Talk:Ohlone/Archive 4

message: New article. Review, if you have time. --meatclerk 09:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice !   Goldenrowley 21:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sherburne F. Cook]] 

message: 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)
thread_title: Ohlone Population statistics 

message: "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)
thread_title: BREAKING News

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Tribelet Concern

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

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

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

message: 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:
# Lock down. No more additions to article until lock down complete.
# Align footnotes, resolve ambigous items. 
# Review by all before unlock.
# Unlock.
# 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 
* (See: Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance). 
The tag should be sufficient until all edit are complete.
Comments? --meatclerk 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lock Down 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Citations needed 

message: ::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)
replies: text: I'm not sure where that '500' number is, but let me take a quick look. --meatclerk 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, not sure which thing you are talking about. I don't recall this. --meatclerk 04:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Okay --meatclerk 04:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Fair

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Breaking News

message: All, am reordering the appendices to follow Wikipedia:Guide_to_layout#Standard_appendices. --meatclerk 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reordering appendices 

message: 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)
replies: text: ME TOO. Thanks.Goldenrowley 06:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology 

message: 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)
thread_title: Citations Requested

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  One word is questionable: Milliken is not "skewed". Goldenrowley 17:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Levy is not on our reference list. Name of book please. Goldenrowley 19:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Okay I'll search for the book too. Goldenrowley 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Correction and fixes 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pulled Original Research

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Consolidate citations 

message: * http://etext.virginia.edu/subjects/Native-American.html
--meatclerk 11:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great etext link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Mythology citation issue 

message: 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)
replies: text: wiped out from holiday work. meatclerk 06:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 12-21-06

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: ...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)
thread_title:  Disruptive editing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  grouchy xmas 

message: :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)
thread_title: Merry Christmass

message: 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)
thread_title: Final Word Choices

message: List of English words of Native American origin -- someone already noted "Abalone" is Rumsen - Goldenrowley 04:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ohlone topics on other pages

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Done 

message: 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)
replies: text: Also, peer review is a great tool to determine fitness for good article status. —210physicq (c) 02:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  My critique 

message: 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>
# Tribelet   ---> done 3/23/07.
# Native informant
# Valley Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)??  -- confused what to say --> possibly means a Valley Oak. done 3/25/07 linked to existing. 
# Big round tule (Scirpus lacustris)?? --- confused what to say --> add to Tule page. done 3/25/07. already linked.
# diseño --> done  3/25/07 
# diseño de terreno --> done 3/25/07 
# Ohlone (definition is there, make it better) -->done 4/1/07
# Amah --> done 4/1  but may fail as an "English word", not used in many  English publications.
# Muwekma (definition is there, make it better) -->done 4/1/07
•Goldenrowley 03:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: These particular concerns now completed to my own personal satisfaction. Goldenrowley 23:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next steps March/April