Talk:Cheshiahud

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

United States: Washington / Seattle Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

Indigenous peoples of North America

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Native Americans, Indigenous peoples in Canada, and related indigenous peoples of North America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Indigenous peoples of North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North AmericaIndigenous peoples of North America articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Historical ambiguities[edit]

So did Cheshiahud buy the land, or was it given to him? Also: this is odd syntax: "Residency has been for some 10,000 years, and definitively at least 4,000 years." --Lukobe 17:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bought or gifted:

Please see relevant footnotes. This article exemplifies how even good sources provide overlapping info, some corroborating, some more or less conflicting. I so note, such as so many names for Cheshiahud, and no definitive identification found so far. Bought or given, WP:Reliable source provided for each. If I were reasonably paid, I'd sleuth the actual location, schlep down to the City archives and dig up the title path, which would identify transactions back to the initial plat. For now, we have the ambiguity of history, albeit reasonably documented here.

I suggest in that case that you specify that it is not known which is the case, rather than first saying the one, then parenthetically saying the other. --Lukobe 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised how much can be gleaned from image catolog data and image technical info.

There might be (though unlikely) some interesting complications in this regard with respect to potlatching. Usually personal property was involved, but some other transaction might have occurred under the rubric of "buy" or "given"—if the buyer and seller were within the potlatching group. The potlatch drove the Whites to distraction. [ed. --19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)]

Odd syntax, 10,000 years and 4,000 years

Again, I'm trying to be concise. Folks have been living all 'round these parts since land emerged from under ice (immediately--there's evidence that, like the Alaska North Slope at ANWR, ice-free oases and passages long existed around the Salish Sea before the ice retreated, and paddlers were here as soon as the water was open, ice-free land or no). Is that cool or what?
In part because Native people didn't leave as much non-degradable junk lying about, that this is an environment rather conducive to stuff disappearing (in the mild and damp climate), and that so much within what is now Seattle was rather aggressively, erm, destroyed, we have the definitive evidence back 4,000 years. So I squeezed occupancy into 'bout a dozen words.

For now. Wikipedia is a work in progress.

For now, how much to tell in one article?

Uh yeah. "Residency has been" is not idiomatic English. That's what I was talking about. --Lukobe 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The man

For Cheshiahud, provisionally I've chosen that name as next-most common to Lake John but less ambiguous, and most similar to his real name in Southern Lushootseed, AKAICT (as far as I can tell : ) There are some WP editors who know some Salishan linguistics and might tell.

Cohousing condos[edit]

Cohousing condominiums

This is of some importance in revealing both differences and similarities, in this case similarities much later. If we're making so many links, then we should not assume many readers are already familiar with such as culture. Like "daylighting creeks" just means putting light on creeks, "longhouse" is just a long house : ) Not. The importance here is that the Native villages were forerunners of density housing for some tens or several hundred people, rather than a single family per house like the Whites (and suggesting a further wealth of implications about more differences). "[S]acred place": there were (and are) profound gulfs in weltanschauung. English doesn't have an accurate word.

This information should be in the longhouse article. We don't need "forerunners of cohousing condominiums" all over the place. --Lukobe 03:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A longhouse is not merely a house that is long; a longhouse provides housing for many more families than those Whites used at the time. The identification is of signal importance in context, independent of a link. Together with other demographics, that these were cooperative, multi-family dwellings is useful to accurate understandings. --GoDot 04:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy to condos is ridiculous: a condominium is a mode of property ownership completely alien to Native American culture. The analogy to cohousing is better, but it is "cutesy": Northwest Natives were not making a mildly countercultural lifestyle choice, they were living in the way that was normal to their culture. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

forerunner

n 1: anything that precedes something similar in time; [syn: {antecedent}] (WordNet)

condominium

2. a complex of dwelling units (as an apartment house) in which each unit is individually owned (as contrasted with rented). (WordNet)

cohousing

n. "A living arrangement that combines private living quarters with common dining and activity areas in a community whose residents share in tasks such as childcare." (American Heritage Dictionary)

With respect to the neutral point of view of dictionary definitions, the words are appropriate in context. The concepts of privacy and ownership differed in detail, but for the purposes of introductory description, meaningful accuracy is not lost. The longhouse in the context of the article was multifamily, extended family, shared ownership, with personal areas and common activity areas.

--GoDot 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Locations[edit]

Mercer Slough

"Kelsey Creek (Redirected from Mercer Slough)". One is sufficient. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (MoS) recommends going as directly as possible, but not surprising readers with unexpected results. MoS further recommends not painting the article blue, that links be particularly relevant, rather than just because a link is possible. [Source is WP:WIAGA or similar.]

Shelby Street

"[T]here's a plaque there I believe" Where there is more than one answer, and with publicly-available, reliable sources, per the MoS, the multiple answers should be shown. So far, sources do not definitively tell which Shelby Street. Plaques, etc. are famously unreliable, often being placed by biased interests. There are monuments around Seattle and across the country that are famous for being more than a little misleading, and books have been written about them.

If a monument exists, someone could identify it, quote it, and note what reliability it provides.

Thanks for catching some links and typos. I had gatheed some of them for the next go round, but not all. --GoDot 07:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style[edit]

Lake Union, Seattle, Washington: most relevant first.

Duwamish Tribe is a proper noun, an official legal entity, as distinct from Duwamish tribe, which amorphously refers to people with Duwamish in their genology who have chosen to provide proof. --GoDot 07:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"few Natives remaining", link is not needed; the word is linked at first appearance, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (cf. Help:Editing#Links, URLs) in the lead paragraph, last line. --GoDot 19:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cheshiahud. 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/20060909033642/http://www.seattlehistory.org:80/ to http://seattlehistory.org
Corrected formatting/usage for http://duwamishtribe.org/html/lake_john.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909033642/http://www.seattlehistory.org:80/ to http://seattlehistory.org
Corrected formatting/usage for http://duwamishtribe.org/html/lake_john.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sewardpark.org/sewardpark/history.html

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 12:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]