Talk:Hawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former good article nomineeHawaii was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 21, 2006 Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 7, 2010 Good article nomineeNot listed
May 23, 2015 Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee


For style guide information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles.

indigenous

The page mentions "indigenous" numerous times in reference to native Hawaiians times yet Native Hawaiians are not indigenous to the island, they were settlers. I've mentioned this before but it seems that have been disregarded. If the admins insist on continuing to use the word indigenous to describe natives then please explain on the page what they evolved from, was it lava? HardeeHar ( talk) 23:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

See indigenous peoples. -- Khajidha ( talk) 19:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
@HardeeHar, your definition of "indigenous" seems to differ greatly from general consensus. Your argument is that because they entered Hawaii from an outside source, they cannot be native. But aren't most areas settled by migrants? Humans originated in East Africa and had to move elsewhere to inhabit places such as West Africa, the Middle East, Europe, Asia, etc. Is no one native? - Coastaline ( talk) 18:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

"comprising" vs. "comprised of"

I'm not trying to join or encourage User:Giraffedata's quixotic quest, but " comprised of" is deprecated by a sizable number of sources, and we would be better off avoiding it in this and other articles. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Can we perhaps settle on a phrasing here that is acceptable to all (or at least most) English speakers? If the text were changed, for example, to use "composed of" or "consisting of", would that work? I fear there are lots of people who simply will not accept "comprised of" as being proper usage (and who consider it no better than widely used abominations like "irregardless" or "I could care less") — no matter what the Wikipedia article on this phrase may say — and that as long as this article uses "comprised of", we are doomed to see an ongoing edit war. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm really not worried about theoretical people that won't accept "comprised of". In reality, it's perfectly fine usage, and there's one Wikipedia editor who won't accept it. I fail to see how any policy-based decision on this article would result in it being deemed necessary to remove the phrase. JimKaatFan ( talk) 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I know there are in fact at least two Wikipedians who object to "comprised of", because I also consider this phrase unacceptable — but I'm not going to get involved in edit wars over it because I don't consider the cause worth the risk of getting blocked for disruptive editing (and yes, I know Giraffedata has never been blocked). I still think it would be better to avoid the possibility of future problems by choosing a different phrasing not involving any form of the word "comprise". I also want to preemptively make it clear that I don't know Giraffedata and have, as far as I can currently recall, never interacted with him, on this or any other topic, either on- or off-wiki. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Okay, two. I'll concede that there are two. JimKaatFan ( talk) 20:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Three. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Fantastic. All three of you should write a letter to the editors of Merriam Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, and let them know their book has been wrong for over a century. Let me know how that works out for you. JimKaatFan ( talk) 23:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not American. I have other preferences for dictionaries. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Irrelevant to this particular discussion. Hawaii is an American state. See MOS:ENGVAR. Thank you. JimKaatFan ( talk) 14:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
True, but the Hawaiians probably learnt their first English from British speakers of the language. HiLo48 ( talk) 00:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I can't believe I have to correct people who think that I made up the idea that "comprise" a poor choice of word to mean "compose", because it's so easy to find people who were taught the same, but this isn't the first time this has come up. If you want to see more than 3 Wikipedians who believe a Wikipedia article is better without that use of comprise, go to the talk page for my essay on the subject, and my personal talk page, and you'll find no fewer than 100. And many barnstars. And then go to the "other commentators" section of that essay to see references to lots of high quality English usage sources that recommend against using it, often stating that there are lots of people who object to it. Just pick any major English style guide.
Even the dictionaries, though they all tell us there are lots of people using comprise to mean compose, warn us that plenty of other people don't accept it. AIR, Merriam Webster is the one that points out that opposition to the secondary "compose or constitute" meaning is surprisingly tenacious; most language corruptions like this would have found their way to universal acceptedness by now. I mean, it's been hundreds of years that people have been writing this, and correcting it.
Frankly, I don't know why it's even an issue. Let's say only three people consider "comprised of" less than perfectly fine. There are half a dozen really good alternatives that are acceptable to those three people and also all the people who accept "comprised of". Why wouldn't you use one of those? Spite? Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) ( talk) 01:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Reworded to avoid the disputed wording. Vsmith ( talk) 01:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)


Agriculture

In the topography section, the article mentions Hawaii is the only state that coffee is grown. However could this article be improved by adding a section about agriculture? Bdshelley ( talk) 20:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Probably. There's a couple of sentences that mention agriculture in the Economy section, but those could easily be expanded; there's a wealth of material out there. I'd be happy to help if you want to get it started. It's always a daunting task to write (or re-write) an entire topic. I've done it once and it exhausted me. Good to have multiple people on it. JimKaatFan ( talk) 23:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Citation Needed Span

@ Telsho: Hello- can you explain your removal of the citation needed span on this page? Wikipedia policy does not allow unsourced information to remain both unsourced and written with Wikipedia's voice. Thanks. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)

It's pretty much common knowledge, you don't need a source for that. Please read WP:CITENEED. Telsho ( talk) 11:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Telsho: I'm sorry, but I don't agree. What's the common knowledge that doesn't need citation? Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
In regards to the U.S. Constitution, the text pretty much said there has been no precedent, and there isn't. How exactly are you going to acquire citations for something that doesn't exist? In the second sentence, one only has to access the Constitution of Massachusetts, Province of Massachusetts Bay, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Territory of Arkansaw and State of Arkansas articles to confirm its accuracy. You don't need secondary sources for chronological history. Telsho ( talk) 11:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Telsho: Let me explain how I see what you said. "How exactly are you going to acquire citations for something that doesn't exist?" In my mind, in this sentence, you are directly saying that you put an unsourcable claim that was in a 'citation needed span' back into the voice of Wikipedia. That's not what Wikipedia is for. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
As I've reiterated, adding a citation needed tag for information that doesn't exist wouldn't make any sense. The U.S. Constitution made no mention that a states name can be changed. Why would you need a source for that? If one decides to be really pedantic, the source is the constitution itself. Telsho ( talk) 11:51, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Telsho: "Why would you need a source for that?" Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, not bald speculation. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
You're cherry-picking my words. I'm aware of what Wikipedia is about, Geographyinitiative. But you're going to wait a very long time before someone actually has a secondary source for that, if ever. Telsho ( talk) 12:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Telsho: In my mind, you have just proven my point. Why not restore the 'citation needed span' then? Either 1) source the claim, 2) remove the material, or 3) put it in a 'citation needed' tag. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 12:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
The point is there wouldn't be any such secondary source. You could assume that your point was proven in your mind but facts precede opinions on Wikipedia. I don't agree on restoring the tag but you're more than welcome to wait or ask for a third opinion. Telsho ( talk) 12:09, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Telsho: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Wikipedia:UNSOURCED I have listed this discussion on the third opinion page as you requested. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 12:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)
Concur with User:Geographyinitiative on this one. The question "How exactly are you going to acquire citations for something that doesn't exist" says it all. If something doesn't exist, then Wikipedia isn't the place to talk about it. That's called original research and that's a violation of WP:NOR. -- Coolcaesar ( talk) 16:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case, I would suggest it's for the best to remove that paragraph on the article entirely. Thoughts @ Geographyinitiative:? Telsho ( talk) 17:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't think it should be that hard to find sourced examples substantiating the first sentence (starting with "In contrast"). The rest of the paragraph (starting with "No precedent") is likely to be harder (along the lines of trying to prove a negative), and I would oppose including this info without sources. In any case, though, I don't believe there is any need to talk here at all about Massachusetts or Arkansas having had their names changed; it simply isn't relevant to Hawaii IMO. As for the "common knowledge" exception to WP:NOR and WP:V, there is an informational page on this issue ( WP:CK) — not a binding policy in and of itself, but intended as a useful guide to deciding when this sort of argument is OK and when it is not. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Telsho ( talk) 19:21, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Partial disagreement with your change — I think the "No precedent" sentence should be removed too, because it's unsourced, and in any event not really relevant IMO (an opinion which I might possibly change depending on whatever a source or sources might say). —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
I have come to the conclusion that the fact that was restored here is not actually demonstrated. I originally thought it was "probably true", but now I'm thinking that I just don't know for sure. Who knows? Maybe one of the colonies changed its name slightly- a spelling or something- in a way that we don't really pay attention to these days. Maybe a state had multiple spellings for its name and settled on one later. I really can't be 100% certain that the fact is true and since it is not sourced, I think it really can't be sustained, even in the citation needed box. Seems like original research if there is no source given. If there's a source, then that's different of course. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 12:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)