Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii/Archive 2

Introduction too short
So may have had an outstandingly bad way of making a point. But there is a point in there. And I notice that expanding the introduction is on the to-do list above. So &hellip; what can we salvage from this? Let's be constructive. The assertion is that the cuisine of Hawaii encompasses more than just the plate lunch, and that the introduction should reflect that. What is the introduction missing? What should be added? Should the introduction even be trying to summarize in the first place what could potentially be a wide range of things, and thus largely incapable of being summarized without descending into meaningless generalizations that could apply to any area's cuisine? Or should it simply introduce and provide context? Uncle G (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Souldn't we first find sources that discuss Hawaiian food (may not be easy as I did a very quick search) and see what we can add to the article from those references and then re-jig the intro? I also had a look at other Cuisine of x or x Cuisine articles for ideas - they all have pretty short intros. -- Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  23:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what has happened to the lead, but some joker turned it into a list of ingredients found in the plate lunch. This needs to be removed. Viriditas (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted to old lead until it can be rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. This has been a lively discussion, however I believe consensus has been established on some key points. One is that there's consensus for separate articles: the general article on the cuisine of Hawaii, as well as split-off articles on such things as Native Hawaiian cuisine and perhaps others. Additionally, while there's disagreement on this point, there is a solid consensus that Cuisine of Hawaii is a preferable name for the general article. This is in line with other articles on American cuisines, and as Viriditas points out, "Hawaiian cuisine" could also refer specifically to the cuisine of Native Hawaiians; to local European and East Asian-influenced foods; or to the relatively recent development known as Hawaii Regional Cuisine. Following the move, discussion on how best to split off material for articles on Native Hawaiian cuisine/Ancient Hawaiian cuisine, Hawaii Regional Cuisine, etc., should continue below.Cúchullain t/ c 15:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian cuisine → Cuisine of Hawaii – Neelix moved this article from Cuisine of Hawaii to Hawaiian cuisine in February 2011, claiming that it needs to be "consistent with other regional cuisine articles" and that "there is no reason to make this article's title an exception". However, this is a misinterpretation of the guidelines. Hawaii, a former Kingdom and sovereign nation, is home to the Native Hawaiians, and their food is discussed in terms of the cuisine of Ancient Hawaii, but this is not the primary topic. The primary topic of this article is the cuisine of Hawaii, otherwise known as "local food", composed of many ethnic cuisines from many nations (including Polynesians, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Europeans). The modern regional cuisine is called "Hawaii regional cuisine" (HRC), not "Hawaiian". So, this topic covers three different cuisines, 1) Cuisine of Ancient Hawaiians (Native Hawaiian cuisine), 2) Cuisine of immigrants to Hawaii (local food, including missionary food), and 3) Contemporary cuisine of Hawaii (HRC, an American regional cuisine). To summarize, "Hawaiian" in this context refers to a native person of Hawaiian descent, which is a very small part of this article (and should be split out into its own article).  The Cuisine of Hawaii topic refers to many different cultures and cuisines that are popular in Hawaii, known as "local food'. Hawaii regional cuisine was a movement that was started by restaurant chefs.  The article should not have been moved to Hawaiian cuisine, and this is a proposal to move it back.  The title, "Cuisine of Hawaii", is the most accurate title for the subject, and its appropriate use is reflected by the sources already in use in the article. Viriditas (talk) 06:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note - WP:Naming conventions (cuisines) states that cuisine based articles use the Name topic format, i.e. Hawaiian cuisine. Additionally, the current consensus-derived guidelines used by the four major Food and Beverage projects (WP:Food, WP:Beer, WP:Wine, & WP:Spirits) also state that cuisine is a form of cultural expression along the lines of language, literature and other cultural traditions and use the Name topic format. These guidelines can be found here.


 * Support per reason given. Also article seems to fit format of Cuisine of the United States and its subarticles. -- Neil N   talk to me  06:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, per WP:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). I do not find the nominator's rationale to be very convincing. Kauffner (talk) 14:16, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Split Oppose - We should differentiate between aboriginal and colonial cuisines. I just would like to use the proper guidelines on cuisine articles. These are them:
 * Articles on cuisines that are about non-geographic specific culture may use the formula XXX cuisine; hence Jewish cuisine, Vegetarian cuisine, Byzantine cuisine. Exceptions are to be made when the adjective is too ambiguous, such as "American cuisine"; in these cases Cuisine of the United States is preferable. A cuisine history article about a cuisine that still exists today, such as Hawaiian cuisine or Jewish cuisine should be History of Hawaiian cuisine or History of Jewish cuisine respectively.
 * The majority of American regional cuisine articles are xxx cuisine. The Hawaiian cuisine move was and is correct. Hawaii is a relatively small region of the United States no different than Puerto Rico (Puerto Rican cuisine). Other examples similarly named cuisine articles include Louisiana Creole cuisine, Lowcountry cuisine. Only larger regional cuisines or those regional articles where there is no proper adjective term covering the region use the Cuisine of xxx; regional cuisines that do have acceptable adjective terms use the Xxx cuisine formats. Yes there is a native cuisine and a modern cuisine, but the naming structure is proper. According to the cuisine guidelines, Aboriginal Hawaiian cuisine should be titled Native Hawaiian cuisine to correspond with the Native American cuisine article, and any related articles would use the title format Modern Hawaiian cuisine and History of Hawaiian cuisine etc. American Cuisine versus Cuisine of the United States is a different beast entirely. American cuisine could be theoretically about Cuisine of the American continents, so the Cuisine of the United States is used to avoid ambiguity. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Split it should be split in two, one for ethnic Hawaiian cuisine, and one for cuisine of the geographic region. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which by the naming conventions should be Hawaiian cuisine and Native Hawaiian cuisine.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not true. We don't use naming convention guidelines to determine the accuracy of our article titles.  In fact, guidelines aren't used to determine the accuracy of our article titles at all. They are only used to guide our decision making in the right direction based primarily on the sources themselves.  The anon is absolutely correct that a split should occur, but the problem is that the issue of the page move still needs to be resolved, so the anon's split should be counted as a support.  In other words, yes, there is enough material to split a new article out on the cuisine of Ancient Hawaii (and I have the sources to do so) but the problem is that in order to preserve the page history, a proposed move discussion still needs to occur.  Further, the ambiguity of "Hawaiian cuisine" as a title qualifies it as a redirect in name only, not as an actual title in use, since the term "Hawaiian cuisine" refers to the three different food styles listed above.  So I support splitting, but that doesn't solve the problem under discussion. Viriditas (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom (the adjective form might imply an ethnic cuisine) and User:Kauffner, i.e. WP:Naming conventions (country-specific topics), assuming the current article's contents. Split into cuisine of Hawaii and native Hawaiian cuisine if others wish.  —  AjaxSmack   22:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Split - I have only encountered our naming conventions for country-specific topics since I made this move more than a year ago, but the naming conventions are quite clear. The information about the cuisine of the US state of Hawaii should be located at Cuisine of Hawaii while the information about the cuisine of the people group known as native Hawaiians should remain at Hawaiian cuisine, not be moved to Native Hawaiian cuisine. All of the other articles relating to native Hawaiians omit the term "native" from the title (ex. Hawaiian studies, Hawaiian language, Hawaiian kinship). The word "Hawaiian" can refer to people who live in Hawaii but are not ethnically Hawaiian, but the cuisine of the ethnic group should be considered the primary target while Cuisine of Hawaii can be linked in a hatnote on that article. I recommend against moving, but support splitting the state-specific information off into its own article. Neelix (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose your proposal as it is 100% incorrect. Native Hawaiian cuisine should not remain at Hawaiian cuisine because "Hawaiian cuisine" is an ambiguous term referring to three distinct cuisines, Ancient Hawaiian, local food, and Hawaii Regional Cuisine. Ambiguous terms should never be used to name articles, so that's not a option.  Per our policy on article titles, they should be unambiguous and precisely identify the subject.  Please review WP:PRECISION. The ambigious title "Hawaiian cuisine" is only useful as a redirect to the parent topic of cuisine of Hawaii, where readers will find the three child topics (Cuisine of Ancient Hawaii, local food, and Hawaii Regional Cuisine) discussed summary style and split out as they are expanded. Your claim that "the word "Hawaiian" can refer to people who live in Hawaii but are not ethnically Hawaiian" isn't supported by the slightest bit of evidence.  People who were born in Hawaii but are not Native Hawaiian are called "locals", and their ethnicity, if mixed, is generally referred to informally as one of many variations on the term Hapa.  It is true that people who are part Hawaiian (hapa kanaka) are generally referred to as "Hawaiian".  In other words, people in Hawaii are not called "Hawaiian" unless they have some Native Hawaiian heritage.  Long term residents (people who were not born here) are called Kama'aina, not "Hawaiian".  Someone who lives in Hawaii is called a resident of Hawaii, not a "Hawaiian". Please don't make stuff up that isn't true, as it reflects poorly on your judgment. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * All the dictionaries I see show that anyone who lives in Hawaii, no matter what their ethnicity, can be called a Hawaiian. Check Dictionary.com, Wiktionary, Merriam-Webster, etc. Also, the first bullet in WP:PRECISION, which you indicate, states that the primary topic should be located at an unmodified title (ie. one that is ambiguous). Other articles that could be referred to by the same name can be linked from a hatnote. This is standard practice and quite common on Wikipedia. See, for example, Star, Moth, and Truth, which are all terms that could refer to several articles but the primary topic is located at the unmodified title. Information about the cuisine of Native Hawaiians should remain here, so I am for a split and against a move. Neelix (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, all of the dictionaries do not say that, and your comment shows that you either don't understand the sources you have cited or are purposefully misusing them.  Those sources indicate that the primary definition refers to Native Hawaiians, not to residents.  The fact that neither the federal, state, or local governments use the term in the way you claim they do, pretty much demolishes your argument. Furthermore, there are no scholarly sources that use the term the way you are using it.  Sometimes, it is best to know when to stop digging.  Frankly, with this kind of willful POV pushing, you should not be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia. I'm sick and tired of people making shit up off the top of their head and then wasting hours of our time trying to convince us that its true. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review our policy on personal attacks and our guidelines on assuming good faith. Comments like "you should not be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia" are against our policy on civility as well. If other users are willing to review the sources I have cited, they will see that I have portrayed them accurately. Neelix (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was literally, nothing accurate about your "portrayal". Further, we don't "portray" sources, we cite them in the appropriate context and use them judiciously.  Either you don't understand how we use sources or you didn't understand what you read, as the three dictionary definitions you cited show beyond a reasonable doubt that the word is ambiguous and has three different definitions, which supports my entire rationale for moving this article to the precise context of the parent article  which is "cuisine of Hawaii".  The ambiguous term, "Hawaiian cuisine" primarily refers to "cuisine of Hawaii" as our parent topic.  Your contention that the article should reside at the ambiguous term only holds if this is not primary, and clearly it is based on the usage in reliable sources about cuisine.  Lastly, your claim that dictionary definitions prove that "anyone who lives in Hawaii, no matter what their ethnicity, can be called a Hawaiian" is beyond absurd.  Neither the federal, state, or local government use the term in that way, nor do the people of Hawaii.  So, since nobody uses the term in the way you claim they "can", what is your point?  Usage is a primary criterion for establishing how we use article titles, and the only usage you can demonstrate can be found inside your head.  That's not acceptable, and that's why you should not be allowed anywhere near Wikipedia.  All you do is make stuff up. Viriditas (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

RM Discussion
I have moved the discussion here so as to not distract from the poll.


 * The naming structure is not proper, as the term "Hawaiian" is reserved only for Native Hawaiians, which is why "Cuisine of Hawaii" is used to avoid the ambiguity of confusing Native Hawaiian cuisine with local and regional cuisine. Your comment is quite strange as it directly supports changing the name, yet you've written "oppose".   Did you mean to type "support"?  Guidelines are used primarily to help us make good decisions; they are not intended to restrict good decisions.  You are misusing the guideline from the way it was intended to be used.  Further, most of your comment is just wrong.  Hawaii is a region of Oceania, not the United States.   Modern Hawaiian cuisine is called "Hawaii regional cuisine", not "Hawaiian".  You keep misusing the term "Hawaiian"; people who live in Hawaii are not called "Hawaiians".  Do you understand? The proper title, "Cuisine of Hawaii", is the disambiguated form according to your own argument. This was previously explained to you in 2009 yet you are still ignoring it.  This seems to be a case of "I didn't hear that". Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please state the policy that reserves the term "Hawaiian" solely for aboriginals, and btw WP:Naming conventions does not even remotely say national terms belong solely to aboriginals. Otherwise the whole comment is your personal preference which runs contrary to the consensus established in the national cuisine guidelines. I am not ignoring your comment now or then, I simply felt your personal beliefs did not apply because they were contrary to guidelines established to deal with this issue. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeremy, I have not discussed my personal beliefs at any time. The word "Hawaiian" only refers to Native Hawaiians, not residents of Hawaii.  Guidelines exist to support evidence-based decision making, not to hinder them as you are doing.  Your entire argument for opposing the move is actually a support.  Have you even read the article or the sources?  I ask, because you seem to be making arguments from ignorance rather than from evidence.  Your request for a "policy" makes no sense.  This article is about the cuisine of Hawaii, a type of cuisine from Oceania, Asia, and the United States.  It does not refer to "Hawaiians" as you continue to claim, without evidence. I suspect you've never read this article nor any sources on the subject.  An uninformed comment is most unhelpful.  According to Jon Okamura, assistant professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawaii, "state and federal definitions of Hawaiian are based on descent, so it doesn't make sense for someone to claim to be Hawaiian based on culture". Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, policy does dictate how we do things. Your opinions represent what you want to happen not reality. If your assertions were correct, then the article naming conventions would not exist. The commentary you quote refers to the definition of Aboriginal peoples in general, and leaves out the fact that the Federal government leaves the determination of ethnicity to the individual groups themselves. The problem is that each group uses different definitions, resulting in a massive controversy amongst the aboriginal groups in the United States. Some use the "one drop" method, claiming that anyone with any amount of "native blood" can claim heritage while other groups use more restrictive percentage based metrics. What this means is in one group you can be considered to be part of that group if you have 1/256th while others say you must be at least 1/4 to be considered native. Our policies are established to avoid these various outside arguments and create a stable, neutral environment. And countering your argument, modern chefs and food related media refer to it as "Hawaiian cuisine", "Hawaiian food" and "Hawaiian dishes", so are they wrong? No, they are not because it is a matter of semantics. We do use culture as one metric on Wikipedia and sometimes those metrics clash with outside arguments; but that, as I stated, is why we establish naming guidelines and policies. Massive walls of text do not change how Wikipedia operates, so if you wish to change how this operates go to the proper area and start a discussion there.


 * Finally, the argument you are using is contrary to consensus-derived based policies and guidelines regarding ethnic and regional disputes that have been established. Your argument has been made by others in the community, and has failed (See Macedonian subject discussions, too many to list). What we have now for policies and guidelines is what we use for situations such as this, even if some believe the situation to be contrary. However you look at it, and even if you disagree with it, you still have to operate under those policies. And also, don't call others vandals when you disagree with them, it is not civil. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)  16:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your "massive wall of text" is 100% bogus, and demonstrates that you don't understand how we use policies or guidelines here at all. The article title, Cuisine of Hawaii has always been policy and guideline compliant.  That you seek to obsessively impose a standard on an article that doesn't fit that standard continues to be ignored by you.  If you had bothered to read the actual discussion (you seem to have a consistent habit in many different discussions of completely ignoring the points that are made and pushing forward with your own POV campaign) you would have immediately noticed that the argument for a move has nothing to do with culture and everything to do with ethnicity.  Culture is not ethnicity. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is right culture is not ethnicity, however culture is one of the determining factors in the article naming guidelines. Read it at Naming conventions (country-specific topics), specifically this passage:It is important to be able to differentiate when a topic is actually country-specific. We are not discussing a subject that is solely located in Hawaii but a topic that originated in Hawaii and is not confined to those solely in Hawaii or who are Hawaiian in heritage. Your claims are spurious because of this. An please stop insulting me, comment on the discussion and not the people in the discussion. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You clearly do not understand the naming conventions you have cited nor do you understand what you have written above, as it directly supports (once again) the move to "Cuisine of Hawaii". "Hawaii" primarily refers to the region of the Hawaiian islands.  "Hawaiian" refers to the Native Hawaiian people.  "Hawaiian cuisine" is an inaccurate and imprecise term that has at least three separate meanings.  "Cuisine of Hawaii" is a precise term that refers specifically and accurately to the parent topic that includes all three subtopics.  Per best practices, we disambiguate the terms appropriately, which leads us to the conclusion that the topic of cuisine in "Hawaii" is best referred to as "cuisine of Hawaii".  It is an inescapable conclusion that you cannot wiggle out of or slither away from.  There's no goalposts for you to move, and there's nowhere to run and hide.  No matter how imprecise and loosely some people might use the term "Hawaiian cuisine", it should exist only as a redirect to "cuisine of Hawaii" to prevent any ambiguity".  When the "cuisine of Ancient Hawaii" is split out, a hatnote can also help readers find it.  Naming conventions are used to help editors eliminate ambiguity and create precise titles.  They are not intended to do the opposite. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible middle ground finder:
 * Which articles do we want? a few suggestions (which may not have overlap):
 * One about food and its preparations in Hawaii, now and in the past
 * One about food and its preparations as was performed on ancient Hawaii
 * One about preparation of food in traditional Hawaiian culture
 * One about modern cuisine in Hawaii
 * One about what people in Hawaii often eat, and how that food is prepared
 * One about the food people of Hawaiian descent often eat, and how that food is prepared
 * Once the subjects are clear, it might become easier to get the the naming. Also, if there is disagreement about the primary subject of two possible titles, could a disambiguation (on either or both pages) be acceptable? Quick note, have you noticed that you have been arguing about an article title for 3 years now? Don't you think this argument might be excessive, or even WP:LAME? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally would think a split into two articles called "Hawaiian cuisine" and "Native Hawaiian cuisine" would be perfect in order to differentiate between aboriginal and colonial cuisines and cover the subjects. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * So that would be one article about colonial cuisines in Hawaii, now and in the past, and one about native Hawaiian food and preparations, right? Is that something you want too, Viriditas, or are you looking for articles with other scopes? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I am not overly concerned about the content. My main concern is that we use the proper naming guidelines for the articles, as has been my argument all along. The split is a common sense move to address the two major cultures in Hawaii. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that a split should occur, but my understanding of the situation differs from Jeremy's in two respects: 1) A split down purely ethnic lines is not going to be helpful, particularly because there is no colonial Hawaiian ethnic cuisine; there are only non-Hawaiian ethnic cuisines that have been introduced in Hawaii, and these already have articles (ex. English cuisine, Cantonese cuisine, Vietnamese cuisine, etc.). I agree that there should be a separate article for the cuisine of ethnic Hawaiians, but the other article should not be about colonial Hawaiian cuisine; it should be called Cuisine of Hawaii and be about the cuisine of the island of Hawaii, documenting all the cuisines found there, including ethnic Hawaiian cuisine. It will not be a parent article for the ethnic Hawaiian cuisine article because that article will include the introduction of Hawaiian cuisine into other regions of the world. 2) The name of the article about the cuisine of ethnic Hawaiians should remain at Hawaiian cuisine, not be moved to Native Hawaiian cuisine. Above, I have enumerated the reasons that the current title is most appropriate. Neelix (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, so pending input from others, there so far is agreement there should be an article about the cuisine of ethnic Hawaiians, and that there should be a second article, for which there is the suggestion of Jeremy, to have it on colonial cuisines on Hawaii, and the countersuggestion from Neelix, to have it covering the cuisine on the island(s?) of Hawaii. Can you live with the counter-suggestion, Jeremy? Are there others that can maybe find a compromising solution? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * When I say colonial I mean the modern Hawaiian cuisine that takes its cues from the non-native populations. From the various culinary television shows that I have seen there are dishes and culinary traditions that are unique to the islands that are relatively modern. I do not know if it is California cuisine/Cuisine of California type of issue where California cuisine is a specific form of cuisine created by chefs like Wolfgang Puck that originated in California and moved outward versus the actual cuisine styles of California. It appears to me it is more of a Native American cuisine/Floribbean cuisine, Louisiana creole cuisine & lowcountry cuisine (these three latter American regional cuisines are found in the Southeastern United States) issue where you have the cuisine of the aboriginal peoples of America and a set of cuisines that evolved out of several groups colonial waves that merged to form a new type of cuisine. (I have some more to say about this but have to head off to class then work. I will continue on this in about 12-15 hours.) --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:59, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm back, and I had fun day at work and class. The issue we are dealing here is like the Australian cuisine article, and its lead starts off like this:Australian cuisine refers to the cuisine of the Commonwealth of Australia and its preceding indigenous and colonial societies. Australia has allot of parallels to Hawaii (on a bigger scale), an island region with an indigenous population that was eventually usurped by a western-based colonial regime that created a new culture. The current Australian culture (and by extension cuisine) has aspects of the indigenous culture but is now a unique set of cultural aspect that are unique, It is Australian culture. Based on that precedent, we should follow keep the current title, and split off the Native Hawaiian cuisine article. Additionally, using the cuisine of the United States naming would be wrong on several levels. The US naming structure is in place not because of the complexities and size of the national cuisine, it is in place because the term "American cuisine" is ambiguous; on one hand it could be used like European cuisine to describe cuisine from the American continents or it could be used for cuisine of the United States, commonly referred to as America (or "Amuricuh" if you are a former president of that country). To avoid confusion we use the term cuisine of... and since We could use the term "United Statesian", but that would be too much like Earthican.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeremy, as you've been repeatedly informed, what you describe is called Hawaii Regional Cuisine (HRC) not Hawaiian cuisine. The terms and descriptions that you use indicate that you've neither read this article nor perused it's sources. Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This will be that last time I respond or address you. Please understand that I no longer wish to interact with or deal with you. Your method of interaction with those you disagree with disagrees with me and I frankly do not like it. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!)  06:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Jeremy, from what I'm reading about your proposal (temporary side-stepping the naming issue for a moment), I see that as very similar as the article scope Neelix is proposing; the cuisine on the islands of Hawaii, though you might be descibing only the more recent cuisine, where Neelix opts to take in more older (i.e. missionary food, and some of the native Hawaiian cuisine for a historical perspective). Do all three of you (and/or any others that have an interest in the discussion) share that point of view? That the concept that Neelix has been describing, and the concept Jeremy was describing, are almost the same thing, apart from what it should or shouldn't be labelled? If not, is there any of the scopes for a second article next to an article which describes native Hawaiian cuisine that are acceptable to everyone here? If not, what are the key differences in article scope (still sidestepping the naming issue, lets settle on scope first) that you really can't agree to?

As a side node Jeremy, if you want to get this issue resolved, you have to talk to people who have a different viewpoint. In a colaborative process, you won't be able to get far with just posing your point of view, and refusing to discuss it with people who disagree with you. I can in no way say that Viriditas tone is any rougher than what can be expected after a long running (series of) dispute(s). I have to admit, I myself haven't read the reference about Hawaii Regional Cuisine; I have no quick access to the book (assuming this is refering to Nenes, Micheal F. (2007), "Cuisine of Hawaii", American Regional Cuisine). If you do, great, that would help when later, when we have found a consensus on scope, we can see how readings of those sources differ, and how that might play into what to name the article. If not, that is a bit of a shame, but no reason to feel attacked about. I don't think that Viriditas wants to set up any 'required reading' before being allowed to take part in a discussion. I think it is save to assume that you have read the article itself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Jeremy and I both agree that an article about ethnic Hawaiian cuisine should exist and that another, separate article should exist. The two points of difference between us are 1) what the two articles should be called, and 2) the scope of the second article. If I am understanding Jeremy correctly, the scope he is suggesting for the second article is more limited in scope than the one I am suggesting; he would like to see an article about a singular cuisine that has arisen in contemporary Hawaii, while I would like to see an article that is an overview of all cuisines that have existed in Hawaii. These are not necessarily incompatible, as the smaller-scope article falls within the scope of the larger-scope article. We can either have the smaller-scope article and the larger-scope article as separate articles, or we can have the smaller-scope one as a section within the larger-scope article; either is fine by me. As for the naming differences, I feel as though the main issue we are seeing differently is how cuisine articles should be named in general. The titles that are currently in place for most cuisine articles is a "Demonym cuisine" format, a format I took a primary role in establishing and the format that Jeremy upholds, if I am reading his comments accurately. Unfortunately, since establishing this format, I have learned about our naming conventions for country-specific topics, which are explicitly against using the "Demonym cuisine" format when the article is specific to a region instead of an ethnic group. The naming conventions prescribe the "Demonym cuisine" format for ethnic-group-specific articles and the "Cuisine of region" format for region-specific articles. As such, many cuisine-related articles are currently named incorrectly. Cuisine of the United States is not named such because "American cuisine" is ambiguous, but because this article is following the naming conventions correctly while most other similar articles are not (yet). Neelix (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what the formats should be, but one should be about native Hawaiian cuisine, its history, evolution and current status. There are multiple sources I have came across that outline that subject. The second should be about what we now have as the cuisine of the Modern US state of Hawaii, and its evolution reflecting the growth out of the native cuisine, how the ensuing immigration waves shaped and molded it and its modern state and position in global cuisines. Second, to help with the cuisine naming format, we have the naming convention for cuisines. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds like we are agreed on what the scope of both articles should be. WP:Naming conventions (cuisines), however, is not yet a guideline and is far from achieving consensus. The relevant guideline is WP:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). Neelix (talk) 11:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Veriditas, are you on board with this too? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is what I am on board with: there are only four article titles under discussion: the parent topic, Cuisine of Hawaii, two daughter articles, Cuisine of Ancient Hawaii and the modern Hawaii Regional Cuisine, and the proposed redirect "Hawaiian cuisine".  Because "Hawaiian cuisine" is an ambiguous term that can refer to at least three topics (listed above) it should redirect to the appropriately titled parent topic "Cuisine of Hawaii", where the daughter articles can be found in summary style form. Neither Jerem43 nor Neelix appears to have taken the time to read this article nor peruse the sources, so their uninformed opinion does not hold any weight with me. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was more hoping on being on board with the article scopes. Also, I think you can be quite sure that everybody here has read the article. As for the sources, some may have read some of it, but with few of it available on-line or in public libraries, I for one am unable to review all sourcing. I can't speak for the rest. What are your thoughts on article scope? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe you missed this on your watchlist; could you still give your opinion on the scope (only, not the title) in relation what has been said here? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a quick new ping, could you come back to this? I'm sure you have ideas on this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photos
Perhaps some of the notable Hawaiian fruits and veggies can be grouped together in a gallery below the appropriate section? Some other photo tweaking might be useful. But removing wholesale lots of encyclopedic photos is not constructive to the article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Neither is adding content that doesn't improve Wikipedia and disrupts the article. This discussion (which I had not seen until now) has been superseded by the one below it due to editor participation. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)