Talk:Kapaau, Hawaii

When I was in Hawaii I was told this was a private island, not accessible to the general public. Is this true? And if it is, could you explain who lives there and why. (I was given an explanation but I would like to verify it.) Mattisse(talk) 13:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okina in name

Regarding this edit "Don't use non-English characters in English text"[1], the okina is used in accepted english text for both place names and words, eg aʻa lava. FYI- the Okina is recognized as an accepted letter in over 5000 articles[2]. Further, dictionaries and US Federal and state governments recognize the Okina as an acceptable character in usage in the English language. Besides Polynesian place names, celestial bodies have names with the okina eg. Hi'iaka (moon). The okina is a letter that removes confusion (eg. is aa a typo? How is it pronounced? Which place is being refered to, the one with the okina or without?) For this reason, Wikipedia has The issue of the okina's use in articles is being discussed at Template talk:Okina.

Please provide a rationale for why this article should depart from the norm of other Hawaiʻi location articles. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The Hawaii wikiproject has opposed its use in articles across the spectrum. Look at the reason that this article isn't named "Kapa'au, Hawai'i" as it used to be. I'm simply following what has generally been used by this project; take it up there with them. Nyttend (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, please refer to MOS:HAWAII:

"Use of the kahakō and ʻokina, as used in current standard Hawaiian orthography, is preferred in Hawaiian language words and names used in articles dealing with Hawaiʻi."

Perhaps you were confusing convention for article titles with conventions for okina in the body of text? In any case, please provide your rationale along with citations to authoritative documents for departing from established convention on Hawaiʻi articles, and for departing from MOS guidelines. Otherwise, kindly desist in reverting the article over this matter. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The practise has been to use English spelling — and the vast majority of English-language sources do not use diacritical marks when referring to Hawaiian subjects. It's one thing to use them with Hawaiian text: I'm not going to support removing them from Hawaiian text any more than I will support removing diacritical marks from any other language text. However, because these are Anglicised names, it's totally different. Remember that we use English for article titles, and there's no good reason to use a name other than that of the article when the article title is the only English name. For an example of what I'm meaning, look at Hawaii: you'll see that there aren't any diacritical marks except in Hawaiian-language quotations or the occasional thing with an official name that uses diacritical marks. In conclusion: please consider that there is no CDP in the state with a diacritical mark — see factfinder.census.gov for proof. Nyttend (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't tell it to me. If you feel strongly about it, get the MOS changed. Until then, we go by the conventions for Hawaii place articles, and MOS:HAWAII. CDP does not override Wikipedia authoritative documentation on the use of the okina. By the way, if you make your argument, you should realize that okina is not a diacritical mark. It is a letter corresponding to a glottal stop noise that is used in Hawaiian english. You have not supported your argument by citation of WP authority. I have. Unless you can, it is fair to revert your change. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I know the okina isn't a diacritical; I simply don't know of any single term that encompasses all the signs that Hawaiian uses that English doesn't. As for the CDP — it's impossible correctly to state, for example, that there is a census-designated place named "Kapaʻau". As for what you're saying: I'm simply repeating the arguments that I've seen in the past. FYI: I'm a geography-focused editor who has worked a good deal with local geography for many states, including Hawaii, for longer than you've been editing. I don't say this to mean "shut up you little noob", but to mean "I can't always remember the exact page because I've seen so many of them over time". That's why I'm telling you to talk with project members, since they likely will remember, having taken part in the discussions instead of simply reading them after the fact. If you want to interpret the words of the Hawaii MOS, you must understand what the writers were thinking, and I'm giving you that side of the story — I'm quite confident that this did not mean "anything that's ultimately Hawaiian in origin". Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Notwithstanding your claims of authority, I have provided citations for WP authority. You have declined. If you will not support your case, you have no support for your revert. -J JMesserly (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend, with all due respect, you're completely overlooking that ʻokina and kahakō can find frequent use for English in Hawaiʻi. While some people in Hawaiʻi don't use it at all, many in Hawaiʻi do, even if they are monolingual in English. It's a regional convention issue, just like harbor vs. harbour or tire vs. tyre, and in this particular case both spellings are commonly used. However, the issue of ʻokina is far more contentious than these: Usage of the ʻokina even in monolingual Hawaiian English and Hawaiʻi-associated English (and I'm a kamaʻāina) is considered more polished and more complete. When a text is missing the ʻokina and you add it, you're copyediting. When the text already has the ʻokina and you intentionally remove it, it borders on what can seem like imperialism of a convention from London or Washington against another regional convention no less valid and no less strongly defended. Even in the United States—which legally has no nation-wide official language and where language is left to states and territories to decide—it can be insensitive and contextually quite inappropriate to force a Chicago (etc.) convention on a Hawaiʻi spelling. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy on using only one specific regional variety of English spelling on the whole of Wikipedia; in fact, if I recall correctly, Wikipedia advises against forcefully respelling completely valid regional spelling differences. For Hawaiʻi-related articles, it only makes sense to use spellings that are particularly polished and cherished to Hawaiʻi, rather than deriding them with pejorative labels like "foreign language spelling", especially since the Hawaiian language—while not a native language to most people—isn't even a language of a foreign country. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break because this section is getting too long

Gilgamesh, no disrespect to you, but you're the one that moved all these articles to with-diacritics-and-okina (isn't there some term that encompasses both of these) titles; I can't see the strength of an argument that has already been decided against. As for your point, Messerly, I have continued procedure on my side, I tell you that you are misunderstanding what the project says (don't misrepresent my position), and I have told you...and told you...and TOLD YOU [:-)] that this is the way that the project worked it out a long time ago. Bring in some of those who were involved in the discussion and supported the current formatting, or have a new discussion composed of several people, and I'll listen, but as long as there's neither I have no evidence that your interpretation is correct. Nyttend (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Asserting that something has been "decided against" repetitively is not sufficient support. If the "project worked it out" in a way that contradicts the meaning of the MOS Hawaii guidelines I have quoted, then kindly provide a citation for these alternate guidelines you believe support your position. If not, then your revert cannot stand. As for your assertion that I misunderstand what the guideline states, please show me where I have erred in concluding that the Kapaʻau article clearly conforms to the passage:

1. This qualifies as one of the "articles dealing with Hawaiʻi".
2. Kapaʻau is current standard Hawaiian english orthography for this name.
3. Your edit[3] gives preference not to the okina spelling as the guideline states.

QED- your edit is in violation of the MOS:HAWAII guideline quoted above and therefore should be reverted. Where have I erred?

People in this state speaks english and we use this letter in our signs and communication with each other. Similarly, in Canada, they refer to the Gaspé Peninsula. I would assume you don't like that that either. If you don't think WP should reflect the reality of how these names are used by the english speaking people who live in these places, then fine, change the guidelines, or do an RFC on the general case of "non english" glyphs used in WP articles. Until then, the article should be reverted without prejudice until such time as you can provide authoritative support for POV.-J JMesserly (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is something that should be worked out in a much broader forum. This debate has been going on for quite some time now, including a bunch of mass-moves of articles to include the okina, exclude the okina, have some approximation of the okina, etc. It's probably reached a point where we should figure it out. No comment until a better forum is established, though. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I'm doing what I'm doing because it's my understanding of what this project has decided. I don't like it, but that's not the reason I'm doing what I'm doing: if the project decides otherwise, I'll not fight or even participate significantly. CDPs are one thing — a project decision in favour of using these characters can't change the verifiable truth that there aren't any non-standard-English characters in any such names — but everything else is different as far as I know. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That's why I've basically stopped caring/reverting okina additions/subtractions. Too many people disagree, and it needs some resolution. --Ali'i 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Nyttend- same response. The project has decided otherwise. Just because the Census bureau has chosen to spell names differently than all the local signs and people use is completely irrelevant. CDP is not the authority. WP guidelines are. I have cited the pertinent one, and you have cited none to support your revert. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nyttend- I shall proceed with the revert since you have declined to show with reference to WP authoritative document(s) why the WP guideline on okina does not apply. The Census bureau is interested in the uniformity of truth. Wikipedia is interested in the distinctiveness of truth. That difference in goals lies at the core of this issue. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking this to a wider forum

Ali'i- Sounds worth doing. What are the candidates for a broad forum?

• Village pump proposals
• MOS RFC on glyphs with dominant local usage among english speakers (including examples like Gaspé Peninsula?
• Arbcom?

Let's just brainstorm the list. What are the other candidates for venue? -J JMesserly (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

My point with the CDPs is that you cannot find a reliable source for a census-designated place named Kapaʻau. Except in cases of its own error (see Lisco, Nebraska), how can the Census Bureau be incorrect about the name of a census-designated place? Unless you can persuade the Census Bureau to include non-English characters in the names of census-designated places, you can't verifiably have a census-designated place with a name that includes these characters. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Just confused — why in the world would you consider taking this ArbCom? A calm dispute because one editor misinterprets guidelines made without his participation (after all, this is a correct assessment whether you or I are wrong) is nowhere near big enough for that — if I understand right, it has [to be legal about it] appellate jurisdiction but not original jurisdiction. Third opinion is another option in some cases, but we already have three people participating, so it's out of the question here. Is WP:VP/P less significant than an RFC? I really think that we should begin on a low level and only proceed upward if there's dissatisfaction with the outcome. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding venue- this is just a brainstormed list. No need to make arguments for one or the other at this point.

Kapaʻau has an existence separate from the census bureau and the spelling is recognized by USGS[4], FEMA[5], and the National Register of Historic places. Further, all the local signs use okinas as do newspapers. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just wasn't sure what you meant about the venues. As for the names — I created 'Ō'ōkala, Hawaii with its current name. The difference, again, is its status: there's no official recognition other than GNIS for it, but there is for Kapaau — and it's on that basis, among other things, that we have almost all the content that's currently on the article. Of course it has an existence separate from the Census Bureau, but that's irrelevant to the fact that this is an article about the census-designated place. Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Kapaʻau is a place also recognized by the USGS, FEMA and the US National Park Service. Is your proposal that the article be solely devoted to the census bureau data, or simply that the census bureau designation makes recognition as Kapaʻau by other official agencies and by local english speaking residents irrelevant? -J JMesserly (talk) 16:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Though they may legally be census-designated places, in reality they are thought of as villages, towns and cities. Though the city of Honolulu legally encompasses all of Oʻahu and all of the island of Hawaiʻi has one mayor in Hilo, this is just a larger administrative structure more like that of a county (and contiguous with the county itself), and on-the-ground settlements are still separate community units and indicated as such on maps. I was born in Hawaiʻi, and didn't even know this legal distinction until I came to Wikipedia. For all intents and purposes, though Hilo and Kona (for instance) are part of the same city, they are two different cities, with no small drive (the Saddle Road alone can take hours, though the belt road is actually faster because of better road conditions) and a few bigass mountains between them. I'm just illustrating that...on the ground, census-designated place isn't all that meaningful a difference from city. Human beings treat them as different cities. It's not like they're all neighborhoods of the municipality of Los Angeles or the municipality of Boston that bleed into each other seamlessly. Some CDP are direct neighbors, but mostly in the metropolitan aggregations. - Gilgamesh (talk) 22:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - At the very least, shouldn't the Hawaiian spelling be included in parentheses, as it is at Hawaii? —Kal ^(talk) 04:16, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It usually already is. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is over which spelling should be primary. This seems to vary depending on context of a person's location or association with Hawaiʻi, as Hawaiʻi has some of its own peculiar polished English habits related to words and names of Hawaiian language origin. If you want to be clear and respectful, you consistently use full ʻokina and kahakō in writing. To not do so is increasingly sloppy or careless, and almost certainly makes it apparent that a writer doesn't care. To leave it out feels like writing entirely without one of the letters on your keyboard—imagin vrything bing writtn lik this without th ky btwn W and R on your QWRTY kyboard. - Gilgamesh (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kapaau, 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804001334/http://www.hawaiistateparks.org/parks/hawaii/index.cfm?park_id=48 to http://www.hawaiistateparks.org/parks/hawaii/Index.cfm?park_id=48

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)