# Talk:Ohlone

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

Talk:Ohlone/Archive 001 - Material and conversations before 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Ohlone/Archive 002 - Most material from 5 Oct - 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Ohlone/Archive 003 - Most material from 25 Oct - 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Talk:Ohlone/Archive 004 - Material from 12 November - 2 April 2007 a.m.(UTC)

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

Talk:Ohlone/Ohlone Book Reviews and Research Aid
Talk:Ohlone/village stub - To cover all villages early, we combined efforts on a generic stub.
Lastly, please use the blank headers below, as needed.


### Currently Open Side bar conversations :
Talk:Ohlone/New Intro - The page lists our combined efforts on a new introduction.
Talk:Ohlone/Unresolved issues - some open issues we have delayed on
Talk:Ohlone/salt - draft on salt  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessemonroy650 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
(archived prior to April)

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

Ok I did a final tidy this week, then nominated it as a good article. Goldenrowley 20:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

This article looks like a GA to me, the references are quite well done, no image problems that I see, it's by and large well written and orderly, and there's only one thing that seems a bit off, "This Spanish encroachment into the region disrupted and undermined the Ohlone social structures and way of life.", unless i'm reading the article wrong, it doesn't seem to demonstrate whhy the Ohlone social structures were undermined, while I surmise the large amounts of death caused by the missions couldn't of helped their culture, the article doesn't seem to demonstrate the cultural decline here much. Also, think about expanding the lead if possible, I don't see any major problems with its scope, but with the number of different sections, it might be possible to expand it a bit better (without going overboard), and it may come up in a PR or FAC, either of which I recommend this article have next. Homestarmy 19:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Homestarmy. I speak for several  hard workers in thanking you for your review and helpful comments and good article approval!  Your comments are very helpful Goldenrowley 20:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Does the use of this word in the opening paragraph refer to reduction by one tenth (as it properly should), or reduction to one tenth, as it often mistakenly does?  Since the answer is seldom immediately obvious without tedious and irrelevant explanations, I suggest that this word be avoided.
Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The word is used in accordance with the meaning decimate 4(b) in the Oxford English Dictionary:  "To destroy or remove a large proportion of; to subject to severe loss, slaughter, or mortality."  Though, I agree heartily that this word is ambiguous and often misunderstood.  Do you have a suggestion for a better word?  SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Culture and Society" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.
Needs inline citations:

Sources should be added for the claims in the first paragraph of "Population".
"The population after 1900 finally stabilized. There are at least 1,400 on tribal membership rolls by year 2005."
Other issues:

To better summarize the article, the lead needs to be expanded to three or four paragraphs. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
""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." Who said this quote? Also, a brief introduction would be beneficial.
This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with the related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


### GA Sweeps Review: Failed
Unfortunately, since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. With a little work, it should have no problems getting back up to GA status. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nehrams I did see and want to address your GA concerns I have just been very distracted lately with personal matters. The only issue that may need some thought and writing is expanding the introduction (if the editors agree that's important. I do not really see long introductions as serving much purpose so have difaculty adding to the intro if that's my belief). Thank you. Goldenrowley (talk) 01:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I have decided to enter the page for a RE-assessment. I do not think a longer introduction is in the interest of the article, its a long enough article as it stands. The only other item was minor considering all the citations already here one sentence is ^two sentences are^ not cited. ^Everything was cited to cut down on footnotes everywhere, we put most footnotes at the end of each paragraph about the entire paragraphs.^ Goldenrowley (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Notes on rewrite of introduction, and if it should occur.  meatclerk (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be noted early on how the source came about. For instance, we do not note that many early records come from travel journals and personal diaries. We do mention archǣlogy directly, but that seems to be the case. Do quote some sources directly, but in many places its not clear to the casual reader who the person is. For example:
(Culture, para 4)In fact, there were so many sea lions that to Crespi it "looked like a pavement" to the incoming Spanish
--

The opening section is missing historical references past 1833. The material exists below.
(Culture, para 1) some internecine conflict. Where does this come from?
(Culture, para 2) grass seeds and berries, while other vegetation, hunted and trapped   This part makes no sense to me.
Missing in (Culture, para 6) is that men would cover themselves in mud on cold days.
Technical Error Junípero Serra died in 1784, so he could not help build all the mission. In fact, Father Lassen helped build the bulk of all the missions. At present, I cannot find a refernce for him, but will later.
-- meatclerk (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The transisition of administration is discussed perpherially. That is the societal rule, from native rule, to Spanish rule, to Mexican, to Bear Flag, to USA, should be outlined better.
Somehow, it was cutout the answer to the question as to: why something are ambiguous. IN DEED, this is why we should discusss (if shortly) the sources.
-- meatclerk (talk) 22:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

These are great observations thanks for taking time to look for elements to improve. Goldenrowley (talk) 16:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What about the thousand-some "Californian Indian" residents living in the Point Reyes area, Marin County, California north of San Francisco? For many decades, the self-claimed Marin County Ohlones fought for state and federal recognition of themselves are descendants of the Ohlones (Karkins) and other North Coast Indians survived the Spanish colonial period of the 18th-early 19th centuries. I found no mention of the Marin County Ohlone in the article, but Marin County was thought to been visited by Ohlones from their historic range in present day San Mateo and Contra Costa-Alameda counties. +71.102.2.206 (talk) 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure you're not thinking of the Coast Miwok?I've never heard of Ohlones in Marin but I beleive the Miwok are related linguistically. Goldenrowley (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
On second thought It's entirely possible a tribe of Karkin went to Marin and were at the Mission. If you have sources please provide sources. Goldenrowley (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Editors of Ohlone article: 
I tried to improve the History section on the fly last night and tonight, then gummed it up, including accidentally trampling inside the quotation marks on a Frank Stanger quote. (Don't know what got into me.) But I just undid all those changes I made. It is back to pre-Middle Fork. But I think the section is a mess. Frank Stanger, as a historian, is an inappropriate person to cite on SF Bay prehistory; besides that he got part of it wrong, even for 1968, if he said shell mounds date to 4000 BC (I don't have his article). 
Can I get support for changing the sources for Early-Middle-Late Horizons to Beardsley 1948, Elsasser 1978, and Moratto 1984? Alternatively, I will leave Stanger in as "one alternative view" but I have no idea where he got that date, unless it was from Gifford's 1916 "shell mound volume" article that is useful only for the history of archaeological inquiry.Middle Fork (talk) 05:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know them but am not a historian. I would support adding alternative, expert views on dating. We once went over what books we thought were reputable, you can check the archives of this talk page to see if we discussed Stanger... I think we did. I suggest (as you are new) you use your sandbox to for paragraph drafts first, to avoid "accidental trampling" as you call it ("Middle fork/sandbox") Goldenrowley (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

To Dedicated Ohlone Page Editors. I have today made some important changes in the introduction to the article. I believe they are factually correct, but I have not inserted citations yet. I have so many citations that I do not know where to start, especially given that I will later add them in places below the introduction.  One of my important changes is imbedded in the new text, that "Costanoan" is still considered the preferred alternative to "Ohlone" by most linguists. The other, the removal of "Muwekma" as an alternative to Costanoan or Ohlone, is not explained in its absence. Please be assured that the Muwekma Ohlone themselves would never contend that "Muwekma" is applied to any larger group than the combined "Ramaytush, Tamyen, Chochenyo" of the San Francisco Bay Area. None of the Rumsen or Mutsun descendents are, or consider themselves to be, Muwekma. And also, some Mutsun and Rumsen descendents currently bitterly dislike the cover-term Ohlone, instead proudly call themselves Costanoan Indians. In coming weeks, I will be adding citations and text in all other areas of this article, and hope that other editors will look up the citations before you revert me. By the end of the year, I think you will agree that my additions will strengthen the article and help achieve the certification from Wikipedia for which Goldenrowley has applied.Middle Fork (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Middle fork. I appreciate help with the intro and (by the way) I think it qualifies as "good article" already, for a long time, and hope that status is given back to the article now that I've fixed most of the things that delisted it. Several comments to you:  Muwekma is used by the Muwekma tribe website  and it's a gained popular usage (as opposed to Linguist's usage), so can you reinsert them in the intro, in that respect?  Perhaps it just needs to clarify they're the modern name for the North Bay subgroup. Onto the next matter, you wondered where to put new citations. Look at this page's citation style -- the editors decided to put the footnotes for each paragraph mostly at the end of each paragraph (on anything in the paragraph) although for "good article" status I embedded a few citations last night to backup some numbers, and I do beleive it's a good idea to embed them when it's a "hot button" like population.Goldenrowley (talk) 22:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Goldenrowley. I am glad you accepted most of my changes. Note that copy-editor Maleus (sp?) really went through it and made some text much more straightforward.  I also have read some of your earlier discussion, and know that you guys have really struggled with the term Muwekma. But I really do not believe it is appropriate in an introductory discussion on the overall language group name. If you start talking about Muwekma as a language name in the introduction, something Jack Forbes proposed, then you are almost obliged to discuss its different use as a modern cultural/political group name right there in the introduction, and that brings up the word Amah, which is in the same tradition. I have added a new footnote in the Language section which discusses the introduction of the word Muwekma in the Forbes classification, and its subsequent rejection. Do what you want, including revert. I will live with it. Gotta go focus elsewhere for awhile.Middle Fork (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I like how you expanded the intro. I like how you mentioned Muwekma a little lower down in the intro with a good desctiption. I also like the stylistic edits by Malleus Fatuorum, who caught some grammatical and typographical things. Thanks to both. Goldenrowley (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Editors. I have just removed a sentence that was sitting at the end of the list of Ohlone divisions because the statement, a quote, does not exactly address the problem that it intends to address. Here it is. "According to Milliken, "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."" This was originally written by Milliken to explain how "he" was going to spell the names of the divisions. But as it was being used here in Wikipedia, it seems to be trying to explain how "anyone" came to spell the names. And amazingly enough, the problem is resolved by referring to "English language publications." Does that not seem circular to you?  Anyway, I say we do not even address the issue, just leave this quote out of the article.Middle Fork (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

However, I liked the quote, it explains a lot (I think) of how our understanding of the native vocabulary came to be, and shaded and developed through a Spanish vocabulary and what sounds they'd hear versus not hear... would it make sense to let the quote stay in, without trying to prove anything before or after it? Goldenrowley (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The quote just does not pertain to exactly the situation you are trying to explain. I am substituting in with: "The above division designations, mostly derived from selected local tribe names found in mission records, were first offered in 1974 by Heizer (citing Richard Levy) as direct substitutes for Kroeber’s earlier designations based upon the names of local Spanish missions. The spellings are anglized forms of group names that were were first written down by Spanish missionaries and soldiers who were trying to capture the sounds of languages foreign to them. (cite Heizer 1974:3, Milliken 1995:xiv)" Fix or remove as you wish, since it is something you are trying to communicate. The whole thing is a nightmare. Most of the names Heizer (actually Levy) introduced were local tribe  names that they elevated to represent a division (Chalon, Rumsen, Mutsun, Tamyen, Karkin), thus globalizing the local tribe in question to include other local tribes within the given mission catchment. The other three had their own unique histories: Chochenyo=slang for José-eño, Ramaytush=obscure Chochenyo reference for SF Peninsula and its people (courtesy of unpublished Harrington notes), Awaswas="northerners" in most of the Costanoan languages.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Middle Fork (talk • contribs) 21:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I am fine with the new info you used to replace it with. Goldenrowley (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

To All Editors and Commentators. I have taken the liberty to move a sentence that was just added to the culture section here for purposes of its contemplation. The sentence was just added by editor Plumpurple (glad to know you), hard upon the existing material on plant use:

The Ohlone also practiced sophisticed use of plant extracts for non-food use; for example, tribes extracted a substance from the Coastal woodfern Dryopteris arguta that they used as a hair shampoo.
My number one problem is the lack of citation for this statement (which Plumpurple can probably quickly fix.) My number two problem is, "What is this special interest in wood fern?" The paragraph on plant use is currently nicely presented without enumerating the scores of plant uses documented for central California Indians. Adding it in opens up criticism as to why soapplant, for instance, was not mentioned, or why the three species used to make bowstrings have not been listed here. Does Wikipedia have a page for "Native Plant Uses in California?" Perhaps a link could be made to such a page, or perhaps someone could start such a page.Middle Fork (talk) 03:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, i am somewhat open as to the best way to proceed. i can add the citation for shampoo use, but you have raised some important fundamental questions. yes, we certainly should have other (non food) plant use examples, which i shall add as i find them. yes we should have an article on Native plant uses in California, but that page would be enormous. it seems like in the best spirit of a wiki we should accumulate breadth on native plant use within each tribe article, until we have enough information in each such specific article. this is clearly an area where wikipedia lacks depth. what do you think? Plumpurple (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
You and I agree that a good encyclopedia would give information about plant uses of Native Americans. But an encyclopedia must also consider space, even an ever-expanding Wikipedia. We already have an administrator complaint that the Ohlone article is getting pretty long. But there is another problem. Most plant use enumerations for the Ohlone found in secondary sources are actually extrapolations from studies of Pomo and Sierra Miwok plant uses. The "specifics" of contact-period Ohlone culture, including plant use, are poorly documented (see Harrington's 1942 "Central California Coast" CED study in Anthropological Records vol. 7). Most specific Ohlone plant-use information comes from Mutsun decendant Ascencion Solarsano in the 1930s, 130 years after her people had become Mission Indians. Thus, any long list of Ohlone plant use would merely be an educated projection of information from surrounding areas. For such a detailed presentation of contact-period California Indian plant uses, I think we would be better off to have a dedicated article on the entire California Culture Area. I do not know how to start a "stub" for such an article, but contributor Goldenrowley does. Maybe Goldenrowley can help out here.Middle Fork (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea of non-food plants but gave my Ohlone books back to the library last year. To start a new stub I will leave it to one of you as the one who wants it most should do it :-) to get the credit and/or the comments. First check there is no article already at the California state level. type in the name of the desired article into the "search" field at left. Wikipedia will send you a message the article does not exist yet and ask if you want to create one. Chose "yes" and you'll be into  edit mode with an entirely blank page. Goldenrowley (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Also I think its fine to add non-food use plants to the Culture section of Native American Articles as long as its important: i.e. using the local vegetation to build rafts seems much more important than shampoo, and shampoo is minor compared to staple foods for survival.Goldenrowley (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The population section includes this text: "Later researchers such as Richard Levy estimated "10,000 or more" Ohlone." The source in the reference section: (Margolin, Malcolm. The Ohlone Way: Indian Life in the San Francisco-Monterey Bay Area) also reads "Over 10,000 people lived in the coastal area between Point Sur and the San Francisco Bay.", and further says, "Before the coming of the Spaniards, Central California had the densest Indian population anywhere north of Mexico." That sounds like an interesting claim, are there any other sources that support this? Should this note be added to the population section?
Kaitymh (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 Done

"The highest estimate comes from Sherburne F. Cook, who in later life concluded there were 26,000" yet later we say, he didn't give a number.  All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

OK this figure was "including Salinans". All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 14:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC).

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ohlone people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070311094423/http://www.sacred-texts.com:80/nam/ca/ric/ to http://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/ca/ric
Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051211074202/http://www.muwekma.org:80/history/history_04s.html to http://www.muwekma.org/history/history_04s.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I removed the following uncited, POV, and dubious claims:

The Emeryville Shellmound is known to be the capital of the Chechenyan people. The Chechenyans are a division of the Ohlone people and are known to be the most advanced.
To begin with, the Ohlone/Costanoan peoples were never centralized polities with any kind of "capital", but simply loose villages with no authority beyond the village level, only a loose tribal identity related to what dialect of Ohlone the group spoke. How the Chechenyans were the most "advanced" of the Ohlone peoples is neither stated nor sourced, and is an entirely dubious claim. The various Ohlone peoples and neighboring non-Ohlone natives all existed at a more or less equal technological and political level.
I've kept a single sentence describing the Emeryville Shellmound, with a "cite needed" note. Peter G Werner (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ohlone/CommentsTalk:Ohlone/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 01:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC).
Substituted at 01:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ohlone people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071227170852/http://www.ethnologue.com:80/ to http://www.ethnologue.com/.
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a non-sequitur in two sentences in the Introduction section that hint at potential improvement with a brief but important clarification:  Prior to the Gold Rush, the northern California region was one of the most densely populated regions north of Mexico.[3] However, in the years 1769 to 1833, the Spanish missions in California had a negative effect on Ohlone culture, and the Ohlone population declined steeply during this period.  Is there a cause-effect relationship here?  The second sentence changes topic from demographics ("densely populated") to anthropology ("negative effect on Ohlone culture"): they don't fit.  However, with proper documentation and citations, the first sentence could move beyond implication to state that Spanish missions introduced Eurasian diseases (typical impact across the Americas), which had more than just a "negative effect" on Ohlone culture:  very likely, the Spanish missions decimated the population of the peninsula, which in turn could have led to loss of culture...  Is there an expert who could flesh this out briefly but accurately?  (I did not find details to this effect in the article below.) --Aboudaqn (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Ohlone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061208132719/http://www.esselennation.com/OCENToday.html to http://www.esselennation.com/OCENToday.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ethnologue.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Someone added two (2) paragraphs under #Etymology. The writting was a subjective entry. I deleted it. Please help the person adding this material. They may be well intentioned, but you CANNOT write an entry as an opinion, as this person did.
Thanks meatclerk (talk) 04:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Need to update these subsections with information with 2011 victories for the indigenous peoples. (Making a note for myself when I have some time) Bastique ☎ call me! 16:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

links [Victory at Sogorea Te/Glen Cove https://sacredland.org/victory-at-sogorea-teglen-cove/] [Ohlone's Struggle to Save Sacred Site May Be Succeeding in Santa Cruz http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/774/7/] and more.  Bastique ☎ call me! 16:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Ramaytush are the only remaining Ohlone who lived on the SF peninsula but they indicate that another group, I believe Yelamu, lived in what is now SF. Are Yelamu part of a larger Ramaytush grouping as indicated on Wikipedia, or are they distinct but also effectively extinct? The sources here are from 1995. I suggest using recent Ohlone sources.

This new article may be of relevance to this article. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

The main source is: Severson, Alissa L.; Byrd, Brian F.; Mallott, Elizabeth K.; Owings, Amanda C.; DeGiorgio, Michael; de Flamingh, Alida; Nijmeh, Charlene; Arellano, Monica V.; Leventhal, Alan; Rosenberg, Noah A.; Malhi, Ripan S. (2022-03-29). "Ancient and modern genomics of the Ohlone Indigenous population of California". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (13): –2111533119. doi:10.1073/pnas.2111533119. Retrieved 2022-03-22.  --Erp (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I tried putting a more specific source for this claim, but couldn't find anything. I see plenty of sources for mass deaths from disease, forced labor, systematic suppression of culture, etc., so still definitely ethnocide/genocide regardless, but the sources on this page and the California genocide page don't list any massacres (closest is a source for population decline of Costanoans). Does anyone know of a source for one of the state massacres including Ohlone people? If so, we should not only cite it, but include details in the history section (if not, we should use a more careful wording). Tga (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure there are deliberate massacres of Ohlone though I could be wrong.  There well could have been individual killings with little attempt at justice and the many deaths due to unhealthy living conditions in the missions and later forced labor under American rule plus the deaths due to introduced diseases.  Madley's book (Madley, Benjamin (2016). An American genocide: the United States and the California Indian catastrophe, 1846-1873. The Lamar Series in Western History. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-18136-4.) has details including an appendix listing some of the massacres with numbers (a brief search doesn't show Ohlone or Costanoan listed there).  It also reports that Native Americans under mission control often received corporal punishment (and specifically mentions a report that in San Francisco one had  been whipped because he wept for his wife and child who had died [this was amidst a list of other reasons Native Americans in SF had been badly treated leading to them running away]).   Note we have the mission period where Native Americans were held in legal servitude.  Mexico independence period where Native Californians were seen as potential citizens and could become free and enfranchised (to the point that a few received land grants). Then the American period which doubled down on the servitude;  however, the Ohlone had already been reduced and somewhat assimilated.  I suspect some Ohlone, those who escaped the mission system and fled to areas of California where they could be free and their descendants, may have been massacred  with the groups they had taken refuge though this is speculation on my part and not something we can include. Erp (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see the problem! I reverted you previously, but that was my mistake; the source used doesn't specify Ohlone. Having looked into it, all the sources I can find speak of California Indians in general, and I can't really find any high quality (i.e., non-blog) sources that mention the Ohlone in this context.
The closest I can find is the following:
Laverty, Philip. "The Ohlone/Costanoan-Esselen Nation of Monterey, California: Dispossession, Federal Neglect, and the Bitter Irony of the Federal Acknowledgment Process." Wicazo Sa Review, vol. 18, no. 2, 2003, pp. 41–77. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1409537. Accessed 15 Dec. 2024.
This mentions "genocide" several times but in the general context of "Indians". There's no mention of "massacres". One can only infer a connection from the paper's focus and title, so I don't think that's enough.
Given that this is currently unsourced, I would suggest removing it from the lede and not just tagging it. If it's in the body as well, it should be tagged there. Lede-worthy info should be well sourced, I think. We can always add it back in if we find sources later on. What do you think? Lewisguile (talk) 09:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Removed.   I note the history section could be expanded.  The article should cover what happened after Mexican independence and American acquisition. Erp (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Lewisguile (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)