Talk:Ohlone/Archive 2

message: The opening paragraph has many errors. I want to reduce it, eliminating errors. I would rather rewrite it, but I am far afield from my current tasks. I'll wait until Monday (2006/10/09) to do this. Any comments? -- meatclerk 21:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: This section begun by Goldenrowley 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents/Outlining 

message: I thougth it would be good to get some notes on this issue, even though we may not resolve it. Currently we have hunter-gatherer, proto-farmer or hunter-harvester. The complete notes will be done on Wens or Thurs with all the pluses and minuses on each.  -- meatclerk 06:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hunter-gatherer meets WP:V, the other two seem like they violate WP:NOR  BruceHallman 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

text: More reading completed. They did hunt and gather plus netted ducks and geese and fish, and lampooned fish and trapped them.  I've seen several books mention "acorn crops" but I've seen no other mention of "crops". One book says that acorns were actually a smart way to go, far less labor intensive than farming, grinding acorns is nothing compared to the labor to farm and do the planting. The people knew the best places for food during the year, they knew the seasonal runs of ducks, paths of geese paths and fish.  Goldenrowley 07:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolutionary state of Ohlone 

message: The populations from 1770 to 1920 will be revisited and checked, as soon as I go to the library tomorrow.  I don't think we should mention Ishi as he's not an Ohlone (so his life is not the subject) and it seems conjectural that his being the "last Indian" changed the course of the research of the Ohlone people by triggering all sort of jealousy . Any news or progress on hunter gathering sources and other topics? Goldenrowley 04:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  10-11-06 revisited 

message: * Guys, what happened to the footnotes, etc.? never mind
* Population is subjective. There were no censustakers, so numbers are a sophisticated guessing game.
***But USA took census from 1790 to 1880.... I'm looking for that data sort of.Goldenrowley 18:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Milliken has a nice book with great points and great list of tribes at the back.   I'll be adding a book report to the talk section, after gathering my thoughts. I think the article should definitely mention the wave of conversions in 1795, and then what happened afterward.  To answer one of the earliest questions I can agree, as has been suggested in archoves 001 to standarize the spelling  in the article by Milliken with a footnote. If all agree it can be one of the things we can do. Goldenrowley 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milliken 

message: J, Nice harvestor research ..and source gathering. Well my feeling is its published so its not breaking the original research rule.  I'd link to go back to having the link to hunter-gatherer and add the additional research right after. I think it would be very interesting to place 1-2 sentence quote in the article from one of these sources. I think the article on  hunter-gatherer page is a good one, it says that it is not exclusive. I also read the women planted or kept fields of grass seeds, had a run in with the settlers over whose grass it was... Goldenrowley 03:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon, you might be right, I am not at all qualified on linguistics, I just quoted Milliken otherwise don't feel educated enough to help with that section. I am now hestitant to make sweeping changes to spelling in this article to match Milliken. Even he didn't say it was definite!  Maybe we should just put his spellings in parenthesis. Goldenrowley 21:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: hmm, can't find my Teixeira book. In any case, the (anno.) person making the claim may be correct. However, to make the change as suggested the person would need to make an citation. As we are citing all our sources then there is no doubt about their origins. This is not about right or wrong, unfortunately. Per the concensus by which wikipedia runs, the person making the claim may either make the correction with citation, or wait for us to get to it. I've already tagged the article as inaccurate and the noted suggestion is one of many items to be looked at. --meatclerk 05:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oct 13-15

message: Bruce, a really big migration wave was in 1795 (1 year), and it caused  a big repurcussion that year... since I researched it,  I'll try to get the exact citation tonight. Goldenrowley 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wave in 1795 

message: It occured to me that the map we have been using is incorrect. I note that many references say "Costanoan/Ohlone, a linguist group ...", but the term has wider meaning now. As such, here is a partial redefinition.
* The Ohlone (also known as the Costanoan) refers to a group of Native Americans who have resided in what is now southern Marin County, the San Francisco Bay Area and Monterey Bay areas of California.
I say this because a few references used to have Coastal Miwok as Costanoan, but Milliken does not. Meaning that the linguistics reference has changed. However, the issue of the Mission Indians gets muddy now, because about 1810 Mission Dolores was sending their natives to Marin to recover from diseases. Likely, any surviving peninsula and east bay natives went there. 
Now add to that the confusion of the 1840s. If any survived on the peninsula, of which evidence there is (Brown,1974 says 37 in 1822), and then the government calling calling them Costanoan until 1930s(Teixeira,1997 pg. 4), then their might be an issue. However, we could resolve this issue many ways. I.E. the latest Bureau of Entomology definition, or agree on a standard text, or make a reference to it in the article.. AnyHOW......
In any case, I would like to put this under the heading of "unresolved issues" and get back to it next month. The "history tab" says I have been at this since Oct 5, so I need to get back to the other articles. This means I need to finish everything started and put all new issues under the heading "unresolved issues". If you guys are good with that, then I will put this and several other issues in that file/subpage. Comments? --meatclerk 08:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok of course you may step away as needed. Personally I will try to put this and the subpages into a finished template format before stopping. On redefining this page to cover all the Indians in the Bay Area, including North Bay Miwok, sorry but I do not agree, stick with the definition we have researched and found, the article is based on the Costanoan region and language group with 8 divisions, and they are not the only Bay Area language group, have to share the Bay with Miwok and Patwin people. Ohlone seems to be more of a current "renaming" process, etc, but some of the the Muwekma want to be called Muwekma instewad, etc. Not mentioned but one of our link says the Native Muwekma are looking for tribal recognition. Goldenrowley 18:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think there is reason for this. But let's just put it on the "unresolved issues" and get to it next year, maybe. --meatclerk 05:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok I hope you guys like the page design and colors selected, I tried to stay with earth and golden colors. Goldenrowley 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Colors are fine. --meatclerk 05:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a Costanoan/Ohlone? 

message: On the stub, I changed and added a few things.
1) fake entry example for wikitionary.org
2) Split long sentence.
3) French and Russians brought diseases too, likely. But they really don't know. Most guess it was the soilders.
4) Hence, syphilis
--meatclerk 06:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village Stub