| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Lahaina, Hawaii article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The median household income seems to be off by about $100,000 according to some research I have been doing on Google. What gives? Mah58@georgetown.edu 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
According to Place Names of Hawaii, Lāhainā is the old pronunciation. It seems like this page and Lahaina (the redirect) should be switched. KarlM 08:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm moving the article from Lāhainā, Hawai'i to Lahaina, Hawaii. This aligns it with the US census rendering [1] and the United States Geographical Names Service [2]. It also seems to be the common usage (the only diacritics I could find on the first 10 google hits are the ones for the wikipedia article) [3]. Lastly, there seems to be more wikipedia-internal links to "Lahaina" versus "Lāhainā" [4] Erudy 16:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
The Star-Bulletin of July 13, 1920, gave two versions of "How Lahaina Got Its Name," which merited more attention than it received. The first version differs from the well-established tradition in assigning the point of departure for Kahiki, as from Lahaina, instead of from the west point of Kahoolawe. It also introduces us to the pioneer Ad Club of the islands, boosting the charms of Maui, in the eleventh century. But their slogan, "laha aina" (proclaiming land), though dropping a superfluous a to form the new name they had adopted, would not give us the accent on the last syllable as Hawaiians pronounce it.
The second version sounds more reasonable, and aids somewhat in our search for the time when the name Lahaina was substituted for its former one, Lele. The newer name clearly shows it to be commemorative of a notable day in the history of the place. In the time of Kakae and his brother, Kakaalaneo, about 1630, it was still known as Lele. When after this period the change occurred is not clear, but analysis of the name, as properly pronounced Lā-hai-nā, would be "a day of calamity, or cruelty," and such an experience is known to have befallen Lahaina in the battles of warring chiefs waged for supremacy, more particularly following the death of Kekaulike, in the invasions of Alapainui of Hawaii, about 1735. But the change of name must have taken place earlier than this date. [1]
Is this enough to be an Etymology of the name Lahaina? KAVEBEAR ( talk) 05:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yep. It's covered in Clark's The Beaches of Maui County. Viriditas ( talk) 09:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The correct spelling has a kahako over the first and last a in Lahaina. La with a kahako over the a means sun. haina with a kahako over the last a means cruel. Literally meaning Cruel Sun. If you've ever been to Lahaina you know how hot it is. This is the way I've heard it from Uncle Nalu. Nolahainamaiau ( talk) 23:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Notwithstanding, if you actually go to the online Hawaiian Dictionary linked in that footnote, you find no such thing. "Lā hainā" yields nothing. Enter "Lahaina" on the other hand, and you get two entries (one a common noun, the other the placename), neither one having to do with cruel sun or being hot. The "hot" derivation is a recurring folk etymology, sometimes ascribed to King Kamehameha. This, for example, from the autobiography of Admiral Robert Coontz, p196:
"One of our officers inquired the origin of the name "Lahaina." He was told that King Kamehameha who conquered the island and united the Hawaiian group, upon landing there, stepped out of his canoe, took off his head covering, wiped his forehead, and exclaimed, "Lahaina," which being interpreted means, "Hell, ain't it hot?"
The WP entry should probably be fixed. 24.136.4.218 ( talk) 12:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
References
- ^ All about Hawaii: Hawaiian Annual for 1922 The Reference Book of Informationc and Statistics Relating to the Territory of Hawaii. Page 86
Halloween is not being sanctioned this year. Front Street will not be closed and no keiki parade is scheduled nor permits issued. Nokaoi2007 ( talk) 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lahaina, Hawaii. 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
{{ dead link}}tag to http://wehewehe.org/cgi-bin/hdict?a=q&j=pp&l=en&q=Lahaina&d=D48691 - Added archive https://archive.is/20120719153012/http://wehewehe.org/cgi-bin/hdict?a=q&j=pp&l=en&q=Lahaina&d=D48690 to http://wehewehe.org/cgi-bin/hdict?a=q&j=pp&l=en&q=Lahaina&d=D48690
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122090718/http://www.lahaina.com/ to http://lahaina.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 07:17, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"The chances of becoming a victim of crime in Lahaina is 1 in 385, compared to a higher rate of 1 in 323 in the State of Hawaii as a whole."
Excuse me for saying so, but this is the silliest statistics I have ever seen. 1 in 385 per what? If I am the 385th tourist visiting Lahaina on a certain day, is somebody going to snatch my purse?
To make matters worse, these numbers are not supported by the source. The website has totally different numbers, so it would at least be necessary to state what year we are talking about here, and use numbers that are supported by the source.
I also have some doubts if a real estate website is such a great source for this kind of data. -- 217.239.10.120 ( talk) 23:25, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Howard from NYC ( talk) 06:32, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Q: should there be any mention of the inevitable fraud by grifters taking advantage of generous people seeking to donate to the victims of the AUG'23 mega-fire?
- Probably not, as this is a common occurrence in such disaster recovery areas. Today, there were six cars in Kahana (north of Lahaina) that had their gas tanks tampered with, either due to potential arson or because the perps were trying to steal gas. We are going to see this kind of thing with some regularity in the coming days, but at least the military presence will help diffuse some of these issues. I think they should setup the remote IP camera systems or a high-altitude Gorgon Stare-like wide area surveillance network to help in this regard. It's unfortunate, but looters, arsonists, and other miscreants are a real and present danger. Viriditas ( talk) 08:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Although the 2023 fires have been added as a new section, much of the article has not been updated accordingly and is now incorrect. E.g. there are statements saying, "Lahaina is...", whereas many of the things referred to no longer exist. 2A00:23EE:2868:DDFC:8E53:7058:1E81:4C89 ( talk) 12:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Aloha anonymous IP editor. Please see Paradise, California and review our MOS, guidelines and the tag at the top of the page. This isn't a news article and patience may be needed.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Should not images be added showing the devastating effect of the 2023 fires? 86.139.37.148 ( talk) 21:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, the gallery may not stay and adding more to it will not be helpful. Images can be added to commons for use on the main article or in the section on this article with consensus. Galleries are not encyclopedic and are no longer used in articles.--
Mark Miller (
talk) 03:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- So are you implying that the gallery might stay? 86.139.37.148 ( talk) 21:21, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
- "Galleries are not encyclopedic"
- It would be useful if you would provide your definition of "encyclopedic", and reliable sources, so that it doesn't appear to be an unsubstantiated opinion
- "... and are no longer used in articles".
- This is factually incorrect as a gallery exists, and is thus "used", in this article and many others. You appear to be offering a future aspiration as though it is current fact, whilst acknowledging that such aspiration may never transpire.
86.139.37.148 (
talk) 21:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Galleries are used all over Wikipedia, but they tend to be used sparingly, and in sections devoted to specific subjects. I think what Mark means to say is that galleries should not be added haphazardly or detract away from content. Everyone will have authorial preferences and particular editorial habits. Personally, I like to use galleries to illustrate a text section, and to keep the images from bunching up or overwhelming the content. You can see how I do this over at
Lise with a Parasol.
Viriditas (
talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable.
- To return to the original question, given that there is currently a gallery as part of the article, shouldn't it at least include images showing the current state of the fire devastation, rather than only containing a set of images that give the impression that it is still in the pre-fire state?
86.139.37.148 (
talk) 03:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like someone added at least one wildfire image. There's additional possibilities
here. I was surprised to find that we don't have a separate
history of Lahaina article. For some reason, I thought we did.
Viriditas (
talk) 06:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. The original question was about the gallery specifically. I've added an image from the source you provided so that the gallery gives a more balanced impression of Lahaina now.
86.139.37.148 (
talk) 09:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, galleries are deprecated and are not in GA or higher articles. But consensus determines all content and I go with what the consensus of editors is. My issue is that we can now, never really have a balanced gallery of images at this point. Galleries attract images to pile up and have little encyclopedic value. Image policy does not exclude galleries but in disasters like this, galleries of destruction can seen as insensitive and creative privacy issues.--
Mark Miller (
talk) 06:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- "galleries of destruction"
- It's not clear what you mean by this or its relevance to the article.
- "... can seen as insensitive"
- Many things "can" be seen as insensitive. How an individual sees something is not a criterion for whether it belongs in a factual article.
- "... and creative privacy issues"
- Not sure what you mean by this.
86.139.37.148 (
talk) 10:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can't answer for Mark, but I agree with him in the sense that a general gallery is already covered by Commons and we should focus on section-specific galleries for images that illustrate those particular sub-sectional topics, with no gallery heading, only the tag. That's my personal opinion, of course.
Viriditas (
talk) 10:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Viriditas, your specific use of the gallery tag in articles is not my cup of tea but it is also not against MOS or guidelines as I know of. What I am talking about, to answer to the IP editor, is that individual images of homes in Wildfire disasters are common in articles and I understand that. See
Angora Fire and my photo contribution (File:Angora Creek.JPG) But whole galleries of destruction can be obtrusive and may or may not fall under the "Freedom of Panorama law", depending on what is depicted. Contributions can be seen by other editors (we are human) as insensitive. We should be sensitive to our own guideline, MOS etc., and how to cover disasters in an encyclopedic way with the consensus of other editors. I believe in that as part of
editor retention and
dispute resolution. Oh, I meant "...and can create privacy issues". At some point someone might post and image of a home of someone notable still living and make a point of stating it. That could be an issue.--
Mark Miller (
talk) 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- My use of the gallery tag may not be your cup of tea because you may not have considered why I use it. I view, edit, read, and use Wikipedia on a variety of platforms, including mobile, desktop, laptop, and tablet. I've discovered that using the gallery tag the way I do preserves the text and the images independently across all the different viewing mediums, allowing one to read and view images without difficulty or interruption regardless of display. On the other hand, if I go back to the old format and display the images left, center, or right thumbed, the text is difficult to read, and the images are too small or too large to view. There's a method to my madness, and I believe it improves the overall experience. Of course, if you only read, edit, and view Wikipedia in one particular way, you wouldn't notice this.
Viriditas (
talk) 11:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Oooooooooh. Or ~ d'oh! LOL! I even view most of this on my Smart TV so I get that! I only edit on my Desktop.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 09:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
- My use of the gallery tag may not be your cup of tea because you may not have considered why I use it. I view, edit, read, and use Wikipedia on a variety of platforms, including mobile, desktop, laptop, and tablet. I've discovered that using the gallery tag the way I do preserves the text and the images independently across all the different viewing mediums, allowing one to read and view images without difficulty or interruption regardless of display. On the other hand, if I go back to the old format and display the images left, center, or right thumbed, the text is difficult to read, and the images are too small or too large to view. There's a method to my madness, and I believe it improves the overall experience. Of course, if you only read, edit, and view Wikipedia in one particular way, you wouldn't notice this.
Viriditas (
talk) 11:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Viriditas, your specific use of the gallery tag in articles is not my cup of tea but it is also not against MOS or guidelines as I know of. What I am talking about, to answer to the IP editor, is that individual images of homes in Wildfire disasters are common in articles and I understand that. See
Angora Fire and my photo contribution (File:Angora Creek.JPG) But whole galleries of destruction can be obtrusive and may or may not fall under the "Freedom of Panorama law", depending on what is depicted. Contributions can be seen by other editors (we are human) as insensitive. We should be sensitive to our own guideline, MOS etc., and how to cover disasters in an encyclopedic way with the consensus of other editors. I believe in that as part of
editor retention and
dispute resolution. Oh, I meant "...and can create privacy issues". At some point someone might post and image of a home of someone notable still living and make a point of stating it. That could be an issue.--
Mark Miller (
talk) 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- I can't answer for Mark, but I agree with him in the sense that a general gallery is already covered by Commons and we should focus on section-specific galleries for images that illustrate those particular sub-sectional topics, with no gallery heading, only the tag. That's my personal opinion, of course.
Viriditas (
talk) 10:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, galleries are deprecated and are not in GA or higher articles. But consensus determines all content and I go with what the consensus of editors is. My issue is that we can now, never really have a balanced gallery of images at this point. Galleries attract images to pile up and have little encyclopedic value. Image policy does not exclude galleries but in disasters like this, galleries of destruction can seen as insensitive and creative privacy issues.--
Mark Miller (
talk) 06:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. The original question was about the gallery specifically. I've added an image from the source you provided so that the gallery gives a more balanced impression of Lahaina now.
86.139.37.148 (
talk) 09:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- It looks like someone added at least one wildfire image. There's additional possibilities
here. I was surprised to find that we don't have a separate
history of Lahaina article. For some reason, I thought we did.
Viriditas (
talk) 06:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
- Galleries are used all over Wikipedia, but they tend to be used sparingly, and in sections devoted to specific subjects. I think what Mark means to say is that galleries should not be added haphazardly or detract away from content. Everyone will have authorial preferences and particular editorial habits. Personally, I like to use galleries to illustrate a text section, and to keep the images from bunching up or overwhelming the content. You can see how I do this over at
Lise with a Parasol.
Viriditas (
talk) 23:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Galleries are in all articles, GA and higher, but we may be talking about the same thing using different words. The galleries that I'm talking about use the gallery tag, they are not labeled as galleries. They use this tag to highlight specific, topic-relevant images by section, or in some cases, as an appendix. You may be thinking of the general concept of a "gallery" that doesn't specify a certain kind of image, and is only a grab bag for images of any kind. Yes, that kind of gallery is deprecated in favor of Commons categories and galleries. But the gallery tag is used all over Wikipedia, just not in a general way. For example, look at how I use it on
Lahaina Banyan Court Park to keep the images separate from the text. I use it to enhance readability. Others may find other uses.
Viriditas (
talk) 08:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- "galleries of destruction can [be] seen as insensitive".
- However, galleries / images conveying a holiday brochure, paradisical impression without reference to the disaster might be equally be considered insensitive. 2A00:23EE:1370:3830:60F8:F4B9:3C28:5796 ( talk) 15:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Galleries are in all articles, GA and higher, but we may be talking about the same thing using different words. The galleries that I'm talking about use the gallery tag, they are not labeled as galleries. They use this tag to highlight specific, topic-relevant images by section, or in some cases, as an appendix. You may be thinking of the general concept of a "gallery" that doesn't specify a certain kind of image, and is only a grab bag for images of any kind. Yes, that kind of gallery is deprecated in favor of Commons categories and galleries. But the gallery tag is used all over Wikipedia, just not in a general way. For example, look at how I use it on
Lahaina Banyan Court Park to keep the images separate from the text. I use it to enhance readability. Others may find other uses.
Viriditas (
talk) 08:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
That should be added since the town is unfortunately in the news now. 99.228.43.228 ( talk) 22:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- We need something like this: Honolulu (/ˌhɒnəˈluːluː/;[8] Hawaiian: [honoˈlulu]). Perhaps someone might be found to do this for the article.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 03:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the following edits by User:Rando597:
However, many of the evacuees were forced back into the fire due to barricades set up on the only paved road out of Lahaina by emergency personnel. Furthermore, Hawaii’s state of the art warning system did not activate, leaving the residents unaware of the fire danger or its extent. Many who died or are missing are children, who were sent home early from school while their parents were at work, thus leaving them defenseless. Authorities refuse to say how many children are among the missing.
On August 21, a full two weeks after the devastation and following a vacation, President Joe Biden finally visited the fire affected areas to assess damages to the community. News media remain silent regarding the neglect of Lahaina while citizen journalists report of devastation on the ground.
Both of these contributions are highly problematic, erroneous, biased, and distortions. In the first edit, there is no evidence that "many who died or are missing are children" and I'm curious where this comes from, as the source cited doesn't say any of this, nor does it support it. Furthermore, the source cited is out of date altogether.
The same goes for the second edit which the sources don't support. The president and other authorities could not visit the area for two weeks due to fires, fires which continue to burn (as of now, Kaanapali). The idea that Biden could have arrived prior to the two week period is absurd and unsupported. It took the military two weeks to secure the area and for the firefighters to contain it. Furthermore, the area was toxic and too dangerous to visit during that time. Unfortunately, this is a popular talking point in the right wing media-sphere, but has little to no factual accuracy. Furthermore, there is good evidence that a failed GOP candidate and operative on Maui is helping to promote it on unreliable media, such as OAN. And that's why I removed both of them. There's a difference between facts and GOP talking points. Viriditas ( talk) 08:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)