This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
A quick review of this talk page and the article's edit history demonstrates one user consistently chasing others away under the claim of accuracy.
"The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage." [1] - Tom Simonite, "The Decline of Wikipedia" 64.25.200.86 ( talk) 05:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to talk about the edit history, it's worth noting that the only person who's constantly been reverting has been Polyglottz, who has been banned from Wikipedia for his use of sockpuppets. < /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/TAG_speakers/Archive>
Every month or two, someone from a 64.x.x.x IP address returns to the article to make the exact same claims as Polyglottz and make the exact same reversions. If anyone should be accused of "one user consistently chasing others away under the claim of accuracy", it would be Polyglottz and his new anonymous IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Replaced intro section with Oxford dictionary def. Linguistic arguments should be handled in the article's body. 64.80.128.4 ( talk) 16:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There apparently is an edit war started by 166.170.x.x. Please stop. If you don't stop, the edit war will be reported to the Wikipedia authorities.
Should the article opening use the Oxford English Dictionary definition of "hapa"? One argument states the word has moved into mainstream English, as evidenced by the OED definition ("a person who is of partial Asian or Pacific Islander descent"), then follows article lead with the word's usage in Hawaii. Another edit argues the OED is not a reliable source on non-English words and leads with a Hawaiian-centric definition ("a person of mixed ethnic heritage"), then follows with California-centric usage. Sinoboalt ( talk) 05:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose First, as SMcCandlish stated, we shouldn't be favoring a single source over another. Second, we can't anyway because of copyright and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The suggestion that the word has entered the English language is awkward at best with only a primary dictionary source and no secondary source making the claim. The suggestion that this is entering the English language would make this a Neologism and therefore should probably be deleted, as is increasingly likely due to the history of this article and recent edit warring. Per WP:NEO: "Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in English." I feel this needs to be formally addressed at AFD.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 09:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Sinoboalt, your characterization of the situation is not accurate. The way the article is right now (April 15, 2015) is the best way to present the word because the first sentence of the lead describes BOTH definitions. Whether one is a hapa of any mix (Hawaiian usage) or a hapa of partial Asian or Pacific Islander heritage (Californian usage), both are "person[s] of mixed ethnic heritage." Therefore, it isn't accurate to say that the current edit "leads with a Hawaiian-centric definition." The first sentence of the current edit's lead is the most neutral way to portray the two usages.
As for the Oxford English Dictionary, there are several problems with the contention that we should defer to the Oxford Dictionary. First of all, the link is actually to the OxfordDictionaries.com website, which is not the same as the official Oxford English Dictionary. Second, the OxfordDictionaries.com website doesn't actually distinguish between mainstream American English (i.e. English that is used nationally across the US) and regionalisms. For example, if you look up "wicked" on UrbanDictionary.com < http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Wicked>, you'll see that it's clearly a New England slang word. If you look up "wicked" on OxfordDictionaries.com < http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/wicked>, definition 1.4 makes it sound like the word is used nationally in the way that New Englanders use it. Since OxfordDictionaries.com does not even properly distinguish between regionalisms and true mainstream American English, there is no reason to trust that Oxford has properly verified that "hapa" has entered national usage merely due to its inclusion on the website.
As we can see, it makes most sense for the first sentence of the lead to be the generic definition of "a person of mixed ethnic heritage" which is inclusive of both the Hawaiian and Californian usages and then to elaborate on the two specific regional usages. Until there is substantial evidence that the Californian usage has spread beyond California, there is no reason to have the first sentence of the lead give primacy to the Californian usage when a neutral first sentence is much more appropriate and accurate.
hapa
1. nvs. Portion, fragment, part, fraction, installment; to be partial, less. (Eng. half.) Cf. hapahā, hapalua, etc. Ka ʻike hapa, limited knowledge. Ua hapa nā hae, the flags are at half-mast. hoʻo.hapa To lessen, diminish.
2. nvs. Of mixed blood, person of mixed blood, as hapa Hawaiʻi, part Hawaiian. See hapa haole.
3. n. A-minor in music. See lele 7.
-- Mark Miller ( talk) 08:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The main article must include, at at a minimum, that many Caucasians find the term racist.
Please provide proof beyond your opinion that "many Caucasians find the term racist." That is not true in Hawai'i although I cannot provide at this moment a published cite to "prove" that per Wikipedia requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.249.170 ( talk) 02:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
This article is fundamentally flawed in that it is not an article about hapas. It's an article about the word hapa. If it were about hapas, it would be about one kind or the other and it would be clear what to say in the intro. And a terminology section could clear up any disputed usage. But as an article about the word, then the lead should read like, "The word hapa is used in English to mean either ..." and it should definitely say at some point what OED says about the word. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 01:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Because some people have more sensitive cultural beliefs to others, therefore for those people, it's only fair; this should not be in Wikipedia. IllogicMink ( talk) 07:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
And many others do not. The word haole is much more likely to be used in a racist context than the term hapa haole. Now, shall I find you a cite to "prove" that per Wikipedia requirements? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.162.249.170 ( talk) 02:20, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
All of the sources for this article need to be gone over with a fine tooth comb. Wikipedia is not a place to propagate any racial animosities or falsehood based on weak sources or academic sources that may be limited in relevance. The article suffers greatly from a haphazard (no pun intended) structure with a list of terms that have no referencing. I also feel strongly that the Hawaiian language is being misrepresented in this article and for that reason, amongst many others, this article should be pared down to a stub if necessary to remove sources that do not support claims, claims and text of a contentious or controversial nature that have no sourcing and any content that is not directly related to the word itself. After that, an AFD nomination is very likely.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 10:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
It appears this article was created in violation of at least one BLP policy regarding the naming of multiple living persons under this umbrella term that is highly contentious and controversial. It is an attempt to create a neologism and push this into reality through Wikipedia. I'm a little offended, but that's not the point. While I am tempted to see this as a hoax article, it is likely it is just one of a number of anonymous IP created articles from before 2005 that has escaped any real scrutiny from anyone with knowledge of the Hawaiian language, its culture, customs etc.. The result of this ill informed and under researched article is a Google result that highlights this article and term in a Google spotlight on the search result page. I believe it is possible that this article may meet criteria for speedy deletion.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
*G10. Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose.
These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met. Redirects from plausible search terms are not eligible under this criterion. For example, a term used on the target page to refer to its subject is often a plausible redirect – see Wikipedia:RNEUTRAL.
G3. Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes.
This includes blatant and obvious misinformation, blatant hoaxes (including images intended to misinform), and redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism.
Basically the issue is this; the article uses Wikipedia's voice of authority to create a non existing subject. A "Hapa" is not a person, it is not a phrase for a person. It is simply a Hawaiian language word with different meanings depending on how it is used. Hapa, in fact, also means "Harp".-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Please stop edit-warring, IP-hopping, adding innumerable unnecessary, unreliable, and non-substantiating citations, and adding inaccurate and uncited sentences. Right now we have an IP-hopper from Wichita using at least four different IPs so far, and we have IPs and IP hoppers from California and Singapore and elsewhere. These contributions have not been constructive or within Wikipedia guidelines, and therefore a neutral, short, and cited version of the article has been instated. Please do not alter it, and please discuss all matters on this Talk page before proceeding further. Thank you. Softlavender ( talk) 04:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, that's enough. The page is locked until consensus can be reached on this little opening paragraph. As I said on the RFPP page, the reverting editors are very fortunate not to be blocked for 3RR, so work it out here. Krakatoa Katie 05:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
This article could use more citations. A few more references would be beneficial to the reader. The article itself is also very contradictory and offers confusing, maybe even false, information on the term “hapa.” The etymology section of the article was highly informational it just needs to be fully citated. I think a section about how the term is used today would be a useful as well as informational addition to this article.
104.174.150.163 ( talk) 06:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, all. I'm working on developing the multiracialism article here on Wikipedia, and I aim to broaden the scope of the article to make it less Euro/American-centric. Furthermore, because of the article's current focus, the experiences of multiracial individuals of Asian and Pacific Island heritage have been overlooked. I have outlined my revisions and country-specific contributions (ex: what it might mean to be multiracial in the Philippines) briefly in my sandbox if you're interested in the work I have planned. I'd also love to know if any of you have sources or suggestions for how to approach the topic of multiracial identity formation through the lens of a mixed-Asian experience. -- Tmsloan ( talk) 21:46, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
This term is also in use in Canada (as evidenced by the link to a Cdn film), is there anyone who could write about the term beyond Hawaii? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.246.130.230 ( talk) 01:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I came here expecting to find a disambiguation page or a reason why one does not exist, since the page does not mention or discuss the usage of the word 'hapa' within sailing, that is a type of kite flown in the water rather than the air. It has become popular again with the attempt by Alex Caizergues to break the world sailing speed record, and thus probably merits mention in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.62.77 ( talk) 12:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Hapa is in use in other states, specifically Massachusetts, Ohio, & Oregon. An effort to document this, albeit in overgeneralized terms, led this this sequence of events.
In Californiato
In the contiguous United States.
no explanation given for deleting multiple citations showing usage in continental U.S..
random places in the US, not all of contiguous US, it’s misleading.
Please read the WP:VNT essay. Just because you disagree with a cited statement does not mean you get to remove it. As WP:BRD, discuss on the talk page before trying another change like this.
Disagreement is the only reason anyone reverts, the person trying to change it to “contiguous US” should discuss before changing the long-standing “California” language.
As WP:VNT explains, "Editors may not add content solely because they believe it is true, nor delete content they believe to be untrue, unless they have verified beforehand with a reliable source." The onus for removing cited material is for that editor to discuss on the talk page, unless you have provide more authoritative citations.
Peaceray is clearly undoing my edits because THEY believe that it's untrue without discussing the matter themselves. They're being a hypocrite. "Contiguous United States" is not supported by the citations. Plain and simple.
In retrospect, I should have changed the text from the blanket contiguous United States
to California, Massachusetts, Ohio, & Oregon
. I will next do so. The latter is verified by the citations.
I will oppose removal of cited material without editors discussing it here first. I will abide by any consensus achieved here.
We should not be surprised that the term hapa has spread elsewhere. This is clearly an instance of trans-cultural diffusion & the wave model. Peaceray ( talk) 02:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
70.187.234.198’s justification for reverting back to the misleading “contiguous United States” language is to add a bunch of random citations. Peaceray’s December 10, 2022 edit was very precise and accurate. Most people on the mainland US, outside of California, do not use the term hapa. Based on 70.187.234.198’s citations, it is unclear whether “hapa” is actually being used to mean “part Asian,” considering the source material in those citations use the term “multiracial” or “mixed” along with hapa, implying that “hapa” is being used in the vein of the Hawaii usage. Furthermore, Peaceray’s edit is superior to 70.187.234.198’s edit because Peaceray’s edit clearly denotes the non-Hawaii usage to be primarily Californian in origin while other incidental mentions of the word in the US is a phenomenon of transcultural diffusion. 134.6.56.139 ( talk) 21:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
The SmithsonianAPA link appears to use Hapa to mean part Asian/Pacific Islander. It seems a reputable citation. 64.98.201.206 ( talk) 05:20, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
This article is about hapa, not about the word 'hapa', because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Most of the article must be rewritten. 2A01:799:CA3:B300:D932:8F3:E221:9ED1 ( talk) 08:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@ Peaceray Do we really need THIS many citations in the lead? DarmaniLink ( talk) 05:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
some of these sources [...] to expand the body of the article& then move those sources there.
@ Nardog Rather than have me seemingly edit war the proper way back in, and possibly get reverted again, can you fix it? I don't know what your objection is. DarmaniLink ( talk) 18:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)