Talk:Hapa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Hawaii (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Wikipedia's Problem Exemplified[edit]

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)

Polyglottz Returns With Anonymous IPs[edit]

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. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 (talkcontribs) 05:55, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep this simple people[edit]

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)

Edit War - Please Stop![edit]

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.

RfC: Should we use the Oxford English Dictionary definition for "hapa"?[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus is to refer to multiple sources and definitions, describing the controversy. --GRuban (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

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)

  • Comment: Why would we explicitly favo[u]r one source over another? The talk page here is evidence that this term is controversial, so we should treat it from multiple reliable sources, not take a stand on what one source says it "does" mean.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  13:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment/Sorta: I agree with SMcCandish; would both disputing parties be in favor of two definitions? Personally, I always find disputes like this interesting reading and think much of what is on our talk pages should also be on our article pages. That said, OED isn't the most reliable source for non-English words. Over and over again, I have seen them make great errors. So if for some reason this dispute cannot be resolved with multiple definitions from multiple sources, I would wholeheartedly give OED a big thumbs down. LesVegas (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The sources for this are not very strong. Hapa as a single word does NOT denote half white...it just means half. Has anyone gone through the sources and/or provided academic Hawaiian language sources or checked to verify the content from the sources currently in use? The article is rather insulting the way it is written and seems way off from the use as I understand it. It would appear that its use from pigeon may make this a neologism.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:04, 1 May 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)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Current Edit is the Most Neutral and Objective[edit]

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.

As the defining sentence, "A hapa is a person of mixed ethnic heritage" does not include a definition that it is a person of a specific mixed ethnic heritage. The unqualified defining sentence states that there is no qualification. An accurate definition, if we believe the word is actually used two ways, would be, "A hapa is a person of mixed ethnic heritage, in some usage a mixture of Asian or Pacific Islander and something else, and in other usage any mixture at all."
The regional variation is too complex to be in the intro at all. I doubt there is solid evidence that the Californian usage is limited to California, or that it pervades California, for example (and I personally doubt either of those is true), so a simple statement that the word is used a certain way in California is misleading. The intro therefore should just generally state there are multiple usages, possibly varying regionally, and a later section should detail what is known about who uses the word which way. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Bryan, the two usages are already laid out. If you change the lead to your proposed sentence, it takes the usages out of historical context. The original word was—and continues to be, since Hawaii still exists—Hawaiian. Stating the Hawaiian definition clearly only makes sense since it's still used in Hawaii to mean "of any ethnic mix". As for the Californian usage, the sources cited in the article are mostly from California, and furthermore, some of them specifically cite California as where people use the term hapa to mean "of partial Asian or Pacific Islander heritage". When all the sources are either from California or specifically mention California, it's not hard to conclude that it's a Californian usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talkcontribs) 03:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry but that is simply not accurate. The word is from the Hawaiian language. If indeed it is being used in California (never heard it used here myself) then it really is likely to be a neologism. Anyway, there are more than a single definition:

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)

Also adding the Kahako will not only change pronunciation but definition as well. The article might want to mention that.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem is the topic of the article[edit]

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)

It's a Hawaiian Language word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It should pertain only to that which has encyclopedic value and only mention the definition as part of the overall summary of the subject...but hapa as a subject...I'm really not sure.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Some consider this term to be racist[edit]

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)

Sources, claims etc.[edit]

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)

Google results and this article - speedy delete request[edit]

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)

  • (Bolding for emphasis)

    *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.

The article began with biographical material about living persons (still in the history) that is entirely negative in tone and un-sourced. Calling someone a "Hapa hoale" is NOT a compliment and is NOT a neutral phrase. It is meant to disparage the ethnicity of the person as being less than someone else's with a higher blood quantum, nationality etc..
  • While I am not saying this was meant as an actual hoax, it still falls within the G3 criteria (bolding for emphasis):

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)

Doesn't violate any BLP policy as it is not a BLP and no living persons (or even dead ones) are mentioned in the article. Also, the article does not say "Hapa is a person" it says "Hapa is a term used to describe a person of mixed ethnic heritage". Nothing contentious about that. Softlavender (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, cleaned up or not, this article history clearly shows this listed living persons. That was never scrubbed and this offensive article should just be deleted.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
The article does not list a single specific person by name, living or dead, and it hasn't in over two years. And there is also nothing offensive about the term; on the contrary, it's just an everyday word to describe someone's ethnicity, and since the majority of people born in Hawaii are racially mixed (often extremely mixed with all kinds of ethnicities and nationalities in one person), it's a very common term. There is nothing offensive about this article; it is an informational article about a very common Hawaiian term. Softlavender (talk) 09:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Note to IPs editing this article[edit]

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)

Softlavender, you're not making much sense. Your edit completely disregards the entire history of this article's talk page. Go back to the archives. In any case, the Taniguchi and Heidenreich citation makes it very clear that your edit is not the general definition of hapa in Hawaii. Furthermore, your edit is about the definition of hapa haole, not hapa.
By the way, you should stop being hypocritical. Why are you edit warring yourself and then telling others to stop edit warring? You're clearly vandalizing the article. Being an experienced editor doesn't mean you're not capable of vandalism yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.4.56.185 (talk) 05:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
You've been edit-warring on this article for over two weeks (in this go-round) using at least four different IPs and instating content that is uncited opinion. You did the same thing last month, last year, and two years ago. Please stop. Softlavender (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

full protection[edit]

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. KrakatoaKatie 05:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

KrakatoaKatie, the IPs don't want to work it out, they want to edit-war and IP hop. If you look at the article history, you can see that from the three previous marathon non-stop IP edit wars: July 21 – October 5, 2013 (then semied for one week); October 14 – November 3 2013 (then semied for one month); and a 9-month nonstop IP edit war from July 2 2014 – April 14, 2015 (semied for three weeks, edit war started up again afterwards). The solution to the problem is not short-term semi-protection or full protection; it's permanent semi-protection. Otherwise, there will just be another marathon non-stop IP-hopping edit war, this time probably for possibly longer than 9 months. Softlavender (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Softlavender Well, now, semi-protection would solve your problem but not theirs, would it? This is not vandalism. This is a content dispute, and you were edit-warring right along with them. There is a compromise here, and you guys need to reach it or the page stays locked. KrakatoaKatie 07:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
KrakatoaKatie, I agree edit warred (today only, and I posted an attempt at discussion on this Talk page, and I did not abuse multiple accounts [i.e., IP hop]). I do not believe you have looked thoroughly at the history of the article that I pointed out, nor observed the fact that these IP-hoppers are not here to build an encyclopedia or edit cooperatively. I have no desire to solve any problem except the two-year history of repeated marathon many-month-long edit wars, which if you take a look you will see that are always from and by IPs, not logged-in accounts. Softlavender (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Since there are IP accounts that are reverting each other and there are user accounts have have reverted your edits, rather than one IP "hopper", I think it is more likely that there are a number of different editors, whether they are IPs or user accounts, who disagree about the content of this article. KrakatoaKatie is correct that this is a content dispute that needs discussion to settle upon a consensus. Liz Read! Talk! 09:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
There is an IP-hopper from Wichita that has used four different IPs in the past two weeks alone (216.4.56.185, 128.177.161.152, 128.177.161.190, 128.177.161.165), and has done this with other IP addresses in the other marathon edit wars of the past two years. Regardless, as I have mentioned, all of the three previous many-month-long non-stop marathon edit wars of the past two years have been IPs warring with each other, both IP hoppers and single IP addresses. Please look at the article history since July 2013. The IP edit wars start back every single time semi-protection has been removed. The content disputes are not going to be resolved until the article is under permanent semi-protection, because the problem is not content, but rather incorrigible and perennially recurring IP edit-warring (the last one was 9 months straight). That's the only way that editors can civilly discuss content, because the various IP edit-warriors are not here to build an encyclopedia, they are here to edit-war for nine months or longer at a time and "get their way". Softlavender (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hapa Article Evaluation[edit]

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)