Talk:Hawaii

correct spelling of Hawai'i

according to its constitution and the Hawaiian language which is one of two state languages, it is correct to spell Hawai'i. The apostrophe called an "okina" is NOT punctuation, it is a letter in the Hawaiian alphabet. Its incorrect to drop a letter from the name, and its also offensive to the native population.

Yes, of coures. But it's not the way we spell it here because it isn't the usual English spelling. Dougweller (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The state's constitution spells it "Hawaii". Kauffner (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We have been having discussions on this issue for YEARS. The state constitution was written when Hawaiian was written with the old spelling, without 'okina and macrons. The new spelling, per Pukui and Elbert's dictionary, is now preferred. It is OK to spell Hawaii without the okina, but it is considered more polite, more educated, to add the 'okina. (Speaking as long-time Hawai'i resident, also copyeditor and proofreader specializing in Hawaiiana.) I would hope that WP editors would agree that polite and educated is the way to go. Zora (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

please tell me this is a mistake…..

this is a mistake, right? "The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, the Newlands Resolution by both houses of Congress annexed the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii." kmmnderkoala 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs)

Sorry, quite true. One presumably reliable source: "Teaching With Documents: The 1897 Petition Against the Annexation of Hawaii", National Archives and Records Administration. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Religion Section Inconsistencies

The first paragraph states that the "largest religions by adherants" are the RCC and the Mormon (LDS) church. Then below it lists some categories of religions and the number of adherants. The Mormon (LDS) church lists some 63k adherants, but there are other religions (Buddhism, for example) with more adherants. The first paragraph is misleading and should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.214.250 (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of islands

the eight "main islands" are (from the northwest to southeast) Niʻihau, Kauaʻi, Oʻahu, Molokaʻi, Lānaʻi, Kahoʻolawe, Maui, and Hawaiʻi.

Except, that isn't how they are normally listed. They are listed based on their geological age and corresponding size from the southeast to the northwest, from the youngest to the oldest. After all, that is the direction that the Pacific plate is moving. There seems to be a bit of a cultural bias here, as if listing items from left to right was the correct way. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

But that's what we see when we look at a map. That act of looking is what the sentence assumes. Seems fine to me. Zora (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how and why you see the tiny Niʻihau in the far east before you see the massive island of Hawaiʻi in the far west? If you were looking down from the International Space Station, your eye would not go from left to right, but from right to left, and it would start with Hawaiʻi based on size.[1] Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Except, that isn't how they are normally listed. They are listed based on..."

Not that I think this argument over trivia serves any useful purpose in improving the encyclopedia, but just for [kicks] 'n' giggles, do you have any reliable sources stating how they are "normally listed"? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer if you would tell me why they are listed this way instead. Zora says "that's what we see when we look at a map", but that assumes we are looking left to right. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia (not the Arabic) we read left to right, and we would scan a map left to right. Zora (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume you were joking and let that pass.

Wasn't joking.Zora (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I am at a loss understanding it. Why would I read a map of San Francisco from left to right if I'm trying to find out how to go from the Presidio to San Jose? Obviously, I would read it from top to bottom, or bottom to top depending on the direction I wanted to go. So a map does not exist to be read in one direction but in a way that is determined by the presentation of information. In the example before us, the information is the Hawaiian Islands, "a chain of islands that stretches 1,500 mi (2,400 km) in a northwesterly direction from the southern tip of the island of Hawaiʻi." Clearly, when we are dealing with such information, we read from right to left. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When we talk about the Hawaiian Islands, we talk about them stretching to the northwest. They are never discussed in terms of stretching to the southeast, or from "left to right". Always in terms of "right to left". This is how they evolved geologically, and a casual observer is forced to notice the larger islands first. This may also be the order of how they were originally populated by ocean navigators from afar, and also duplicates the adaptive radiation of other species, such as Hawaiian spiders for example, who spread their webs on the trade winds and "flew" from the southeast to the northwest, from island to island up the chain. In other words, the "right to left" movement is not just important to understanding the Hawaiian Islands, it is fundamental to its existence. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My experience in local publishing leads me to believe that most island listings start with Kaua'i (or even more to the left) and end with the Big Island. I don't think I've seen any in the other order. Kaua'i to Big Island, small to large, old to new. The list ends with a thump instead of dribbling off. Hmmm .... just found an example. Place names of Hawai'i, book I have used extensively for copyediting and proofreading. THE reference book. Page 246 has an island list. Starts with the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and ends with the Big Island. Are you going to argue with Pukui, Elbert, and Mookini? Zora (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like both directions are used, however, it appears that the more generalist literature goes from left to right while the scientific journals go from right to left. For example, World of Earth Science (2007), a tertiary source published by Gale says "The Hawaiian archipelago is a group of 132 islands, reefs, and shoals in the North Pacific Ocean that extends about 1,525 miles (2,454 km) from Kure Atoll (29°N, 178°W) to the big island of Hawaii (19°N, 156°W)." However, journal articles published in Science and Copeia say the opposite: "The Hawaiian Islands extend almost 2,500 km from southeast to northwest;"[2] "The chain stretches west-northwest across the Pacific between 20[deg.]N and 29[deg.]N, from the island of Hawaii to Kure atoll, and contains eight high volcanic islands, five islets with broad banks, three atolls, two coral islands at sea level, and 25 drowned banks"[3] I'm more inclined to trust the scientific journals and to dismiss the generalist literature. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Undoing indent. It's not a question of trusting, as if there were only ONE right way. There are two styles, and, as you said, one is appropriate for general literature and one for science. The WP article is more on the order of general literature.

Oh, and as for styles ... this was something I had to learn when I started copyediting. While some grammatical usages or spellings are right or wrong everywhere (at this place and moment), others are less cut and dried. Publishing houses have house styles, that dictate whether their publications will use the serial comma (or not), whether an author's initials in a bibliography should be H.W. or H. W., and so on. There is no one right way, no matter what your 6th grade English teacher said. There is only the way that is appropriate for the context. Zora (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Mary Kawena Pukui, Samuel Hoyt Elbert, and Esther T. Mookini were specialists on the subject of Native Hawaiian ethnology and linguistics. They were not experts on geography nor geology. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But why should geologists determine how we talk? Or list the islands? This is a question of language, not geomorphology. Zora (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia house style defaults to WP:SCIRS. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect here. That policy applies to SCIENCE articles. The main Hawai'i article is not a science article. Zora (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RS is a guideline. SCIRS is an essay illustrating best pracice. It applies to reliable sources used to support science-related content such as geography and geology. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are free to write an article about the geological history of the islands and put the islands in the order you prefer. That order is in fact the order used by the book Roadside Geology of Hawai'i; it's appropriate. However, the top-level article about Hawai'i is not a science article. It is an omnibus. I should add that I really don't see why you're so focused on this. Zora (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would we support a geological history written by ethnographers and linguists rather than geologists and Earth scientists? That contravenes the RS guideline and related recommendations and practices regarding the authoritativeness of a source and its relevance. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But this article is NOT a geological history. I should point out that in the course of the article, the islands are listed left to right, alphabetically, right to left, and sometimes in an order that makes no sense at all to me! But that's OK. Not necessary to standardize. I might also add that when I think about the islands in geologic terms, I think left to right, old to new. Forces of weathering contra volcanism. That makes just as much sense as new to old. In any case, your drive to impose geological standards on ANY listing of the islands still seems quixotic to me ... as much as declaring that we could no longer use the word "human" but must instead use "Homo sapiens sapiens". The Linnean term is more scientific, ne? Zora (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some questions

1. Why are the Hawaiian Islands described from left to right or from right to left? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?
2. How do we read maps? How do we describe visual information in maps in terms of prose?
3. How does each direction (L-R, R-L) benefit or detract from the experience of the reader? Is there a good reason to prefer one way or the other?
4. How do we apply the reliable source guideline when we are dealing with sources outside their expertise? Should we favor authoritativeness and relevance?

Feel free to add your own. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents, it seems for the general reader (myself included) left to right would be more intuitive. However, I don't see that it makes a lot of difference, as long as the context makes it clear - as the parenthetical "(from the northwest to southeast)" does.Gr8white (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Go to our article on the Hawaiian Islands and look at all the images. It is intuitive to describe them from right to left based on their size. You can barely make out the islands from left to right so it would not make sense to describe them that way. Most importantly, describing them from right to left reflects the more recent research on plate tectonics and hotspot theory that was not used or accessible by the older sources Zora is using. In fact, the sources Zora is using are out of date. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)