Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii

Last good version

See also: MOS:IMAGES and WP:LAYIM

I've restored the last good version prior to the edit warring. User:Candleabracadabra is invited to discuss his proposed incremental changes here before continuing to edit war. At least two editors have reverted Candleabracadabra, so there is a rough, informal consensus for him to stop editing and to start discussing. I've invited User:Mark Miller here to help moderate the discussion because he is 1) an expert on dispute resolution, 2) familiar with Hawaii-related topics, and 3) an expert when it come to issues with layout, design, and photography. I will abide by whatever decision he arrives at, or by whatever community consensus is formed here. I would also like to invite User:SnowFire to participate as he has also demonstrated a concern with the latest edits. For the sake of discussion, please keep the last good version in place so we can hammer out a consensus for the new proposed edits by Candleabracadabra. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you got it to the last stable version I believe but likely they will continue to revert. I will contact the Food and Drink project. They are the most active I think and I am a project member.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that Candleabracadabra made a series of consecutive edits on April 17 here. These edits were reverted earlier today, May 15 by SnowFire here. Candleabracadabra then reverted again to their April 17 edits here. Viriditas reverted back to the pre April 17 version (the second editor to do so) and was again reverted back by Candleabracadabra here. Then just recently reverted by Viriditas here. First, lets all step back and refrain from further reverting. Also Candleabracadabra please refrain from adding back what multiple editors have removed or reverted. In doing so you are edit warring whether you go over the 3RR or not.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a lot to say here. Candleabracadabra, updating some photos perhaps is fine, but there comes a limit where the images make the article display badly, and your edits way exceeded that limit. (I did keep the poi pounder picture though, agree that'd be a pretty neat addition and it can actually fit in.)

As a stopgap solution, let me suggest again what I said in my edit summary - add a "Gallery" section at the end and add all the photos you want there, where at least they won't interfere with article display. It's arguably overlapping with Wikimedia Commons category link, but whatever. Then any swaps can be done from the article <--> gallery, so if you really feel a picture is "boring" then you can move it to the gallery and put the Gallery's picture in its spot. It's just important to remember that you can't cram 20+ images into a small space without breaking house style, if we have too many images that's what links to Commons & galleries are for. SnowFire (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of photo galleries, but if that is a good compromise I support it.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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)

(comment moved here from Viriditas talk page by him) You have not explained why you removed the historical photos from the article or why you restored a photo of a hotel building that seems tangential to Hawaiian cuisine. It's unfortunate that you engage in battlefield type tactics instead of engaging in courteous discussion. i started a talk page discussion which you ignored. I think it would be better if you would act in a less rude and dismissive manner and try to work together. I removed a couple of photos per your concerns but you just keep reverting including removal of appropriate wikilinks and clarifications. Do you usually get good results behaving in this manner? Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:26, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore your false allegations and your personal attacks, and note that you have not proposed any of your disputed edits on the talk page. Please do so, now. I've already explained to you many times on your talk page why your edits were reverted, and another editor above has done the same. Do not respond with any further personal attacks or you will be reported to ANI. And I do so love composing ANI reports. Basically, explain how your edits improved the article, because edits that improve articles should not be reverted. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of photos

First of all DO NOT REFACTOR my comments. Thanks.

Here are the photos I added. Unfortunately posting them here they are not in context with the appropriate article sections where I posted them.

Hawaiians eating poi in a photo by Menzies Dickson circa 1870

Hawaiian shave ice

Lava rock poi pounder from the 18th century or earlier

Packing cans of pineapple in the 1920s

Hāpuʻu ʻiʻi, Hawaiian tree fern (Cibotium menziesii) at Mt. Kaʻala, Oʻahu. It is endemic to the Hawaiian Islands and the uncoiled fronds (fiddles) are eaten boiled. The starchy core of the ferns was considered a famine food or used as pig feed. It was prepared by peeling the young fronds or placing the entire trunk with the starchy center in an ʻimu or volcanic steam vents. A saying was "He hāpuʻu ka ʻai he ai make" (If the hāpuʻu is the food, it is the food of death)

Men pounding poi in 1890

• I have also noted that the ones of the plants, fruits, vegetables can perhaps be put in a gallery below that section.

• Poi is a critical dish in the history of Hawaii. Pineapple, and the pineapple industry is also critical. Both are discussed in the article. The photo of the hotel is peripheral. It is mentioned in the article as one of the first hotels on the beach and there isn't much (anything?) in the article on the hotel about cuisine or food. I can't see what the photo illustrates? It is a photo of a pink beach hotel. What does it have to do with cuisine?

• Ferns were a traditional food and one of the original native foods. So that's why I included that photo.

• Shave ice is an iconic Hawaiian dessert.

• I removed the shrimp plate lunch because there is another plate lunch with a greater variety of traditional dishes. I also don't think lemon is a traditional Hawaiian cuisine food (not a major point, but we have to make choices). The quality of the shrimp photo is good, but it doesn't show macaroni salad and only shows the shrimp rice and a lemon slice. The other shows a dessert and other plate lunch items. I don't think we need two plate lunch images? But I'm not opposed to a gallery of dishes in the appropriate sections.

• The photo of Sam Choy also needs a better caption or explanation for why he as opposed to the other proponents of Hawaiian Regional Cuisine should be pictured. I think that photo is probably better left to the relevant sub-article topic.

• The article is also biased towards touristy depictions of cuisine and lacks historical and traditional photo content, which is why I tried to include some.

• There are two poke photos and neither is great. I would replace both with an ahi poke photo from commons.

Photos removed (on left) after being told there are too many Here are the ones I removed after being told there were too many photos:

Shrimp plate lunch A PHOTO I REMOVED. THERE ARE TWO PLATE LUNCH PHOTOS

Royal Hawaiian Hotel was one of the first hotels built along the shores of Waikīkī (A PHOTO I REMOVED. ARCHITECTURAL PHOTO THAT DOES NOT ILLUSTRATE ANYTHING SUBSTANTIAL AND DIRECTLY RELATED TO CUISINE

Thanks for politely commenting on content below this message and not refactoring my comments. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Refactor please

Please refactor your comments so that other editors can participate in this duplicated discussion. We are now discussing this topic in three different threads! Please place it as a subthread under the discussion that has attracted the most number of editors so far. Second of all, please either link to the images in text or place them in a table set apart form the text. The way you have it now is not normal for a talk page discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Galleries

This is under discussion in the above threads, so I'm not clear why you are duplicating the discussion here. The use of galleries is subject to editorial consensus and WP:IG, which does not appear to have been followed. IMO, galleries in GA/FA's are mostly deprecated as of 2014, except for very isolated or unique article titles. In practice, links to Commons categories have replaced inline galleries. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

An article on a cuisine is worth illustrating. Especially iconic dishes. Breaking out a list of Hawaiian cuisine dishes with illustrations is also an option. But as it is this article is a mess. Sections on "meat" and other topics wholly empty. And it obviously needs expansion. Instead you are ripping out critical photos as editors try to work up the article to make it more comprehensive and encyclopedic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

How do our best GA/FA articles on cuisine do it? Could you provide some examples for me? I think it's a great idea to populate a separate list with images, and I support it. Perhaps you can use the already existing List of Hawaiian foods and either modify it or redirect it to a new broader subject with a title of your choice. I'm not "ripping out critical photos", I'm applying MOS:IMAGES and WP:LAYIM so that it benefits the reader and the editor alike. We all have our preferences; mine is for between 1-2 images per section of average length (2-4 paragraphs). Depending on the topic, I sometimes prefer to use one image per section and focus more on quality content. Sometimes I don't use any images at all. First and foremost, we should concentrate on article content. Per the above guidelines, the images should compliment and illustrate the text, not overwhelm it. Viriditas (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Royal Hawaiian hotel

You claim that the photo of the Royal Hawaiian hotel is "peripheral" to the article, and you claim that "there isn't much (anything?) in the article on the hotel about cuisine or food". That tells me you haven't even read the section you are criticizing. The photo in question illustrates iconic, late 19th century fin de siècle cuisine in Hawaii, which was known for serving dishes "on par with the best restaurants in Europe, with an 1874 menu offering dishes such as mullet, spring lamb, chicken with tomatoes, and Cabinet Pudding." This was the early antecedent of HRC. I'm sure more can be said about the "Pink Palace" and its importance in introducing haute cuisine in Hawaii. You mention poi and pineapple. Poi is a pre-contact period food and is already alluded to in that section in the image of the taro. Pineapple belongs in the post-contact era section. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What you're talking about is in THIS article. None of the cuisine discussion is in Royal Hawaiian Hotel article. If it's so significant add it there. I'm okay with that article content here as text, but the photo doesn't illustrate it. It just shows a pink hotel. There is no connection between that particular architectural design and Hawaiian cuisine. There is a direct connection with all the photos I added. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there something stopping you from adding it to the hotel article, Candleabracadabra? I really don't see what that has to do with this discussion. I think the photo does illustrate the content just fine, of course, we can always have better images, such as an image of the original dining room, if it still exists, or better images of the hotel. But I think it works just fine for the moment. And the fact that it is a "pink" hotel is notable (it's known as the "Pink Palace" after all). There isn't supposed to be a connection between the architectural design and the food; the connection is between the hotel itself as the place that influenced the cuisine in Hawaii. You are taking a literal approach here that is neither helpful nor warranted. However, I believe the caption could be improved to focus more on the food aspect and the sources should be revisited. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ferns

We already have too many photos. Is there any content about ferns and its importance in the diet of Hawaiians? If not, then you are making a weak argument to add yet another image. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, read the article and the caption. Ferns have been a critical part of the diet and were one of the few foods that didn't have to be imported (native food). There is also a connection to cooking practices and even a type of oven as is discussed in the caption. An expansion of the article with more on native foods is needed. As I've noted above it's heavily biased towards tourist fare. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The article does not say anything about Hawaiians eating ferns and the caption you present above should be in the article body. Unfortunately, there is little room here so I recommend splitting out a new article on the ancient cuisine of Hawaii or finding a way to incorporate it as text, not as a caption. Again, I'm not seeing any evidence that the article is heavily biased towards tourist fare; where's your evidence? The sources divide this parent topic into five subtopics: Ancient cuisine of Hawaii (Polynesian, pre-contact diet before 1778), Kamaaiana food (European, Missionary, Whalers, etc.), Ethnic food (Plantation immmigrants), Local food (Blending of East-West Pacific food), and Hawaii Regional Cuisine (Culinary fusion of all four, but relying on local, Hawaiian ingredients). If you want to focus more on the ancient cuisine of Hawaii, I highly recommend creating a new daughter article on that subtopic connected to its parent article on Ancient Hawaii and this parent topic on the cuisine of the state of Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

We must make room for native cuisine so as not to be biased. Certainly a subject worth of its own sub article is worth noting and illustrating here in the main article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There is already plenty of room in proportion to its discussion in reliable sources. I suggest you read and understand WP:UNDUE before replying again. There is no bias here at all as this article is not about the cuisine of Native Hawaiians but about the cuisine of Hawaii in general. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Which photos depict Native Hawaiian cuisine or the plantation culture developed around pineapple and sugar cane? Which photos depict ethnic Hawaiian in circumstances other than at a touristic event? Which photos in the article are historical and depict aspects of Hawaiian cuisine that are not contemporary? Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you familiar with the concept of apples and oranges? A discussion about the use of the Royal Hawaiian photo in a section about cuisine developed at the Royal Hawaiian, has nothing to do with depictions of Native Hawaiian cuisine or images of plantation culture, pineapples, or sugar cane, or any other images. I hope you did not remove the image in question, as we were discussing its use. It has been stable in the article for some time. If you have removed it because of the above argument, then I suggest you put it back, as the argument you've offered is a red herring. We use images to illustrate the content in question, in the relevant section. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Shave ice

Haupia is an iconic Hawaiian desert. Shave ice is an iconic local food, popularized by Japanese immigrants. More needs to be said about it in the article, and an image is probably needed, but again, there are already too many images, so we will have to pick and choose. I would much rather prefer an image of haupia, if I had to choose. And considering the size and scope of the article, due to length, it is recommended to split the parent into multiple articles as the length grows. For example, a top-level summary style article (this article, Cuisine of Hawaii), a Cuisine of Ancient Hawaii article, Ethnic and local food of Hawaii article, and finally a Hawaii Regional Cuisine article. Shave ice would be fully covered in the ethnic and local food topic, while mentioned in passing in the top-level article (here). Viriditas (talk) 04:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Haupia is illustrated already. Shave ice is not and is iconic. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, there is a plate lunch that includes haupia in the article. Of course, if you choose to remove that plate lunch image (see discussion below) then it will no longer be in the article. In any case, that's not the point, the point is, you want an image of shave ice. There are two images of poke. Why not remove one and add an image of shave ice? Viriditas (talk) 10:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Plate lunch

Your distinction between this and that plate lunch is somewhat meaningless. None of them are traditional, they are categorized as a 20th century local food, post-contact and post-immigration. So please, don't try to depict a non-traditional food as traditional, as that makes no sense. One image of plate lunch is fine, but it would illustrate local food. Viriditas (talk) 04:44, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not meaningless. One has more traditional items and ingredients and one has few and prominently includes a non-traditional item. Why do we need TWO plate lunch photos when you won't even include anything related to pineapple or other critical parts of the cuisine and commerce? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Candleabracadabra, please make a sincere effort to read the comments that you are replying to here. I've agreed with you that we don't need two plate lunch photos. Now that we are agreed, which one would you like to remove? We can move on to pineapple and other topics, but please don't confuse different issues and work towards resolution, one issue at a time. I will reiterate that calling one plate lunch traditional and one non-traditional is meaningless. The word "traditional" in this instance is reserved for Native Hawaiian food, and they did not eat plate lunches. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Allegation of bias

Have you read this article? It is not biased towards touristy depictions of cuisine and it does not lack historical and traditional content. This article relies upon the best and most reliable historical and traditional sources about the cuisine of Hawaii and makes great use of those sources to best represent the most significant claims about the subject. I would like to see you support these claims starting with explaining 1) how it is specifically biased, and 2) what it lacks in terms of historical and traditional content. Judging from your most recent comments, you are confusing the distinction between the different foods presented in this article. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I've read the article. It omits images of native foods and native peoples and historical photos. That's why I added some. Too many of the article images are touristy schlock instead of being encyclopedic, for instance a photograph of poi eating taken by a pioneering photographer of Hawaiian culture. Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence that anything has been purposefully omitted, and therefore, no bias. There is simply limited space for images. You have now once again repeated your claim about the article being "touristy schlock" and unencylopedic, however, you have not provided any specific or substantiating evidence. In fact, this article contains the best sources on the cuisine of Hawaii, written by food historians and experts on this topic. Please point directly to the "touristy schlock" and unencyclopedic parts by name and/or by link. An image of people eating poi is great in the appropriate section, illustrating the relevant text. Where do you think that particular image belongs? Keep in mind, just because that image does not appear at this time, does not imply that the article is biased. It implies that there are too many images in this parent article. Viriditas (talk) 10:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be evidence that anything has been purposefully omitted, although now that it's been pointed out to you it's clear that you are purposefully omitting any and all historical photos, native food photos, and tradional cultural cuisine related photos. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

This is the third time you've made unsubstantiated allegations. I have not purposefully omitted anything, and I've had little to nothing to do with most of the images in this article. Please read and familiarize yourself with MOS:IMAGES and WP:LAYIM. I'm still waiting for evidence of "touristy schlock" and unencyclopedic material. Do you have any? Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Sam Choy

I don't see anything wrong with the photo or caption. Your question about "why he as opposed to the other proponents" is pictured has to do with the availability of free images. I believe it is important and entirely relevant to have the photo of at least one chef associated with the cuisine of Hawaii, so I disagree that it should be removed. At the end of the day, this is not just about food, it is about the interaction between food and people. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It's undue weight. And his image doesn't really add to our understanding of Hawaiian cuisine. It would be better to include it in the sub-article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 05:02, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how it could be undue weight, so perhaps you can explain. This is an article about the cuisine of Hawaii, which by its very nature includes content about notable chefs. The image also complements the associated text about HRC. I think the reader expects to see images of notable people associated with a subject, particularly when they are mentioned in the text. How does UNDUE come into play here? Please quote the policy you think applies. As far as I can tell, you are trying to eliminate stable, relevant images in the article to provide more room for your personal preferred images. There are already too many images, so it is best if you focus on splitting out daughter articles on the subtopics (Cuisine of Ancient Hawaii, Ethnic and local cuisine of Hawaii, Hawaii Regional Cuisine) by doing the necessary research. That way, you will have ample room to add new images. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

It is undue weight because there are 12 chefs who developed HRC and you're only including a photo of one of them. A photo of this individual also adds very little to our understanding of Hawaiian cuisine, while pineapple canning, edible ferns, and other subjects are very helpful to illustrate as they have economic, cultural, and historical relevance to Hawaiian cuisine.I'm not sure what we glean from a picture of a smiling chef? And Hawaii regional cuisine is already illustrated by an actual dish of this style of cooking. There are no illustrations of poi or pineapple, critical subjects in understanding the cuisine of Hawaii. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That is not how the "undue weight" term is used on Wikipedia. Please read and review WP:UNDUE and cite the relevant passages. We're using only one photo of a chef here, because that was the one that was added by the original editor who added it (whomever they were). Pineapple canning, edible ferns, and other subjects not related to HRC have nothing to do with this discussion. This specific discussion is about an image illustrating a chef associated with HRC. Please remain on topic. There is nothing UNDUE about using this image (or any other image of a HRC chef) here. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Great. Now, can you show, in your own words, how this applies to the image used in the HRC section? Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii regional cuisine

Candleabracadabra, I've restored the content that I wrote about HRC for this article that you removed and passed off as your own in the daughter article you restored. Please don't do that again. If you want to copy material between articles, you have to attribute in the edit summary per our licensing. I spent a lot of time researching this material in the library and writing it in my own words. Imagine my surprise to find you removing it from this article and copying it to the HRC article with no mention in the edit summary. Don't do that again. If you want to write about HRC, great, do the research and write it in your own words. So far, you've got about two paragraphs of material from less than reliable sources, which is not enough for a separate article at this time. Instead of doing this kind of thing in mainspace, you should focus on creating a sandbox or draft space article and finding the appropriate sources. Travel guides and "For Dummies" books that mention this topic in passing are not ideal. You'll need to go to your library or do actual research online, paying attention to the highest quality sources about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I am deleting the mention of HRC because the article is complete garbage and linking to it dilutes the integrity of this article. Also all modern Hawaiian cuisine is fusion cuisine. CGameProgrammer (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@CGameProgrammer: I have restored the material. Please do not comment in older sections. Instead, please start a new discussion thread. The material is accurate and your reason for deleting it is in error. HRC is entirely different than local Hawaiian cuisine. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I did attribute the content exactly as you suggest here. I look forward to your forthcoming apology for another in a long series of false attacks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not recognize that attribution because you attributed to it "Hawiian cuisine". This article is titled "Cuisine of Hawaii". Please use the actual title of the article in use next time. Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, here in this edit you reintroduced redundant content. Your version says "In 1992, twelve chefs ... formed a non profit as Hawaii regional cuisine... The goal of this new group of chefs was to link local agriculture with the restaurant industry, making Hawaii Regional Cuisine (see also Hawaii regional cuisine)". Why do you think we need Hawaii regional cuisine repeated thrice, linked twice (including as a see also) and bolded? Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

That error was immediately removed in a subsequent diff, which I'm sure you noticed right away.[1] What is "Hawaii regional cuisine". The sources on the subject refer to it as "Hawaii Regional Cuisine" to differentiate it from the cuisine of Hawaii. Why are you using lowercase? Viriditas (talk) 19:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The error was corrected with my edit which you reverted and then attacked me for directly above accusing me of malfeasance. Maybe slow down and use a little more consideration? If Hawaii Regional Cuisine should be capitalized then we should be consistent about it. I don't care either way but the article content which you developed is all over the place on it. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The "error" (introduced by another editor in a previous version) was restored accidentally by myself, and then quickly corrected several diffs later.[2] And, because Wikipedia is a project involving collaboration from thousands of editors around the world, it is hardly accurate for you to blame for me the edits made by others simply because I originally "developed" aspects of the subject many years ago. The inconsistency arose from too many cooks in the kitchen. Viriditas (talk) 03:32, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

21st century

Why is there an unsourced section in this article? Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Tiki culture

The following unsourced material was placed in the HRC section for some reason. It should be added back into the article in the appropriate place with good sources. If I have time, I may help, but this material was added without sources. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Don the Beachcomber, a former bootlegger, opened what is acknowledged to be the first of Tiki restaurants, and claims the creation of the mai tai. As servicemen and servicewomen from the Pacific theater of World War II began coming home they brought recipes and tastes that could not be satisfied at the Italian, French, and American restaurants of the era. Tiki restaurants soon began appearing that were often accompanied by tiki bars with tropical drinks. One of these chains that took advantage of this new clientele with a taste for the exotic was run by Trader Vic. Of the 26 restaurants which at one time existed, only a few, such as the Emeryville location, remain. Much of the food served at tiki restaurants is considered to be Cantonese cuisine, but the fusion of Hawaiian ingredients is what made it tiki.

Probably worth a mention but would need some editing. The article on Trader Vic's says the first one was in Seattle in the 1940s and came to Hawaii 10 or so years later. Not sure on Don Beachcomber. I think the style is more generally Polynesian than just Hawaiian and American GIs were stationed on various islands in the South Pacific. I think that broader context as part of Polynesian cuisine and stylized culture generally would be important to note. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Pineapple image

Can the pineapple image be moved up from the 21st century section? What I read says that pineapples are mostly grown elsewhere now. This image or another of related to the pineapple and sugarcane plantations would be better in the section dealing with that period of time. If an image is to be included in the 21st century section I think it should be something with more contemporary significance. I'm not sure what that would be. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done moved to the Post-contact period section. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:47, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Problematic edit

These edits removed a link to plate lunch from the caption of an image of a plate lunch, asserts a claim that there are 5 distinct styles of cuisine in Hawaii, makes the claim that Christian missionaries introduced New England cuisine, but I am not seeing a source for this assertion or the one about whalers introducing salted fish. The phrase this blend of Eastern and Western cuisine formed a "local food" was added. What is meant by "Eastern and Western" cuisine? This is highly unencyclopedic overgeneralized language. What is Eastern cuisine? What about indigenous cuisine? The new wording also refers to char siu bao as a "new ethnic food". It is not a new ethnic food it was an existing Chinese dish that was introduced and acquired a pidgin name. The historic image of Hawaii pineapple packing, loco moco, and lomi salmon were removed. These are all iconic and significant illustration of Hawaii's cuisine, unlike the hotel image that shows architecture of one of many hotel where European cuisine was served. I think these aspects of the edits should be reverted. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

To respond: 1) a link to plate lunch already appears in the lead section, in the same section as the image and the caption where it was previously duplicated. Per WP:OVERLINK, you've been politely informed many times now not to duplicate links. 2) The claim that there are five distinct styles of cuisine in Hawaii is supported by the lead section and the sources. Perhaps you should try to read and understand it instead of copy and pasting content without reading the sources. I will be happy to expand on this point, but the five styles are expressed in the lead (pre-contact Native Hawaiian, post-contact European, American, missionary and whalers, plantation era immigration, local food, and HRC) and in the article. Please try to pay closer attention and for once, read the sources. 3) The introduction of New England cuisine by Christian missionaries to Hawaii is in all of the sources. Perhaps you should read them? I agree that it should be expanded, however, considering it is already discussed extensively in the sources cited in the article. If you like, you can review Laudan 1996, pp. 173-175, but for you to question the most significant influence on Hawaii in the early 19th century tells me you don't know much about this subject. The source for salted fish is already in the article under footnote 11. Please read the article you are complaining about and read the actual sources. 4) The idea that the "local food" of Hawaii is a blend of Eastern and Western cuisine is supported by the sources, including the combinatory nature of each of the five stages. Local food is composed of the pre-contact, post-contact, and plantation influences. This blend of Eastern and Western food is not "unencylopedic" at all, it's an accurate portrait of the cuisine and it is what the sources say. 5) Chinese char siu bao was introduced to Hawaii. This introduction at the time, makes it a "new" ethnic food, and the history of plantation cuisine during this time was "new" to Hawaii. Your statement that it was an "existing Chinese dish" makes no sense. It is classified as an ethnic food. Furthermore, according to Laudan 1996 and Hiura 2009, the manapua changed and evolved after it was introduced to Hawaii, from small, steamed buns with shredded pork served at dim sum to the large doughnut size beasts of today, which are also baked and filled with non-traditional ingredients, such as Japanese sweet potato, kalua pig, azuki bean and even pepperoni or pumpkin. Outside of dim sum, they were first sold by "Manapua men" in the streets, and later in grocery store and manapua shops, most notably on Oahu. Laudan notes the prevalance of Vietnamese style manapua, and there are many others. Many of the best manapua shops on Oahu have numerous variations, including vegetarian and vegan manapua. Again, read the actual sources. As for the images, we have already discussed your misunderstanding of MOS:IMAGES, and I've specifically addressed the images you mention up above in a discussion on this page that you have ignored. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The wp:lead should summarize what's covered in the article. Assertions need to be cited. It's not enough to say "it's in all the sources". If something is introduced from somewhere else it is new to the area not new. Captions to photos should include wikilinks. It is not appropriate to expect the reader looking at the picture and it's caption to hunt down a link the article text if they want to link to what's pictured and captioned. Wp:image makes clear that illustrations are important to include. Candleabracadabra (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The lead does summarize what's covered in the article, and it's all sourced in the body. Further, I've provided a direct source above in this discusion which is acceptable as it meets WP:V. Captions to photos should not duplicate wikilinks already in the same section, and you've already been pointed to MOS:IMAGES. WP:CAPTION does not support what you've said. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cuisine of 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/20140826115033/http://dalstonist.co.uk/londons-first-new-hawaiian-restaurant-is-opening-in-dalston/ to http://dalstonist.co.uk/londons-first-new-hawaiian-restaurant-is-opening-in-dalston/

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) 07:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Merge Hawaii regional cuisine into this article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge Hawaii regional cuisine into Cuisine of Hawaii. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 22:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

---

I propose that Hawaii regional cuisine be merged into Cuisine of Hawaii. There is a short subsection on the subject already existing in this article, and the material in the free-standing article (which is only 4k large) could easily be integrated into that subsection without any significant diminution. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support. The Hawaii regional cuisine is only a paragraph and there is overlap with Cuisine of Hawaii. In addition, the titles "cuisine of Hawaii" and "Hawaii regional cuisine" are ambiguous and insufficiently disambiguated. —  AjaxSmack  23:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support Agree that the regional cuisine article is more properly placed within this broader article. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.