Talk:Hawaii hotspot

Copyedits
This is a nice, informative article.

I've made conventional copyedit changes to simplify verb tenses and remove redundant words that readers can fill in for themselves (E.g., "Pacific" instead of "Pacific Ocean".) Also conventionally, the "hedging" language that stipulates dates and measurements are approximate is removed...readers will automatically assume that figures are rounded without the article saying so.

Stylistically, the opening phrase "perhaps best known" is removed, since it's unprovable, and irrelevant whether it's the best known or not.

Spelling Hawaii as Hawai'i is not a standard English dictionary spelling, does not match the article title, and may serve to confuse readers away from the central topic of the article, which is the hotspot.

67.169.127.166 (talk) 01:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clean up, but what is the basis for thinking that "hotspot" should be capitalized? As you point out for the spelling of Hawaii, capitalizing it does not match the title (and what are the rules that say titles are different from text?); the USGS does not capitalize it, and we don't capitalize it elsewhere in other hotspot articles. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Responded on your talk page, but for closure -- for the benefit of future generations 75 million years from now -- I was struggling to figure out what the capitalization convention was. The original caps for Hawaii hotspot are restored. Regards.  67.169.127.166 (talk) 02:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Total Rewrite
I can currently developing a total rewrite of the article in my sandbox. ResMar 22:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Replaced. ResMar 22:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Still working on it. ResMar 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So yeah, I'm mostly done. ResMar 15:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I take that back; after then, I 3x'd the article, again. NOW it's done :P Res Mar 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments after read through
As requested I have gone through the article, I did a spelling, grammar copy edit and added a few coordinates to the last table. Other comments are below:

If I can help let me know.Wikigillie (talk) 15:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC) }}

My two cents
Good article; I might add a couple links since I am working on some other Hawaii articles somewhat related to volcanoes (history). Two questions: I think Native Hawaiian link should instead be Ancient Hawaiian? "Native" refers to anyone of Hawaiian ethnic ancestry(or born in the state, ambiguous) of any time period. "Ancient" refers to the period before the Kingdom of 1810, (or contact with Europeans, generally 1778 or before). That is, it is the time period that is relevant here, not the ethnic nature or birthplace. Also what about mentioning Māhukona in the table? Or is it too minor to mention? Generally agree with your use of diacritics, although I would use them in island names like Niihau, Lānai etc. but there are precedents for dropping them in the major islands. Mahalo.
 * I did the change to ancient Hawaiian. Would also be nice to have a citation for this, or expand it a bit in the main body under "History". W Nowicki (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See the last section, "Hawaiian mythology". This is cited and explained further. Thanks for making the change, and btw this article is currently a Featured Article candidate so if you have any more suggestions it would be nice if you could leave comments using the link listed at the top of this talk page. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  16:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, I was looking under the "History" section, while it is in another section tacked to the end. I tend to like chronological order, so would put the Mythology section before the one on modern history myself, but that might be just taste. And sure, I will add a supporting comment for featured status. W Nowicki (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * After reading through this article, I definitely believe that it should be a featured article. Good luck! Kevinmon (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It certainly should be, but it's nowhere ready. Lots of work to do... Viriditas (talk) 03:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another round?
I should have some time to work on the history later today or tomorrow. I still think putting the history in chronological order (as it is in the lead) would be more powerful. It is quite relevant to this article that Hawaiians had a dynamic model of the Earth when Europeans were taught it was created exactly as it was 6000 years earlier. (Some still might believe that, but let's avoid that discussion.) The Wilkes journals are a pain to go through, but I can take a look too.

(later) OK I added a summary paragaph on the 1794-1841 explorations. Wilkes' own journals say little about the geology, but there are other sources. American Journal of Science and Arts is on-line so that helps, so I think that is fine now, but pelase review. I will also volunteer to update to modern typography, instead of the old simplified writing of Hawaiian words (except of course the word "Hawaii" itself, as we can grant that is now an "English" word). W Nowicki (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Did that, and fixed a few other nits: the famous Pele pic is at the Jaggar Museum, not the main visitors' center, HVO has been run by USGS since 1924, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * (: Res Mar 15:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rephrase?
Great article, I hope you succeed in getting it accepted as a featured article.

As a latecomer here, I'm proposing a change rather than just doing it. The bold text in this sentence is poorly worded:

While most volcanic activity occurs along the boundaries of tectonic plates, powered by the movement of the plates, hotspots can occur far from any geological boundaries, and require a completely different mechanism for maintaining volcanic activity. ..

I suggest something more like ". . . a different model is required to explain volcanic activity . . . "

Aloha! Awien (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Current revisions: notes
The former 'controversy' section is now very much changed into a grab-bag "other features" section that still may need a little work. IMO the section should be removed and the info redistributed among the info on the hotspot itself. The metamorphasis of this section is due to the fact that on my inspection of the scientific literature, many of the claims cited to Don L. Anderson's article on mantleplumes.org are either unrelated, incorrect, or inconclusive. I'm currently debating having a small reference to him in the plumes section as a notable adversary to the general consensus that mantle plumes exist. But perhaps the main articles on hotspots and mantle plumes are a better place to that, as his opposition is in the vast, vast minority and isn't Hawaii-specific. Awickert (talk) 07:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree that that section is somewhat of a grab bag.
 * Made some minor changes in preparation for redistribution. Areas of possible further change include:
 * More recent articles can be found to update the overall plume-plate motion - Tarduno 2007 & Whitaker 2007
 * Discuss case for deep-mantle plume further - Clouard 2001 and Courtier 2007
 * Possible antipodal hotspot is Lake Victoria (okay, that's a theoretical stretch) - Hagstrum 2005
 * Implications of the ratio of He3/He4 on hotspot behavior - Hanyu 2005
 * Hawaiian hotspot track preserved in the Bering Sea (compelling article, but perhaps not here) - Steinberger 2007
 * Implications of Hawaiian hotspot 7Li/6Li ratios as compared to mid-ocean ridges on formation mechanisms - Widom 2006
 * Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * MORE thoughts after reading some of the literature - The long-standing view that hotspot volcanoes such as Hawaii or Iceland represent the surface expression of hot, buoyant upwelling mantle plumes beneath the Earth's lithosphere has been the focus of some controversy over the past 15 years. For example, based on seismic tomography Foulger (Foulger et al 2001 DOI: 10.1046/j.0956-540x.2001.01470.x) concluded that the Icelandic hotspot was an upper mantle, plume, limited to 450 km in depth. Further Graham (Graham et al 2001 doi:10.1038/35055529) and Meibom (Meibom et al 2003 DOI: 10.1016/S0012-821X(03)00038-4), argue the use of 3He/4He ratios not necessarily a valid signature for deep-mantle plume components, but rather could result from secondary convection in the mantle. These are valid issues that need to be addressed by the volcanic hotspot article. However no recent peer-reviewed article reaches explicit conclusions about Hawaii & recently published peer-reviewed articles appear to put many of these issues to rest for the Hawaiian hotspot. As a result, I think this article as currently written may place too much importance on the shallow hotspot controversy.
 * Think the same can be said for the fixed versus moving controversy, although a little more reading will be required to confirm this issue has settled out around a consensus that both the hotspot and the plates move.
 * Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 16:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all of your additions and edits! I will be popping in and out, but will try to set aside some time to work in the near future. I wonder if we can take the substantial material here as a running start to work on the general hotspot (geology) article as Bill suggests - I bet we can. All the articles I've read about Hawaii have the plume sourced at the core-mantle boundary as well. Awickert (talk) 06:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The more articles I read, the less sure I am that there is a clear path forward. There is strong evidence that the Hawaiian hotspot is "deep", BUT the overall controversy is alive and well and the resolution must account for the Hawaiian hotspot as well as numerous other interesting features. The good news is the literature reads as if a major insight might be just over the horizon, allowing resolution. Too bad editing Wikipedia is a hobby - this warrants a good week of concentrated study to get it right. For now I'll continue to review articles until it becomes apparent how to address a restructure of the characteristics section (unless you (Awickert) or any other equally dedicated geology editor should get there first).
 * Cheers - Williamborg (Bill) 17:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, thank you, thank you. I have not had the time to do this, nor will I in the next couple of weeks at least. And I've volunteered to do too many things here. Feel free to leave me a message if there's something that you don't understand in an article though, and I'll do my best to help. You're a lifesaver, Awickert (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii, not Hawai i
Actually, the WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style convention is to use the okina for the big island (as it is in the GNIS, for example, and modern scholarly maps) but not the state or island chain. So I do agree on removing it from the phrase "Hawaii hotspot", but several times the island is mentioned, and the article seems to not make this distinction clear. W Nowicki (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Dumped the okinas. Lfstevens (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Restored 'okinas for the island of Hawai'i, as per consensus. You respect Latin declension sufficiently to use "fora" on your user page - how about according the same respect to Hawaiian orthography? Awien (talk)
 * Fair enough. Hadn't caught the distinction between the island the rest. Thanks. And, by the way, I spent many hours adding okina to various Hawaii-related articles until I got zinged for doing so. I've also added appropriate accent marks to many Hawaiian words. See List of fish of Hawaii to see it. Lfstevens (talk) 03:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the 'okina wars! Wanna see my scars? Anyway, sorry I was snappy, one meets too many people who are totally impervious to reason. Aloha! Awien (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

14:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I also was bothered by one place that talked about the "main island". Generally the "main island" is considered Oahu, since it has most of the population (capital, etc.), while the others are called "neighbor islands" or other terms indicating few people live on them. But it is the big island of course that has the eruptions, so fixed that one. There are a few other places that are ambiguous: they just say "Hawaii" but if the hot spot is under the big island, then it should be Hawaii island, not the state as a whole, or the more proper term "Hawaiian islands" for the whole chain. W Nowicki (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello from 2022! Updated the article's okinas to conform to the standard established here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Lack of focus
This article now includes huge amounts of material that is only loosely related to its subject. Why are we learning about lava trees and ʻaʻā here? This article should focus on how the hotspot produces islands, not on everything Hawaii-volcanic. This article is very long, and highly duplicative of other articles that more closely target their subjects. Lfstevens (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree: a lot that could be spun off, or referenced via links. Awien (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Point-of-View
Quote: "In 1987, Peter Molnar and Joann Stock found that the hotspot (is moving) relative to the Atlantic Ocean." Correction, John Tarduno used the latutide giving by the magnetismus of the basalts to propose this fact. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As Africa and Europe are quite stationary.
 * As, uses a rate for the Eurasia Plate relative to the Iceland hotspot of 5 ±3 mm/yr, and a rate for the North American Plate relative to the Iceland hotspot of 15 ±5 mm/yr.
 * Implying so that the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is moving westwards and it is a very bad reference point. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * New England hotspot migrated from the West side of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge to the East side. So the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is not a reference position. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * References:


 * , uses a moving hotspot frame after 100 Ma.
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats it
Poured a lot of blood into this article. Three failed FACs, that's enough. If anyone else wants to grapple with the ton of problems it has please go ahead, but more then enough for me. Res Mar 04:24, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not worry. Maybe just a good article quality stamp is worth the effort. The featured article one seems to disappoint many wiki editors. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is one of the reasons I do not try to bring lengthy articles to FA class..... BT (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Me and Mario put a lot of work into this article, and even though it never passed FA I am not disappointed in our efforts. I'd say the article looks pretty damn good, although perhaps we added lots of things that didn't necessarily belong here... it is easy to get carried away when trying to be "thorough". I actually would try again if I had the time, but I have other things I'd rather work on... so I'm with Mario, let everyone else deal with it. I am done as well. I'm sure someone else can do a better job with this as geology isn't really my strong point anyway. -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  18:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see we agree on this. A Hawaiian volcanism FT was unrealistic, anyway...anyway I'm very aprehensive about launching anything right now because I have to go on vacation soon (aurgh I hate that place >.>). I still want to get an FL out of the list, though :L Res Mar 02:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

82m or 86m?
Currently different paragraphs refer to the oldest seamount as 82m or 86 million years old. If there is a difference in scientific opinion can we explain that, if it is an error would someone mind fixing it? Ta  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually Oxford says and the journal of Petrology both say 85 million years, as does List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian-Emperor seamount chain. Conflicting dates, perhaps? I'm going to go with 85. Res Mar 02:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

FA nomination?
After the recent surge of edits, this article has reached a plateau. Maybe it's time to nominate it for FA status! RockMagnetist (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Carmen Gaina
Maybe following references help:
 * JM Whittaker, RD Müller, G Leitchenkov, H Stagg, M Sdrolias, C Gaina, A…, Major Australian-Antarctic plate reorganization at Hawaiian-Emperor bend time, Science 318 (5847), 83-86
 * JM Whittaker, RD Müller, G Leitchenkov, H Stagg…, Response to Comment on" Major Australian-Antarctic Plate Reorganization at Hawaiian-Emperor Bend Time" - Science, 2008
 * AK Baksi, M Hagos, C Koeberl…, A Review of the Radiometric Data Placing the Hawaiian–Emperor Bend at 50 Ma; Placing Constraints on Hypotheses Concerning the Origin of the Hawaiian–Emperor… - Topics in Igneous…, 2010 - books.google.com
 * Page 56 has revised age determinations
 * B Steinberger, C Gaina, Plate-tectonic reconstructions predict part of the Hawaiian hotspot track to be preserved in the Bering Sea, Geology 35 (5), 407-410
 * Faccenna, C., Becker, T. W., Lallemand, S., Steinberger, B. (2012): On the role of slab pull and mid‐Cenozoic changes in the motion of the Pacific plate. ‐ Geophysical Research Letters, 39, L03305 DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050155
 * --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The theory should be modified, the Hawaii hotspot might left traces at the Bering Sea, it changed its track at 50 Ma, as the Pacific plate changed its direction with the onset of subduction at Izu-Bonin-Mariana Arc and later at the Kermadec-Tonga Subduction Zone too. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 07:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hawaii hotspot. 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 tag to http://tor9.big.ous.ac.jp/People/torii/PDF/Tarduno03.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322153433/http://smu.edu/geothermal/heatflow/heatflow.htm to http://smu.edu/geothermal/heatflow/heatflow.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041026010925/http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/I-map/i2809/i2809.pdf to http://geopubs.wr.usgs.gov/i-map/i2809/i2809.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:22, 31 October 2017 (UTC)