Talk:Ohlone/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Big Issue for us

This one is painful. Later today I have to return to RWC Archive room. To do a complete follow up on this.

Here it is

I was doing research on the pre-mission explorers when I found an Indian map I had not seen before. As I read the article (Calfornia Historical Quarterly) Heizer, had written several pages and a two (2) page opening section. As it turns out, a person named Taylor had compete falsified indian accounts and had them published. In short, this person may have been a conman. That material was used as reference material by Hubert Howe Bancroft and A. L. Kroeber, making some material by them doubious. Heizer in the later pages of the article notes who quote from him and where. The conman lived in Southern California. Most of his fabricated material is of Northern California!!! The Heizer's article seems to have been published before 1970(I forgot the date), so later writers may not be influenced. My plan is to photocopy the entire article and post it later tonight, as scans.

To round out the night I went to Kepler's. The authors of fiction material were talking about their books. All the books were related to conmen in some fashion. Bizarre day. --meatclerk 19:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we'll be okay, because we mostly used Milliken, and Milliken used mission records as his basis. Goldenrowley 22:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Round #1 is ready See proposals on: Talk:Ohlone/New Intro

Article Scanned

With regards to the issue, the name is Alexander Smith Taylor. Here is a link to the article. I'll let you guys decide, if it is important for you. I'm tired tonight, so not too much. I'll look at intro tomorrow, again. Also tommorrow I will get a copy of Margolin, Malcolm - The Olhone Way. Just to cover my bases. --meatclerk 07:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the scanning, I am curious to see the map. Only two villages in San Mateo? None in S.F.? I would guess that all the villages of Ohlone left middens that archaeologists can or have studied. For instance, Petlenuc is likely the midden located at Crissy Field in S.F. BruceHallman 16:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

On the map, if you can get to the library, they likely have a copy of the CHSQ issue. The map is folded inside next to the article. For me to photograph it would take a month or so, I need to get a better camera. The one I have doesn not have a macro, therefore it loses focus on closups.

On middens, I at least one books and several articles on them. They have not been catalogued yet, so I can give you any titles. I can tell you on the articles, several are USGS carbon dating articles(circa 1960-1980) and a few are SMCHA article(circa 1960/1970). Teixeira (I found the book last night) says there are several "Gray Literature" items, part of Environmental Impact Reports(pg 45). These won't make it into this article though. There also seems to be some monographs at Berkeley, and I have read of at least one "inventory" of shell midden, likely at Berkeley also.

--meatclerk 18:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

New Intro #2

I added another paragraph in the usual style I use. About one sentence for each major section. I think you can fix it up. After that, I think next week once all the cleanup work is done. We should have a good-enough article to get rid of the "underconstruction".

Then if there is not anything major, we could ask for a WP:Peer Review. If so, then perhaps do all the work in the sandbox, then move once we all agree. I say this because some of the things I think Bruce and at least I want to add (like use of aquafood) should be more indepth.

--meatclerk 07:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Issue

Apparently my pervious feelings about The Ohlone Way were founded. Mr. A.S. Taylor is listed with his Indianology of California. (I think since, the articles about Mr. Taylor were during WWII, some people missed it. Teixeia lists him also.) I did not read Ohlone Way, but I did outline the index for review. Of the section I have read, I am in doubt of:

• Cannabalism
• Homosexuality (some of it)
• Toilet habits
• A story in the Intro about greeting the sun
• poison story pg. 140

That's it. Bed time and work tommorrow, so you won't hear from me till late. --meatclerk 07:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the modern historians who have been studying in a new frame of reference have moved beyond Kroeber's single sighted story and went to direct sources like Mission Records... I am not too concerned with Taylor since we have primarily used Teix and MillikenGoldenrowley 19:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing this issue, from the References section the following cite Taylor as references:

• Margolin, Malcolm. The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books, 1978. ISBN 0-930588-02-9.
• Teixeira, Lauren. The Costanoan/Ohlone Indians of the San Francisco and Monterey Bay Area, A Research Guide. Menlo Park, CA: Ballena Press Publication, 1997. ISBN 0-87919-141-4.

On Teixeira, she cites references for each entry, so we can filter out Taylor, any time she quotes him.

On Margolin, he does not cite and only lists Taylor in a long list of references. As such, I removed one reference. "40 Tribes" was one reference, but there was another by "Teixeira". I traced it down; she quotes "Levy" who quotes "Heizer", so that was easy.

The other references a large list of wild life available for the Ohlone. The question is "Did Margolin copy Taylor?" It's in the sectino Description. I'm sorry I don't have a reference for this, yet. So, do you have a suggestion? I would prefer to leave it in, but is it accurate?

Comments. --meatclerk 05:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

All the animals I put in the description were from Milliken Teixeira's introduction (exception, from Margolin I learned geese and ducks were witnessed covering the skies, but this also witnessed, right)? Crespi himself I think was the witness of the sea lion cobblestones. This area was an oasis for animals the ones I put in make sense to me as normally seen animals. Goldenrowley 02:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OKay, good enough for me. I'll try to back track later and add references for the two as you describe. Some time next week I'll get to it. --meatclerk 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do not know how else to address Taylor we do the best we can with the books we have. Goldenrowley 04:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Village Page Instructions

We need an instructional element to writers, for the the tribe and village template. I suggest the below. Goldenrowley 20:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree we should leave some "suggestions", but let's put this on the "Village stub" page in its own section. From there we can tweek it, then sign it. --meatclerk 05:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok! Please just move it where needed I don't know where to put it. Goldenrowley 15:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm working today. So, I won't be available till late, then I work two (2) more days; part of the business. On your items to clear up, add to Unresolved Issues, later tonight - I'll get to those. Also should discuss:

• resolution of alternate spellings, if any
• completion of intro, if any, or wait
• The annoying Taylor, if not discuss then later
• Should we have a table for different arrival dates of Ohlone in Bay Area, or wait, or leave it as is

That's it. I don't plan to add anything new in the next 60 days. If I do have something major, it will go on the talkpage first - so we can hash out any issues.

News 10/23/06

• we need to either define ethnoist on wiktionary, if it is a word, or else replace with a better word.

• I've been talking to the new contributor's about the new narrative section and plan a little work tonight ... I got super excited and put it all on the Ohlone mythology page... I will bring back her work for the general page tonight (new stuff, new sources). Goldenrowley 16:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if you are on tonight, I plan to work till 1am. Please message back. Also I know a web chat room we could use. --meatclerk 06:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

10/24/06

I suggest to compare the aricle against the ethnic groups wikiproject... LOOk they suggest an outline for ethnic articles with topics to touch on (and other advice): http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_Groups/Template

Having so noted do you want me to rearrange the article in that order? I am open to it. Guess what I learned some new words today from the featured article Mandan on Native Americans today that apply to Ohlone I wish I knew these words already: exonym and endonym I can't wait to say both Ohlone and Costanoans are exonyms... Now, we all want an A on the article (or at least I do) but we lack a few important topics. According to Native American grading scale we might not even make a grade if we lack an important topics! Heres the 3 big topics I see missing: "Religion" and ""Present Day".... hmm. How about also the optional one "Classification...larger ethnic classifications under which this group falls." Goldenrowley 02:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On template, I think yes, if Bruce likes it. However, I think you should wait a few days before moving the article over, or working in a sandbox instead of the main page. Do you know how to make a sandbox? If not, WP:Sandbox.

On the third topic, let me read a bit of a book I have not open up Indians of California: The Changing Image ISBN 0-8061-2020-7 --meatclerk 04:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I added Religion and Present Day headings already...as they won't overlap anyone's work, actually just the basics is all I am looking to do very short there.

• You know our favorite books from M and T do not have Religion in the index! gasp!! I guess I can search online.

• I just found a more Updated definition of Tribelet at Millikwen -- see footnote page 13. Should we Wiktionary these snippets:

"Tribelet" = multifamily landholding group, the contact-period political groups of west Central Coast California. SOURCE: Milliken, 1995, page 13: "Most California anthropologists refer to the contact-period political groups of west Central Coast California as 'tribelets', following Kroeber (1932). Yet 'tribelet' has not taken hold as a term to describe similar multifamily landholding groups in other hunter-gathering and agricultural societies."

"Tribelet" = small independent unit of the linguistic stock as a whole. Each name also extends to the principle village of the tribelet, and thus demographically applies to the people who live there plus any others who might be scattered in the vicinity. SOURCE: Cook, 1976, pg. 14.

• I noticed you added a year 700 AD reference in your newest proposed Intro, but everwhere else we were doing 500 AD based on Milliken. Please explain. Goldenrowley 05:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Margolin lists the use of Taylor's 'Indianology of Calif. from Calif. Farmer San Fran 1860-63 as "a more important book" but it is NOT starred, SO THAT means it is not "particularly valuable and relevent" to him. Goldenrowley 01:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

• Look what I found: Considr using NAHDB stats to complete the population info...? http://www.fourdir.com/costanoans.htm
• Year Population Source
• 1700 7,000 NAHDB calculation
• 1770 7,000 Kroeber estimate
• 1800 3000 NAHDB calculation
• 1848 1,000 Cook estimate
• 1852 900 Cook estimate
• 1880 300 Cook estimate
• 1900 50 NAHDB calculation
• 2000 250 NAHDB calculation

Goldenrowley 02:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

WOW!!! That is a gold mine. I'll be reading for days.

On 700AD, that is Stanger's number as is listed in the quote, but it's early about 1968 - so much of the carbon dating stuff starts showing up in the 70s. Don't know how he got that number. Stanger and Brown were/are two of the best for San Mateo County. Brown still alive. Use either number.

On salmon, as you may recall this is the direction I'm heading. Ohlone is just a side track, at the moment. So for salmon I am collecting everything salmon that I can afford. Less than 1% online, but you can see many notes here. The entire website is linked to my desktop, so I can add changes and recompile the website on demand. But I really want to be able to add from remote sites, so I'm adding a wiki-type interface. I also need a portable page scanner, so I can scan article in the library, rather than photocopy.

On myths, it is just a thing I do, if I have a moment. Not really serious like you, but always looking for people like you, so I can find a collection of ALL salmon myths, folklore, etc. For instance, most people don't know when salmon are migrating for the ocean, they swim at night. So most natives would miss this, so the likely assumption is the GODS are sending them. --meatclerk 05:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

250 people in year 2000? versus 17,017 in 1970? Something isn't right. BruceHallman 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree something is not right. Goldenrowley 03:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Consider a digital camera instead of a portable scanner. BruceHallman 19:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro rewrite

In an effort to produce an effective introduction, the following link (Talk:Ohlone/New Intro) points to a combined effort. Unaware of our efforts, Goldenrowly and myself (meatclerk), BruceHallman chimes in with. (His comments moved from Talk:Ohlone/New Intro to here.)

I am not sure of the status (10/26/06)

Sorry, I missed this colaborative work on a new intro, and posted my suggested intro directly into the article. My main concerns:

1) This article is, foremost, about the Ohlone people. (Not foremost about a linguistic group, or about the etyomology of the word 'Ohlone', which is dehumanizing.) The intro should be foremost about: the Ohlone people.

2) From the perspective of 'good writing' we should refrain from too many 'asides' and 'qualifiers' in the first opening sentences. Because, this article is most likely to be use by 4th grade Californians doing their 'Mission project' mandated by the California board of education. The first few sentences should be simple and declarative (with no 'big' words), and easily understood by a 4th grader.

Which exactly is the 'current' consensus for the intro? BruceHallman 16:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, I'm going to let Goldenrowley chime first as I have things to do today before the library closes. But Talk:Ohlone/New Intro#OUTLINE has some of the "consensus" points, although the bullet when is still in discussion. --meatclerk 19:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I just placed Bruce's work at the top of Intro Scratch pad Page. The last Intro was NOT final yesterday, I don't know why it was labeled like that, it was just an idea per meatclerk, I was supposed to be thinking about for 72 hours. I really like Bruce's simplifed New intro and that it's about the people, and should not have too many asides and qualifiers. However you went a tiny bit overboard there: We need to for other countries say it is in Northern California and why did you take out Native Americans? Maybe you are a teacher and tell me its taught as indigenous people now?? Bruce I would wonder if you might add some of the new things into yuor simpl style. Bruce I welcome your help on the Intro, do you want to show us something more there? How about we mention the present day people in the Intro as a good final sentence? Goldenrowley 03:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

----

Bruce, I prefer a shorter introduction. Truthfully, my intros are always too long. As such, the words for the native population, Costeños, Costanoan, Ohlone and Muwekma, should be reduced to two (2) or fewer sentences. It is an issue, but it should not overwhelm the intro, or article. Don't worry about the footnotes, I think all of us get the idea - and I will add the footnotes, once the intro is completed.

Native Americans of the United States is important because we are trying to fit under that general project. Although at the moment they seem distracted.

Time marks are important, namely 500AD, but others can be handled in the history section.

Other than that we still need to hash it out. So on that, perhaps we should make edits to the scratch page (Talk:Ohlone/New Intro), rather than the main page.

On the 4th grade mandate, do you have some other suggestions? If so, could you please create a new section (on this talkpage) to consider this.

--meatclerk 04:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that all the specifics should be covered with as much detail as necessary, but just down lower in the article, and if need be in subarticles. I just personally believe that 'stylisticly' the opening paragraph should be simple and concise. As to Native American, some people find it offensive see this talk page discussion, so considering that indigenous people is also accurate, I see no reason to offend anybody if it can be easily avoided. I will give the 4th grade mandate some thought, but I was just saying the obvious, that is that the most common user of this article will be children doing research for a school paper. And, I apologize, but my brain has a hard time following 'forked' articles, such as with the intro scratchpad. Collaborative editing, as we do in the main article, works best in my opinion. BruceHallman 18:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

For my perspective, native, aboriginal and indigenous, all mean the same thing. There is no way I have every found, even on something like this, to please everyone. There will always be someone that is insulted or will take offense. You are welcome to try to make reason, or find middle ground, and I wish you the best of luck. My concern is that we find a home under one or more of the larger projects, be it First Nation, indigenous people or Native American.

On editing the Intro, if Goldenrowley agrees, then I will pull all the footnotes and let you guys have at it. But I think that throwing out all previous version of the Intro would be in order. From there an agreement on what to put in. In the section Talk:Ohlone/New_Intro#OUTLINE, that was my purpose. Just has out the main points, then write. This way we don't continute to trash on minor issues, in example, 700AD vs. 500AD. On this issue, we know we want to indicate the year Ohlone may have arrive in the area, but different authors give different numbers. Then, the thing is how to express it (This just an example, please do not expand on this.), we could say:

1. they arrived between 500AD to 700AD
2. they arrived some time between 500 and 700 AD
3. different historian write differents dates, most after 500AD
4. they arrived before 700AD
5. they arrived after 500AD

Each is correct, put what do we want to say. Well if we agree on a range, then the first three are valid. If we agree on vagueness, then the last third might be a choice. I could go on ad nauseam, but I think you get the point.

--meatclerk 20:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I respect your perspective. Some other people take offense at being associated with Amerigo Vespucci. I can also appreciate their perspective. Being named, against your will, after a person half a world away credited with 'discovering' you (as if you needed to be discovered) on its face seems dehumanizing and to be objectification. Though, certainly, we should associate the article correctly with the relevant ongoing projects at Wikipedia. Just, in the opening paragraph, and elsewhere in the article when given the choice, I favor trying not to offend anyone needlessly. BruceHallman 20:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

To me the choice of wording is between: "500 AD" and "about 500AD". I thought about this at length before I did that last edit, and concluded that the word 'about' is reasonably implied by the round number 500. 99.9% of the people understand that 500AD in prehistory actually means 'roughly' 500AD with expectation of uncertainty. Goal: Simplicity in the first sentence of the intro, but cover all the complexity of 500/700 estimate down lower in the article. BruceHallman 21:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would naturally assume that 500 AD is an estimate. I was reading a history book and they used the phrase "around xxx A.D." Goldenrowley 22:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Population Revisited

NAHDB stands for Native American Database by Sunderland -- I propose we use it for better population statistics, certainly more current. The populations from Cook page 181-184 that we posted as Ohlone people are any Indians in the main County groups, not just Ohlone. Column headings all say "Indian" Population. Ohlone is vaguely a "large fraction" of this. I propose using the new data found last night which speaks only of Ohlone. Goldenrowley 05:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

All except the rows for 1700 and 1770 pre-Kroeber and Kroeber, we all know Kroeber undercounted, the rest should be more trustworthy. Goldenrowley 05:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

One more questin tonight, is the Ohlone Divisions from North to South Table too big? After all I think I should just make it a bullet list, it is not the main article, especially after what I read last night about present day Affairs.Goldenrowley 06:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

On population, there is the issue of blood mixing, tribal intermarriage. Deal with it as you can, but not more than one sentence - 'My thoughts'. Otherwise, your suggestion on numbers okay.

On the table, my suggestion below.

See below on A.S. Taylor --meatclerk 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There was blood mixing at all missions, I think the Mission Indians article should talk about it. Goldenrowley 22:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Example trimming of Division

Divisions

Ohlone Divisions from North to South
Division	Location and Details
Karkin (also called Carquin)	Resided on the south side of the Carquinez Strait.
Chocheño (also called Chochenyo, Chocenyo)	Resided in the East Bay, primarily in the western portion of what is now Alameda County.
Ramaytush (also called San Francisco)	Resided between San Francisco Bay and the Pacific in the area which is now San Francisco and San Mateo County.
Tamyen (also called Tamien, Santa Clara)	Resided on Coyote and Calaveras Creek.
Awaswas (also called Santa Cruz)	Resided lived on the Santa Cruz coast between Pescadero and the Pajaro Rivers.
Mutsun (also called San Juan Bautista)	Resided lived along San Benito River and San Felipe Creek
Rumsen (also called Rumsien)	Resided from the Pajaro River to Point Sur, and the lower courses of the Pajaro, as well as the Salinas and Carmel Rivers.
Chalon (also called Soledad)	Resided on the middle course of the Salinas River.

There were eight major regional, linguistic divisions or subgroups of the Ohlone. Note that "Language group designations are spelled as commonly found in English language publications... however many tribal, village and personal names which are not commonly found in literature present a problem. They were written by Spanish settlers who were trying to capture the sounds of languages foreign to them."

Villages and Tribes

Main article: List of Ohlone villages

Within the eight regions listed above, there were over 50 tribes and villages who spoke the Ohlone-Costanoan languages, before being absorbed into the Spanish Missions circa 1795.

I like the right side table you suggest, unfortunately trying it on the page, it bumps into population tables and the text does not "tuck" around it so neatly (it leaves a large white gap) -- after thought, my point of view is that these divisions are not the main article, while present-day tribal 20th century divisions had only a passing mention. So to keep both past and present day division lists on the same scale seemed better. Goldenrowley 04:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Smith Taylor

I've completed the article on Mr. Taylor from CHSQ articles. Your comments and suggestions welcome. --meatclerk 06:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Narratives

A few points:

In scholarly writing, it doesn't seem appropriate to cite a modern newspaper article as a "source." That's particularly true when there much better, more authentic accounts are available.

Moving the traditional narrative source listing away from the discussion of the narratives largely eliminates the value of that listing, which was make the readers aware of the published sources where they can read the narratives for themselves.

The link to Theodora Kroeber's Almost Ancestors just goes to the same newspaper article.

RhymeNotStutter 23:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as I find the full title and original source of that creation myth from "Theodore Kroeber" whom I suspect is Albert (doing interviews), I also agree to change from newspaper article to the original source. Wikiedpa Policy makes us put all external "great links" and "references" below the article, not in the middle of the articles, although we left the Rumsien myth (folkloric) links where you had suggested. Goldenrowley 00:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Theodora Kroeber" was Alfred Kroeber's second wife. There's an article on her in Wikipedia. For a proper bibliographic citation, use mevyl.cdlib.org. As far as I know, "Almost Ancestors" hasn't been posted on-line, though. RhymeNotStutter 00:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Theodora Kroeber was four years old in 1901. Please don't include references you haven't consulted yourself and whose relevance you haven't verified. That's not accepted scholarly practice. RhymeNotStutter 02:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok was my mistake trusting that news article. I'll keep researching for the original source thanks for the help. Goldenrowley 02:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the correct citation:

• Kroeber, Theodora, and Robert F. Heizer. 1968. Almost Ancestors: The First Californians. Ballantine Books, New York.

For books like this, there's reliable citation information easily available on the University of California's on-line Melvyl catalog. For articles, you can get slightly less reliable information by using Google or another search engine to check for on-line listings (you'd find many for "Almost Ancestors"), and then doing a little checking for discrepancies between the listings.

My point is that you shouldn't be citing a source you yourself haven't seen and whose relevance or irrelevance to the subject at hand you don't know.

I really appreciate the energy and enthusiasm you're putting into the Wikipedia project. I realize that you aren't professionally trained in anthropology or history, but I don't think that disqualifies you from making valuable contributions. However, I think a collective enterprise like Wikipedia needs to be conservatively and solidly constructed. If you don't have the opportunity or the inclination to investigate a topic closely, it would be better to leave it alone, for now. Better to leave Wikipedia readers without information on a given topic (for now) than to give them misinformation. Better to leave informed contributors' contributions alone than to interlard them with inaccurate additions. If informed contributors have to plow through and edit a mass of poorly informed material, they're more likely to abandon the whole project. On the other hand, anyone is likely to make a slip on a fact or miss a significant detail, and thoughtful, informed, conservative editing by many sharp-eyed contributors can make the whole product richer. RhymeNotStutter 13:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I do understand why you took out something until verified, thank you for the help. Goldenrowley 18:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Theodore Koeber's book is not in my library chain when I checked. If anyone has the original PRIMARY source for the Coastanoan earthmaker myth, I would appreciate it. Goldenrowley 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion on organization: Going by the Wikpedia formatting rules, I think most of the traditional narrative sources are more like a 'further reading' section... a "further reading" section might be a smooth way to recommend them above sources, without putting them in the middle of the article. Goldenrowley 00:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Results of research: Theodore Kroeber's book "Almost Ancestors", I have checked that out from the library. She indeed gives a wonderful earthmaker mythology from California Natives...however she did not attribute where it came from, so it could be anyplace in California. McArdle just misled me on this matter. I promptly took McArdle's ideas out of the articles on Ohlone. Goldenrowley 16:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

10-30-06

Ok I am motivated today. There was a motion on the table from Bruce to close "Intro side bar" (archive it) and work only on the "live" version. I would be okay with this. Is everyone ok with that? Goldenrowley 23:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to pull all the footnotes. I'll post an all clear message on this page. --meatclerk 06:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ALL CLEAR -- I've removed all footnotes from the Intro. Feel free to edit it now, yourself as well as Bruce. Please don't cut and paste from other section. If you must use other sections, copy and paste, instead. Also, don't worry about the footnotes, I'll deal with that once we are all done. --meatclerk 06:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

OKay however its too late tonight, I plan maybe tomorrow eve, I had just minor ideas by the way I am a minimalist. Goldenrowley 06:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I should also point out, I submitted A.S. Taylor for review and I got back comments. Most notabley this one should help. Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Note the section on intro. --meatclerk 07:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Per the manual of style, the Intro should summarize the article, so by this logic, the detailed etymology of the words Costanoan and Ohlone probably should be moved down into the body of the article. Indeed, the 'summary' of the dichotomy of the words are captured by Oholone(Costanoan) in the first sentence. BruceHallman 18:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bruce, I agree. However, given the confusion on the words, I believe one (1) sentence could cover the entire issue. Perhaps somethinge like,

• Ohlone and Costanoan are recognized as misappropriations for what should have been Oljon and Costeños, respectively; but even now the trend is toward Muwekma, the word for the people in the native languages of East Bay Chocheño and Tamyen.

However, even that seems too wordy. I will let you and Goldenrowley work on that. I'm off to the bay today to see if I can get some good photographs of the tules. --meatclerk 20:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The confusion of the words is well covered in the article, and the summary should be concise. I see that essentially no one will be so confused by the first paragraph as to be mislead, or turned away, so I favor to error on the side of simplicity and keep the intro short. BruceHallman

The intro is supposed to suggest the topics in the article, one topic is that the group has 3 names and what they mean. Per the style guidelins, the 3 names are supposed to be like this: Ohlone, also known as Costanoan, also known as Muwekma in the first sentence. I like the existing concise explanation in the intro of what each name means, by the way. Goldenrowley 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry my example was not clear. The confusion is in the names themselves. Ohlone and Costanoan are inventions; no more valid than Indianology. They never were any more than a misunderstanding and confusion amoung ethnologists, historians, ethnolinguists, etc. You don't need to give the reason for the confusion, just mention there was one. Muwekma, aka 'the people, is the target the native population is hoping for. Is any of this not clear? --meatclerk 05:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

KQED 'American Indian Heritage Month'

main page --meatclerk 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

More on Intro

This much is incorrect

The Ohlone people, also known as the Costanoan and Muwekma,

Do you want footnotes or references to correct it?

--meatclerk 05:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia style guide was a tremendous help to me thank you. Now I can see why meatclerk wanted a little more he wants to "prepare the reader" for the nuances of the article. As for first sentence "also known as" part, I merely did what the style guide suggested for multiple names. I am in legal dept and "also known as" (aka) is nothing more than a way to put it on the table the different names a group is known by so I agreed it with the idea. ... You'd have to tell me why calling them Ohlone/Costanoan and Muwekma is incorrect, or suggest a rephrase, because I don't see it (right off the bat). Goldenrowley 06:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

All Names are Inventions by the way...I see your reasoning Meatclerk I just ran out of time for the eve. Happy Halloween! Goldenrowley 07:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Leave it for the weekend. Right now, I'm trying to finish my stuff and get ready for work. BTW, got some great information on the correct tule used by our natives. Also, found the correct reference for acrons and oak trees. It's all in my notes and I'm getting my website ready so you can read it later. BTW, I can tell you are tired. Get some rest. --meatclerk 07:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks sometimes the muse is with me, sometimes not. The facts I entered last night into intro seem like the main points, although maybe its not the size alone making them important, they were also important for being here over 1500 years in the Silicon Valley & were the richest metro in the USA's first inhabitants. Maybe that's a conclusional type sentence. Goldenrowley 17:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question was -- Do you want footnotes or references to correct it? Answer - instead of footnotes in an introduction I think a parenthetical phrase might be more attractive, if any. Bruce seems to think discussion of names would be an aside or qualifier. I am on the fence, so I would suggest we compare to what other ethnic groups do. Goldenrowley 18:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

For comparison purposes, the best articles in this Genre: Mandan is the only Native American article with an A+, while Cherokee, Comanche and Duwamish are the 3 that follow with solid A's.

Bruce, your help is always so great. One thing I took out in the first sentence: Rumsen-Mutsen IF we list them, we must list all 6 current tribes equally, There are 3 current divisions and about 6 tribes right now. Goldenrowley 04:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dropping Intro discussion for now

On the intro, I see my suggestions as being counter-productive. We can always fix it later. Right now there are many more things that need to be done. I plan on continuing programming until I can move my notes online. I don't see me being much help talking about it; I see my self helping more by getting the book research done, via whatever notes need to be made. Anyway more later. --meatclerk 06:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)