intermarried? I think North of that body of water is all Suisunes (Patwin) region. See my attempts to write a Suisunes page. Goldenrowley 18:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I come back to eat some of my own words, having noticed "Karkin (also spelled Carquin) - on both sides of Carquinez Straight, present-day Port Costa, Martinez and Benicia" -- Benicia would be tip of North Bay, that they must have shared with Suisunes, who also had villages in the Benicia area. Goldenrowley 04:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change after going back to the library for the book again:

"...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.

Goldenrowley 01:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

(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)

Alrighy then the thing is, my library only gives me 1 hour at a time to work then it unceremoniously dismisses me, so I had I wasnt done yet and had to leave and have dinner. I made some relevant changes, but still consider it a work in progress at the moment. Goldenrowley 03:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC). I've changed it to 18200 plus or minus a few thousand. Goldenrowley 05:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OK here we go, I've had time to check things over again and not longer rushed. Note I can't find a reference to southern territory being less dense, someone please provide it if known. 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.

Goldenrowley 07:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

It would not hurt to add Levy into the paragraph as another opinion, if you have it. Meatclerk, Cook in his opening paragraphs said he substracted the Miwok, Patwin and others who would have inflated the mission records, when he estimated "Northern Mission Area" and was estimating the region before contact. I feel fairly confident in the above research having confirmed the Salinan sparsity question in Kroeber as well. Goldenrowley 19:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Bottom Menu

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)

Looks good to me. --meatclerk 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

DONE.

revamp tag

The major revamp tag probably can come off, the article is pretty stable. No? BruceHallman 20:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I might add a few sentences but I trying to wrap up. I just got Kroeber's massive tome last night I need tiny bit more time to read it. Goldenrowley 20:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I need about a week to finish any major changes. --meatclerk 22:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bruce on Population graph, can you change "present day" to 1500-2000 people roughly before we finish? That's a closer estimate if you all agree Goldenrowley 00:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Coming back to Thank Bruce for the population graph update. Goldenrowley 04:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Population continued

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)

Oh, I did not see your thoughts today Meatclerk, before fixing the page on Cook. To put your mind a little more at ease, did you see that Cook follows his population projections immediately with a plus or minus error rate of 10 percent(page 43). Also, did you see that he said he substracted the Miwok, Patwin and others who would have inflated the mission records, when he estimated "Northern Mission Area" and SAID he was estimating only Costanoan and Salinan. All we'd really have to do is subtract Salinan and keep a 10 percent error on his numbers. To me that's vague, about 20 percent vague, but not rocket science....and its better to have a maximum number with a 20 percent error rate, than to estimate nothing... don't you think? On the suggested disclaimer, I don't know... don't people already get that this is a difacult number to ascertain because we had to quote about 5 experts ? Goldenrowley 21:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

HI again, I think this might be to your liking, a strong disclaimer right after the numbers in the opening paragraph: " The Ohlone's population in 1770, around the time of missionary settlements, has been estimated between 10,000 and 20,000, noting that there is uncertainty of the Population of Native California, and ethnohistorians differ widely on this population estimate." Goldenrowley 00:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On pg. 43, I should have scanned that page but neglected. However, it does not effect my numbers for Menlo Park and Redwood City.

On the "disclaiming statements", they seem adequate, but long. I note the first sentence is 37 words. Second sentence 21 words. It's a bit wordy. However, I don't recommend fixing it yet. Give it a few days. It's easier to edit. --meatclerk 06:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, adequate is good! fixing wordiness is the easy part. Goldenrowley 16:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

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

• {{Inuseuntil| ... }} (See: Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance).

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

held in trust for the Ohlone people

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)

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:

• Teixera, pg. 51 first reference Vane, etc, 1990.
• The Other Californians: Prejudice and Discrimination under Spain, Mexico, and the United States to 1920 Heizer, Robert Fleming. ISBN 0520034155

Hmm, I just noticed this ...

• Spanish and Mexican land grants in California.

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)

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[3] 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)

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, 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. The tribal term Ohlone during the 1960s was exclusively used in reference to the Mission San Jose/Verona Band of Alameda County Indians."

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)

Great etext link

• http://etext.virginia.edu/subjects/Native-American.html

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)