Talk:Pa'u riders/Archive 1

Request move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Pau riders. The debate was messy, but I think ghat Kavebear and In Ictu Oculi have presented convincing arguments that the current Pa'u riding is simply incorrect, and it should be moved somewhere, and that the apparent "no consensus" shouldn't result in "no move"; my choice of the target is a little more than a coin toss.

Re WP:HAWAII style guide: sorry, it does not really provide guidance on article titles, just describes that redirects should be put in place; it really needs updating, as In Ictu Oculi pointed out. Worse still, it is based on WP:TSC recommendation that "Characters resembling quotes or accent marks should be avoided", which I find terribly misguided and out of sync with the practice. I think I'll start fixing it from there. No such user (talk) 08:31, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pa'u riders → Pau riders or Pāʻū riders or Paʻu riders–

Either you should ignore all modern Hawaiian orthography and write it as Pau riders like Luau and Alii and basically how 19th century and earlier 20th century sources wrote it or write it in its correct meaning per Hawaiian dictionaries....Pau is one the most used examples of misuse of ʻokina's and kahakō's in the Hawaiian language. See meaning all forms of Pau. The article should either be titled Pau riders (ignoring ʻokina's and kahakō's and any attention to Hawaiian meaning like Luau or Alii) or in its correct form. The halfway compromise Paʻu (soot and drudgery) just garble the meaning of the word and dishonors the Hawaiian language. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence Pa'u in the Hawaiian language means skirt.[2] misuses the source by Roy Alameida since it is written pāʻū there not Pa'u.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, KAVEBEAR. That isn't misusing the source. The article clearly shows that spelling as optional, but spelling alone is not a misuse as long as the source is referring to. But the simplified version is the most commons name. This isn't a black and white issue where we most do it across the board one way or the other. With proper biographical names and historical subjects I think it is reasonable to use the cultural accents, but I am also concerned with using the most common name. Its a give and take. I didn't want the full use of the ʻokina's and kahakō's here specifically because this is not a truly Hawiian phrase since it uses English as well. I have no specific objection to using them but in article titles it can be an issue if there is a more common use. It's a matter of consensus. In this particular case Pāʻū riders is the least common spelling.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The article clearly shows that spelling as optional." Do you mean the other sources you are using in this Wikipedia article? I am speaking about that one sentence and one source in particular. Does Roy Alameida use another spelling in his book or am I mistaken here? I think I have a bigger problem with that sentence than the article title since it is trying to explain meaning of a Hawaiian phrase but ignores the spelling the source appending itself presents and the spelling a Hawaiian dictionary would use.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it isn't collaborating to jump into this sort of move request that ignores the original request I just made to an administrator that you just objected to and then create a move request that is completely different and doesn't use the title of the request you told me to discuss here. This is the sort of tactic that makes it more difficult to AGF, but I continue to assume it. Why would you purposely exclude the most common use?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial move needs to be requested per Wikipedia policy. I actually can't see search results numbers with the server I am using but I agree Pāʻū riders isn't the most common form but it is the form that a modern Hawaiian speaker would use. Have you tried "pa-u rider"? Honest question I would like to know.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial moves should also be done with clean hands in a neutral manner. Pāʻū riders may not be the most common, but it is the most unique and has a cultural significance and should be included in the article, as all common spelling should probably be. That is done often on Wikipedia. Your honest question should not be posed to others, but should be attempted and then post results. I am not sure if your limitations mean I need to be more helpful, but then I am not asking the question. Also, as you are not even a contributor to this article I ask what your main concern here is?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some could see this as a disruptive move request because you jumped over here immediately after leaving a note on an administrators talk page, objecting to a move request that you had every right to object to. That was reasonable. But the requested move Paʻu riders is the option that is missing from this discussion and that I feel makes the current request, at minimum, malformed or inaccurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No you can add it as another option. In fact I will. And the result of move requests are determine by the users involved, the arguments made and the closing opinions of the administrators so it just might as well go your way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than likely this will end in no consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits for most common search

Pāʻū riders - About 2,010
Pa'u riders - About 92,100
Pau riders - About 986,000
Pau Riders - About 993,000
Paʻu riders - About 6,460,000(bolded for emphasis).--Mark Miller (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Google results are riddled with problems. First, as I have learned from Wikipedia discussions, you should not use the '"About 340,400 results (0.30 seconds)" line at the top of your initial search for your totals because these include duplicates. Instead, scroll to the bottom of the search results, click on the last number listed under the "Goooooooooogle" (usually "10"). Then read the totals on the top of that page. For your searches, I get 101, 270, 348 and 333 respectively. There are additional issues. If you scroll down, you'll see that both the "Pau" and the "Paʻu" (with the ʻokina) results include other variants such as "Pa'u" and "Pau". By all means, use Google as one method of determining usage but with a grain of salt. — AjaxSmack 02:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Project Hawaii MOS and Wikipedia MOS on article titles

Per the Project style guide:

The Wikipedia policy for article names provides the general guidance that special characters should not be employed in article titles. The Wikipedia naming conventions page provides more specific guidance. Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works). For example, use Pearl Harbor rather than Puʻuloa. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. Wikipedia disambiguation pages are also used to help the reader find the desired article if several have similar names. For example, see Waimea.
Since the special character policies are different for titles and bodies, it means any wikilink to a term that should have the special characters will be a "piped link", using the ʻ template or vowel with kahakō on the right side of the pipe. For example: Kaʻū District results in: Kaʻū District Some existing titles might have an apostrophe, other approximation of an ʻokina or kahakō in them. Use redirect pages to make sure the title without any special characters can also be used. The move function should in many cases automatically leave such a redirect, but mass moves are generally discouraged. Spend your time improving content instead.

Basically this would mean the same result as no consensus. Leave the article as it is and create a redirect of the spelling without any special characters. The local consensus of the project style guide respects the overall consensus of the wider community.

The Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia: Article titles#Special characters (WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS states: "Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title contains diacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters. (Similarly, in cases where it is determined that the most appropriate title is one that omits diacritics, dashes, and other letters not found on most English-language keyboards, provide redirects from versions of the title that contain them.)"

The result of this would be to change the article to Pau riders. However, something not thought of is that this is also the proper name of an organization and title of a specific group of individuals. Another option could well be (and is possibly) Pau Riders with about About 993,000 hits.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In All honesty, this has always been my stance; special characters make search results difficult, finding the article harder. This was brought up some time ago over the project style guide and the use of special characters by another editor and member of the project. This may need to be discussed by the wider community at the project level to determine if we are going against both project MOS standards and Wikipedia policy. So I think the move request at this point can be agreed with on the second option, of moving the article to the spelling with no special characters or leave the apostrophe spelling (no change) and add a redirect with the spelling with no apostrophe. Then we need to discuss at the project level if other articles should be renamed such as Kekūanāoa and others where the special characters may be limiting peoples ability to search for the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Follow wikiproject consensus Wikiproject Hawaii is the expert source for what is the most respectful way to name topics of concern to a given ethnic group. This article's name should reflect that consensus. This is not unlike the Sioux/Lakota issue or some of the other naming disputes that have arisen over at the Indigenous people's wikiproject. Google hits are of no help here, as examples like "Eskimo" (offensive to some) and "Inuit" (less offensive but doesn't cover everyone) aptly demonstrate. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WikiProject style guide - WikiProject Style guide says "Some existing titles might have an apostrophe, other approximation of an ʻokina or kahakō in them. Use redirect pages to make sure the title without any special characters can also be used.". So we would leave the article in its current state and create a redirect with the spelling using no special characters.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support WikiProject style guide for Pau riders. I support anything except Pa'u rider or Paʻu riders for the same reason you should never write the southeastern Hawaiian district on the Big Island Ka'u rider or Kaʻu. When it comes to article titles, I am for using the correct Hawaiian orthography or not all. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Project style guide does specifically state that existing use of an apostrophe in a title should use a redirect so a search without special characters can also be used.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is an interpretation of the policy. You are right. It doesn't seem to state what must be used nor does it forbid apostrophes in article titles. But I have I had a long stance (see Talk:Kawaihae, Hawaii#Requested move) which make me oppose the use of the apostrophe when the ʻokina should be used. Also a move that I supported and agreed in the past on Talk:ʻIolani Palace#It is not an apostrophe, cites another policy: "Foreign characters that resemble apostrophes...are represented by their correct Unicode characters." This is why I oppose Pa'u rider. The second policy below makes me oppose to Paʻu riders.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I don't understand your non-consistency in this entire discussion. You wanted it moved to Paʻu riders on Fram's page and also didn't want the move request to end in a no consensus, which would result in the current title remaining, saying "More than likely this will end in no consensus". Afterward you went to whole trouble of pulling the wikiproject policy and posting it on the wikiproject page.Then you cited the wikiproject policy (first paragraph) wanting it moved to Pau riders or Pau Riders writing two paragraphs about it. Once I voted in favor of Pau riders, you switch opinion again and stated the title should remain the same using another part of the same policy (second paragraph) to argue for the current title to remain, which is basically the same result as a no consensus.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that isn't entirely accurate but it isn't really relevant. I mean, I didn't start the move discussion and my trying to adhere to the original title instead of moving it to a title you object to or the earlier change that you made that I objected to isn't an illogical direction for me to take if that is what you mean. Leaving it as it is actually just commons sense. I only posted a notification about this discussion and how it touches on the project style guide on the project talk page, that's all. I don't think arguing semantics is helpful.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I closed this RM as no consensus with this rationale "The result of the move request was: no consensus. The article has been moved several times during this discussion, unilaterally from what I can tell, so the article will be moved back to the title that was in use at the beginning of the discussion, Pa'u riders." However, on further reflection, this may have been going against the promise I made not to close any RMs that relate to the addition or removal of diacritics and so I have undone my closure of the RM. However, I'm going to leave the article at the now-current title as a procedural step because articles should not be moved while at RM. Jenks24 (talk) 08:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom: i.e. either Pa'u riders → Pau riders or Pāʻū riders. Although having avoided this RM as not knowing Hawaii or Hawaiian, User:KAVEBEAR has presented the more convincing argument in the context of how we are now treating the recent changes in Romanian fonts, or the post-Soviet "new" Latin alphabets in Central Asia, and is more consistent with en.Wikipedia's overall approach, we either do it in English or do it properly. I say that with all respect to User:Mark Miller's arguments in relation to the WikiProject Hawaii guidelines which are ambiguous, and probably need an update. Of the two, and here influenced by User:Montanabw's comment, 1st choice with macrons and okina Pāʻū to be clear "skirt riders" not "soot riders", second choice Pau as English, ...both ahead of tepid third choice Paʻu riders ambiguous as "skirt"/"soot" but no great improvement on current anglo '. It looks like macrons are becoming more used in Hawaiian to prevent "skirt"/"soot" problems, we might as well be accurate, and have the less accurate as the redirect. The three participants here may want to comment again on which of the first or second choices there should be followed. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The project guide was a part of the RM. The consensus of that discussion was , A) The guide is now a subpage of the main MOS as a result of community action from 2 years ago. B) The subpage needs to be updated and the several points were decided by consensus including to not change the orthography in the name of organizations. C) When both the ʻokina and kahakō are used in the title to use no diacritics or all diacritics. Both diacritics are not used in this case because the article is about the organizations today and their proper name is the title. D) When an apostrophe is used, it should always be changed to an okina as the use of apostrophes are not a part of standard Hawaiian orthography.

If the discussion should remain open that is fine. I began the article as part of some recent research and realized that Wikipedia did not have an article for it. The original organization founders are ancestors of mine it seems and I would like to continue to expand on the article as this has become a part of todays Hawaiian cultural traditions and is a notable subject. I only discovered this a few months ago. I will go with whatever the consensus is, but what I am arguing for is simply that this is about the organizations as they are what is notable and the past tradition that was short lived is only notable in the history, but may not even have enough sources for a stand alone article. Anyway, thanks for adding to the consensus and discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Orthography: special characters — Spelling within the article

Strictly speaking about article content here. I originally linked it on this talk page but it must have gotten lost in the editing process. The article content should respect Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Orthography: special characters.

The omission of kahakō or ʻokina in Hawaiian words will change the pronunciation and alter the meaning of the word in Hawaiian language. It may alter a geographical location; for example, Hawaii refers to the state, and Hawaiʻi refers to the island (see below. Kalaʻe and Ka Lae are different places.[1] Lānaʻi is an island, while lānai is part of a house and lanai means "stiff-backed".[2] Use of the kahakō and ʻokina, as used in current standard Hawaiian orthography, is preferred in Hawaiian language words and names used in the body of articles dealing with Hawaii. The online Hawaiian Dictionary[2] or a similar reference work should be used as a guide for proper spelling and diacritic usage. The {{Hawaiian Dictionaries}} template is useful for citations.

Some of the few exception to this rule seems to be terms which have become strictly Americanized like Luau (where all orthographical correctness is ignored and only used briefly as a Hawaiian translation in the first sentence). Both these examples does not leave room in my opinion for a hybrid like Pa'u or Paʻu which only uses the ʻokina or apostrophe (there should never be an excuse to use an apostrophe in place of an ʻokina) but ignores the kahakō and renders the term to another meaning.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is preferred, but it is not strictly something straight across the board must be adhered to, but is a case by case review by consensus. On this article I do not believe it to be necessary.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What if I insist? Let's discuss. I won't jump the gun as before. I have told you the reasons why I am fervently oppose to the use of Pa'u or Paʻu in the body of the article (especially in the sentence preceding the Roy Alameida source) or the title. It is statements like "Also, as you are not even a contributor to this article I ask what your main concern here is?" which is the reason why I haven't edited and change this article up to this point. My main concern is already elaborated above Hawaiian orthographical correctness.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can insist, but then I'd remind you that when there is a dispute between two people and there is no consensus the last stable version is what is kept. If you continue to wish discussion then I would again say it is not a misuse of the source if the spellings don't match as long as the subjects are the same. Many Hawaiian words and names have different spellings but we don't discount the source on spelling alone. I object to its use here specifically because this is not an ancient Hawaiian artform/tradition. This is a modern art form or cultural expression that replicates a modern tradition that was nearly lost but revived. There are many variations to the spelling, too many too say that any one is the correct and absolute right spelling for an encyclopedia, but we try to use common sense and our policies and proceedures like WP:COMMONNAME that states: "Ambiguous[6] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources" as well as our project style guides, if they do not attempt to override a wider consensus and the main MOS etc. As the article states the oldest tradition dates back to the introduction of horses in the 19TH century. The dresses may even have a South American influence. This tradition recognizes a wide diversity and influence. Using the title spelling is also consistent with MOS where we use the same formatting in spelling as the title and alternative spellings may be bolded once but not repeated within the body of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In short, I guess I would say that there are two arguments here, whether or not the article should be renamed and what consistent spelling to use in the article. From what the WikiProject says it is ok to leave the existing article title if it only contains an apostrophe, other approximation of an ʻokina or kahakō in them and create a redirect with spelling, both with and without as redirects. If we leave the title as is then we need to be consistent with the spelling from the title.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again only arguing spelling in the content of the article because I support the title change to either Pau riders or Pāʻū riders just not Pa'u riders or Paʻu riders...Pāʻū is a Hawaiian term that predates the term Pāʻū riders. It refers to the Pāʻū (dress) which the riders wear (so saying "Pa'u in the Hawaiian language means skirt" is wrong). It is inaccurate in the Hawaiian language to write it Pa'u or Paʻu. I don't understand why we are ignoring Hawaiian language dictionaries here for a Hawaiian term. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Orthography: special characters's recommendation using Pa'u even if this title remains unmoved is still incorrect (by your reasoning we would have to change remove all the okina in Liliuokalani's name in her article since the title doesn't have an okina). This is a modern artform yes which has been using the correct spelling form Pāʻū as more and more academics have chosen to respect the correct usage and meanings of Hawaiian language terms. The Hawaiian Historical Society uses this form in their 1994 article. Mary Kawena Pukui uses this form in her dictionary. There are definitely terms which have become Americanized and are no longer appropriate to write in their correct Hawaiian form such as Luau but they don't advocate a halfway hybrid which ignores kahakos. The different forms of the word Pau is the one of most cited mistake anybody can make in the Hawaiian language with the use of kahakos and okinas and Wikipedia shouldn't perpetuate it. The University of Hawaii, one the few institutions that teaches the language even says: "pau,' depending on placement of ‘okina and kahako, can mean completed, smudge, moist or skirt." And I'm still not sure what is the most common form Pau riders or pa'u riders. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, on the definition thing, I understand what you are saying now. That can be corrected.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That goes for one sentence, right? Not the entire thing?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hilarious that after 24 hours of argument I manage to change one sentence.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In summary I am more concern with the second argument and I don't think your accessment "If we leave the title as is then we need to be consistent with the spelling from the title" is correct per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Orthography: special characters and Wikipedia:PUNCT.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, that is the appropriate thing to do actually. The project MOS cannot override the wider community consensus of the full Manuel of style. Which is one of the issue that seems to keep popping up with disputes. Really the project MOS needs to be clear about what it is recommending and I see her it "prefers" that the use of the accents be used on the body of the article but is not required and is stressed over other MOS that seem conflicting. Preferred is only a recommendation and never something you should ever be insisting on across the board.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:15, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly know little Wikipedia policy (I honestly could care less for them and only abide by the ones I have encountered and follow those so I can do what I do without getting in trouble such as revering and edit warring) and you can insist that and I won't have any arguments to counter it if you choose to only argue policy and to interpret policies in that way. This is one reason why I support what I did on Talk:Kamehameha I because your strongest argument was your interpretation of the policies... Aren't there exceptions? Isn't there any room for linguistic correctness? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is similar to American English verses British English. If the article has the title using the accents then you would be consistent with that spelling throughout the article except where notable, like the actual word Pāʻū being "in the Hawaiin language" a word for skirt where it is notable to have the actual word being used and defined. I actually thought you were just using that argument as to the title change and objected there because there are still many variations to the spelling used in sources and some stress one over another.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't. If you read my arguments for the title more closely I supported using either the correct form or the form which disregards all orthographical considerations. I even placed Pau riders ahead of Pāʻū riders in the request. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So where do we go from here? You're arguing policy here. I tried to. But you say my policies are weaker than your (community consensus of the full Manuel of style). I only can argue correct usage of the Hawaiian language.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is one reason the Project style guide may need some updating KAVEBEAR. Wikipedia has a black list issue with moving these title around with accents but it also gives us the ability to create these accent titles if we want from scratch. Our MOS itself asks that titles not have special characters especially ones not found on a normal keyboard and that articles be consistent with spelling. I can see exceptions for proper names and Historical figures and subjects, but Hawaii is a part of the English Speaking world and has absorbed some English into phrases like this. I tend to feel that the MOS is best here as our guidance and that the only exceptions be those where the importance of the cultural spelling is one of importance such as proper names, historic figures, subjects and places and where it is the most commons use. We simply cannot force every article on subjects about Hawaii to use the accents for usage in the body of the article. There are always going to be some commons sense exceptions to the MOS and that's where our Project style guide should try to be helpful and clear. On this article it is likely that leaving it as it is would be best on many levels and we center at the project level to discuss the style guide and how best to improve it and be clearly within the general MOS and identify legitimate exceptions.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist has nothing to do with the okinas. It has merely been indiscriminately and negatively affected because of the blacklist as I discussed with User:Fram in the past that is why he agrees to move such articles for me when I bring them up to him. It was possible in the past to move articles to titles with the okina since I performed such moves a few years ago. I believe this falls under the umbrella being a Hawaiian term about a strictly cultural occurrence. I understand there is a limit too, especially with terms like Luau but I don't think this is one. Good luck changing wikiproject Hawaii's policies. That project has been dead for years and most participant are no longer active. I know only of one User:Viriditas who is still relatively active, although not in Hawaiian matters. By your own reasoning if the title Pa'u remains Paʻu can't be used either, right? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand the indiscriminate manner this seems but I am not sure it actually is totally indiscriminate. My point is that the ability to make the title with special characters doesn't mean we should be creating article's with special characters. It isn't that I don't think this doesn't fall within the scope of the Hawaiian WikiProject, I do, but that the project style guide has a specific route to go and also gives leeway for the body of the article and that in a dispute that might be argued at DRN, they would side with the full MOS wherever the project style guide differs. Here, on this article, I believe it is not necessary to use the accents in either the title or the body of the article, but acknowledge that there are some articles that may have these symbols in the title and the body.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC) The project is doing pretty well I think. I recently helped with a re-write of an article with a few editors and received a DYK for it and am hoping to work with editors with GLAM projects. Perhaps it is possible for changes to be made to the MOS. Its just a project guideline, not a policy. But even policy is not impossible to change. I've helped rewrite policy. it isn't impossible.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated before I have nothing else to say if you insist on arguing policies. My argument still remains that this article should not use apostrophes or a half-attempt hybrid without the kahako in respect of the Hawaiian language for a clearly Hawaiian cultural term. Either Pau (without the kahako or okina; I would rather see this in the article content than the horror that is Pa'u and Paʻu) or Pāʻū (with the kahako and the okina). Thanks for listening and good night. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Today's pagemoves

I decided to go through WP:RM and fulfill some of the requested moves, beginning with the technical moves that simply require userrights beyond what the move's requester has. I thought this page was in that section, so I moved it without realising that it's very much under discussion; once I noticed that it was in the under-discussion section, I moved it back. My apologies for the confusion and the watchlist-clogging. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you Nyttend I believe there is no consensus for the name used in the request above without diacritics. However there does appear to be a consensus to use the MOS sub page (what was the project guidelines) as a guide to naming the article. This was a slightly odd situation where I made a direct request to an admin to move the page using the Hawaiian orthography diacritic called an okina to replace the apostrophe now in the tile. The article is about official organizations and their riders from the islands of Hawaii. The official name of this riders is given in the official Kamehameha Parade web site, forms as well as the official Facebook page etc. for these groups and equestrians. They all use the apostrophe, and at the time of this discussion the MOS subpage suggested leaving all existing articles that use the apostrophe as they are and create redirects. The suggestion from the editor that made the move request (I am the main contributing author) is that this should either use all diacritics, including the macron above both the a and the u, or to not use any diacritics at all. My understanding is that we do not alter the spelling of any personal names or the names of organizations, however most editors agree that it is clear that the apostrophe is not a part of the Hawaiian orthography and is simply taking the place of the okina because western keyboards do not have the option. So it is considered acceptable practice to replace the apostrophe with the okina and my original page request to Fram was both reasonable and followed the Main MOS as well as respecting as much of the Hawaiian orthography as was used in the organizations name. In common usage, the single word is pāʻū, Meaning "skirt". However, the common usage of the combined phrasing, which uses the English word "riders" makes this a slang phrase when used as a descriptor of female rider wearing a skirt and would not be capitalized. When referring to the specific groups and equestrian organizations the actual name (I brought this up twice before that I missed this important part when making the original move request to Fram) is Pa‘u Riders.

This article is specific. It is not about the tradition (although we need to remember not to capitalize when referring to just the tradition and should use all diacritics when spelling just the tradition), but is about the organizations started by Lizzie Puahi and Theresa Laanui that I discovered in research I did recently.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the subject, and my decision to move it back wasn't a comment on the discussion up above — I simply didn't want to move a page in the middle of a discussion, and I wasn't attempting to assess consensus for the discussion. Had I originally understood what was going on, I wouldn't have come here in the first place. My note here was simply to explain, since edit summaries weren't enough. Nyttend (talk) 23:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alii sport

Enough of this. Talk pages are for content discussions about the actual article, go find a sandbox if you two want to keep fighting. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I think there no point of me to argue the title any further. But I have one bone I have to pick. Could you source this sentence "During the Kingdom period of Hawai'i, ali'i women rode horses along the royal parade in long pa'u", a statement which I had found odd since he first mentioned it on the discussion. It may be true, but it gives the reader an impression that it is a custom practiced strictly by the alii class, which it was not. From what I read on the historic custom, it wasn't restricted to the alii class. It was common place among Hawaiian women of any class who could afford a horse. George Washington Bate described the practice, though not in name, in his book 1854 Sandwich Island Notes as female equestrianism and did not associated with the alii. Isabella Bird the first person to use the phrase to describe the art doesn't say it is a strictly royal sport. Pictures from 19th century by A. A. Montano, show regular unidentified Hawaiian women as pau riders. Looking at pictures of the custom throughout the kingdom's history, they were not solely alii women. I don't think I know of it ever being apply to them. Queen Emma was a famous equestrian. She was called He Wahine Ho Lio and even dressed in a riding habit which resembles a Pau riders' dress but nobody has ever call her a Pau rider or what she did as Pau riding. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using the sites your using for "official" spelling http://konaparade.org/history/pau-tradition/ and http://www.kamehamehadaycelebration.org/floral-parade.html, there is no specific reference to alii women in their synopsis of the history of the tradtion.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt your interpretation of history of who was the first to mention the tradition. I like inline citations and will add one for the claim I believe you are discussing. Also...you are confusing the 19th and 20th century images.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing. You argument, as usual is black and white. Look at the wording. It says simply that alii woman did this, and they did. I see nothing to demonstrate that the prose is suggesting this was exclusive to only alii woman.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I said that may be true and that may be your intentions in writing the sentence (which still needs a source if you wish to maintain it as is.) But by not mentioning the practice among non-alii and emphasizing alii women in the introduction "alii woman would dress up and ride in parades and other formal occasions of the Kingdom of Hawaii" also, there is the possibility the reader will be misguided into thinking that it is a strictly alii sport...I am going to save my breath stop it at here. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. First, you have to demonstrate such as fact, which you have not. As usual you have a lot of text with little to say but mentioning authors and no actual links. If you have nothing further to provide here but criticism, I suggest you keep to your word about having nothing else to say on this subject. You have no respect for policy and procedure and think just arguing is the best route. I am rather sick of that. So, I will not be paying much attention to your posts in the future unless you have something of substance to say.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also one more thing. When you source books, please specify the pages you use. Every one of your sources here are one page with a hyphen leading to nowhere. This is not the first time I've seen this.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a lot of stuff you do, that you argue is fine. So, in the future I would rather you stopped telling me how to work since you disrespect my criticism of your failings and short comings.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting childish and I don't have time nor the interest to address your arguments and accusations. Ignore all of this. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting childish? Now that was truly funny. You have been using bad faith tactics to get your way, attacking me on several venues at once and I did nothing but sit and take it and attempt to work with you and explain policy and procedure which you got tired of fast. You ramble off authors and text as if your word is gospel and your work demonstrates a clear lack of understanding on how sources should be summarized. you have a clear POV that I find insensitive to Hawaiian culture and people and have even had a number of editors complain to me personally about how you have accused them of horrible things. I would love it if you could find a way to disengage but you don't. You step up the level of tactics and attacks. I really am finished assuming good faith with you. Either you demonstrate good faith as we move forward or expect me to treat you as a bad faith editor. Not everything you do is so bad, but the majority of your work needs a task force to clean up. Take your own words seriously and begin requesting deletion of your articles that you have been told were absurd and badly sourced and summarized. You stated that you would...but there they sit, years later with no action. You have tons of time....you certainly have demonstrated that much.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What articles? You should delete them if they are as absurd and ridiculous as everyone says. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one that linked the discussion where you admitted some of your articles were sourced badly and would begin deleting them. Again, you don't seem to know enough about Wikipedia to give a decent reply. You can request deletion of any article you wrote that you are the main contributor of, where little to no other contributions were made. Others cannot unless they are an admin. If i were an admin, I think I would have blocked you by now, regardless of how I feel about blocks. "You should delete them if they are as absurd" is another demonstration of your lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, but you did make these statements to another and you linked them for me to read. I didn't go looking for them.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand how to delete an article and how to nominate one for deletion. Don't assume that I don't know basic policies. Those articles (every ancient chiefs of Hawaii, Maui, Kauai and Oahu except those which were stubs) I mentioned to you before and Mamohina and Viritida/ had problems with were already deleted by me a long time ago. When I said you should delete them, I meant for you to nominate the ones you see as absurd for deletion. Do you mean for me to delete the lists too? Cause I feel they are just as absurd, but thought base on your comments you would oppose their deletion. .--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. Seriously. I just don't.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses to my comments here and on Paumakua show how aggressive you have become in the last month and how much bad faith you have. You instruct me to assume good faith, really? What have I been doing allowing you to nominate Jim Bartels for deletion, apologizing for my rudeness, letting others decide our disputes, I have never revert any of your problematic edits up this point or edit an article you claimed as your own because of my fear of your over compulsiveness. You understand I linked you to those discussion in good faith as help because you were recreating a lot of the old articles I deleted. My intention was to inform you about these concerns in your endeavor in recreating them and you took it as another attack on your over protective articles and contributions, which you have seriously have ownership problems with. This comment and what I said on your talk page about Liloa a while ago, you see as an attack on what you wrote and you become defensive and stubborn beyond believe. You take everyone of my comments and suggestion as aggression tactics and find every policy imaginable to contest my comments and suggestions. When I resort to a third opinion, you criticize me for it. I originally moved this article and correct this article in good faith, by asking User:Fram to perform the move like I have done many times. You jump the gun and accuse me and indirectly User:Fram of scheming to disrupt your edits and that I was using User:Fram's administrative position for some hidden agenda because you couldn't fathom why I would ask another editor to move an article. When I request a move to settle a dispute you criticize me for it, even though I ultimately included all suggested titles in the request in the end. Why do I waste my time with these discussions? Because I can't edit your articles which you are aggressively claiming ownership over. You accused me claiming ownership over Template:Lunalilo family tree, which I haven't touched in these past months because I know you will revert anything I add or change. You really need to set your priorities straight. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of this. Seriously. You piss me off, I piss you off and nothing gets achieved. Whether you believe this or not, I was serious about telling you not to retire and that there has to be a way for us to work together. Between the two of us there is a good deal of mistakes that both make and a good deal of achievement we have both made on these topics. We don't agree on a number of things but do agree on many more things that never get mentioned. I have an entire post I deleted that addresses you above post but deleted it. It is in the history if you are interested, but the reason I deleted it is simple....it was just prolonging the situation between the two of us. We both have to try and rise above this. I think it is more than possible. I leave the ball in your court.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your tones and comments in the past have accused everything I've done as aggression tactics against you ("If you have nothing further to provide here but criticism, I suggest you keep to your word about having nothing else to say on this subject. You have no respect for policy and procedure and think just arguing is the best route. I am rather sick of that. So, I will not be paying much attention to your posts in the future unless you have something of substance to say"). You seem to believe that I am out to get you ("I see no reason for Kavebear to be changing the titles by requesting an admin do it. It holds no further weight than anyone else and the editor has an issue with my contributions and I feel this is a further attempt to disrupt my editing of Hawaii Topics by this editor who has began attacking me in an aggressive manner with a battleground mentality"). You find every way to get rid of me [1] and put down my arguments. I moved this article in good faith, I allowed it to be moved back in good faith, I don't curse at you because of good faith, I won't report you for it either, I made the request in good faith, I inserted your preferred title in good faith. You never told me it was written base on official spelling or just about modern Pau riders, you presented that argument way further down in the discussion. It took me days of arguing for you actually take one of my concern seriously ("the actual word Pāʻū being "in the Hawaiin language" a word for skirt where it is notable to have the actual word being used and defined. I actually thought you were just using that argument as to the title change and objected there because there are still many variations to the spelling used in sources and some stress one over another" and "OK, on the definition thing, I understand what you are saying now. That can be corrected"). You have a dictatorial tone in all your comments toward me. When I disagree with something you write without source here, I can't assume your good faith if you don't provide sources and arguments pertinent to the topic. You see it as an attack and criticism without reasons, when I told you my reasons. You ignore my reasons and basically are telling me I shouldn't give you and your article criticism. If you want you can argue why my criticism is wrong in relation to the source and the articles. You have provide the source in the end but why did you have to say all those hurtful things in between and accuse me of undermining you. My comment above I wrote was done in aggravation after one comment (I don't believe you. Seriously. I just don't). I made the comment about your use of incomplete page numbers in good faith. You took it way out of proportion. I am only here to address problems I see. You can ignore it or address it, but you can't treat every word I write as some malevolent plan to undermine you and dig up every past grievance against me to undermine what I have to say. If you have to be rude, accusatory and hurtful in your reply, please erase my comment and ignore its existence. I really don't want to hear it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will tell you point blank that you are a tremendously disruptive editor and everything you post above can be turned back on you for your behavior. I let you have a lot of rope and you and you never let up on the slack. I mirror what you do to teach you how frustrating it can be to have someone question everything you do, but you have violated a number of policies and guidelines and made accusations and very abusive personal attacks I took all of it in stride and made not effort to go to AN or ANI or even RFC/U. This page was my limit with you. I reported that personal attack while you were removing it. You will be reported for behavior like that by anyone, not just me. As you see, I also updated the fact that you removed it and apologized. This is when I removed my reply here and decided to take a different route. This was your chance to show good faith and assume the same. Either take the peace offering to move forward in a collaborative effort, or from this point forward I am reporting all violations as needed. You cannot work on your own on Wikipedia. These are not your articles and the ones I create are not mine. You started out being rude, accusatory and hurtful...VERY hurtful. I don't want to hear it either, but that is just how this works. If you don't have patience to deal with others then you should retire. You have accused me and others of "re-writing" history, and it turns out you were the writing original research. You are stubborn. Cool, that I can respect. You are young and unexperianced and still lack the knowledge of how Wikipedia works after all these years here. If you want to move forward KAVEBEAR you have to give as well as take. Do you, or do you not wish to collaborate and are you so upset for being reported to an admin who had absolutely no comment that you are going to hold that as a grudge? As I said, if you are going to be a problem in the future, I will begin treating you as a problem editor. You lack the knowledge of Wikipedia policy and guidelines so that puts you in a disadvantage, which is why I have not done so yet. I tried to work with you, you have to try in return.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Article edits

I removed material that was improperly referenced. I'll place it here. To go back in, it needs proper citations that are consistent with what's in there and the material needs to be reconciled with existing information. I'll put in nowiki tags so changes can be cut and pasted here to fix the material. Montanabw ^(talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pau riding tradition began just after Captain Richard J. Cleveland introduced horses to Hawaii in 1803. [[Kamehameha]] personally disliked the creatures, partially on account of the amount of food they required, so western sailors began riding them along the beaches to demonstrate their capabilities. Hawaiian men and women quickly took to riding, establishing a long equestrian tradition that also includes the [[paniolo]], the Hawaiian cowboy. As the early Western visitors to Hawaii were men, rather than women who might have introduced [[sidesaddle]] riding, Hawaiian women joined the men in learning to ride astride. Additionally, Hawaii soon established trade connections with Central and South America, where women often rode astride. This may have influenced the development of riding customs and dress among Hawaiian women.<ref name=pauhistory>"A history of pa'u" (April 5, 2007). .</ref> The term ''pāʻū'' means [[skirt]] in the [[Hawaiian language]].<ref name="Alameida1997">{{cite book|author=Roy Alameida|title=Stories of Old Hawaii|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=6h0pxYFSqnQC&pg=PA108|date=1 January 1997|publisher=Bess Press|isbn=978-1-57306-026-4|pages=108–}}</ref><ref name="Lewandowski2011">{{cite book|author=Elizabeth J. Lewandowski|title=The Complete Costume Dictionary|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=gbIsJ2tZJS4C&pg=PA223|date=24 October 2011|publisher=Scarecrow Press|isbn=978-0-8108-7785-6|pages=223–}}</ref> Riders initially began wearing long skirts to protect their legs while traveling. Over time, as the riders took part in performances and displays, their outfits became more elaborate and elegant. English writer [[Isabella Bird]] visited Hawaii in 1873 and noted women riding astride, a notable difference from European custom.<ref name=Jensen>Jensen, Chelsea (April 11, 2011). "The pa'u tradition". ''[[Hawaii Tribune-Herald]]''.</ref><ref name="Paradise">{{cite book|title=Paradise of the Pacific|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=4f7kAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA19|year=1906|pages=19–}}</ref>

I fixed the citation problems and restored the material. All I really changed was the first paragraph, which was uncited before (although the placement of the Alameida and Lewandowski footnotes gave it the appearance of being cited). In fact, the previous material was rife with confused wording and in some cases conflicted with the source I did find, the Hawaii Tribune-Herald article. The material in that paragraph is attributed to that piece. I removed a few lines cited to the (improperly cited) Paradise of the Pacific book, as they did not accurately follow the given source. In the second paragraph, I merely added a few notes about the development of the outfits based on a second Tribune-Herald source by Chelsea Jensen; this shouldn't be controversial. We could probably add a a bit more on the history of the dresses based on Paradise of the Pacific if we make sure it's accurately represented. However, our best bet would be to use up-to-date scholarly works like Cowan-Smith and Stone's Aloha Cowboy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can live with that. Seemed like it was cutting existing sourced material, but it appears you are on top of it, so allis well. Montanabw ^(talk) 04:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like--Mark Miller (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pau does not mean the same as pa'u

As someone who has lived in Hawaii for more than 12 years, I have a problem with the lede, the article title, or both. "Pau" (pronounced "pow") in Hawaiian means done, finished, complete. As in "I'm pau", "Are you pau?", "Our house is pau and we can move in now". The phrase "pau hana" ("finished work", "done with work", "work is over") is used constantly here for the end of the work day, etc. "Pa'u" (skirt) has a completely and utterly different meaning than "pau", and is pronounced completely and utterly differently. The glottal stop in "pa'u" means that both vowels are pronounced very independently of each other, and in two distinct syllables: "pah - ooh".

Not to spell the word correctly in this specific instance is very misleading and inappropriate, since they are two different words that mean two different and very divergent things (and the spelling that is being incorrectly used now refers to a very common word, whereas the correct spelling refers to a word rarely heard or used).

The okina obviously matters less or little at all on words which do not have this problem in that they are recognizably the same word with or without the okina (e.g., Hawaii), and the pronunciation difference is less or negligible as well.

I realize the okina situation has been hashed back and forth on this article Talk page, but I'm not sure the reasoning of the fact of the two very different meanings has been brought up. I think we genuinely need to avoid this in this particular article by emphasizing the correct spelling, (i.e., with the okina), and the correct pronunciation, to avoid misinforming people about the meaning of the word and to avoid confusion between the words "pau" and "pa'u".

Here are documentarians and newscasters pronouncing the word "pa'u", very distinctly contrasting it with the word "pau": [2], [3] (uploader misspelled, but the historian corrects that), [4], [5], [6].

Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was an enormous edit war over this issue; as a non-Hawaiian, I had no real position one way or the other, but I DO favor respect for native languages. If you want to put in a move request, we can debate it again; your sourcing may prove persuasive. Montanabw ^(talk) 16:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no edit war. There was a very long, protracted and heated debate over the correct title. I created the page as Pa'u riders. I used the apostrophe instead of the okina without really realizing it or understanding that it was not the correct diacritic but a replacement used since there is no okina key on a standard keyboard. When this was noticed by another editor they made a good faith request to change the article to Pāʻū riders, believeing this was the correct spelling (which it is...if referring to the activity and not the formal equestrian groups). The word is most commonly used in reference to the Kamehammeha Day Floral Parades where these member associations compete for awards. That spelling is Pa‘u as seen in this official rules and criteria/application from one of the islands [7] for the Kona parade. The groups themselves are titled with all caps: Pa‘u Riders. These are formal riding societies so if we refer to a specific group they should be all caps but when referring to the groups of societies in general or the parade participants on horse back I think we would use lower case and with both the kahakō and the ʻOkina: pāʻū riders. I believe the easiest answer to this is to change the scope of the article to be more general and broadly scoped. This doesn't exclude the current use of the word to mean riders in the Kamehameha Parade or the closely associated riding societies formed to carry on the old tradition but will also be true to the MOS and satisfy the original move request. The actual consensus of the above discussion was "no consensus" and should have been left, but an editor ignored the rules to do what they "Just liked" when closing the above discussion and moved the article in a manner that did not satisfy either myself or probably the other editor who made the formal move proposal (only because they originally supported full use of both diacritics). I disengaged from the situation but feel it is time to either add the okina here by itself in this instance or add the both diacritics to the title. What do you feel about this Softlavender and Montanabw? I would support either.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it definitely needs either the okina or the apostrophe, and considering almost no one even in Hawaii has an okina on their keyboards, and nearly everyone in Hawaii uses apostrophes instead of okinas, I vote we use that. It should definitely be in the article title, and also the article text. If down the line after that someone wants to go through the article and replace the apostrophes with okinas, that's fine, but not crucial. The critical thing is that the meaning and pronunciation of the two words (pa'u and pau) is completely and utterly different, and since pau is such a common daily word it certainly should not be used when pa'u is meant instead. Hope that makes sense. Softlavender (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Softlavender, we could IAR with the MOS-Hawaii in this instance as this is a very contentious issue and move the article back to Pa'u riders. I would not object. It is actually per the MOS for the most common use.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the best solution, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was typing this PS but didn't have a chance to post it before you replied: PS: I definitely do not think we should use the kahakō. Rarely used even here in Hawaii, and they tend to only confuse people further, especially in words that have both okina(s) and kahakō(s). Not to mention, we have various dictionaries and authorities disagreeing whether there is or is not a kahakō on the word pa'u which means skirt. (You have to recall that Hawaiian is a non-written language, and these diacriticals were invented by white settlers.) Even HPR or television announcers in Hawaii often or usually disregard the pronunciation of kahakōs. And you can bet residents never pronounce kahakōs. There is no resident in their right mind who says Maaanoa (for Manoa, written scholarly as Mānoa, the town UH is located in) or Paaahoa (for Pahoa, written scholarly as Pāhoa, the town that's currently being covered in lava). We just say Ma-NO-ah and Pa-HO-ah. And no one types or writes the kahakōs either. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is actually a very good point. Not everyone agrees on the use of the diacritics in certain words and phrases based on the local pronunciations. These things have actually changed over time and at one point the more common dialect was not what is used today as each island had different dialects. The more common dialect used to be that of the islanders from Kauai as seen in the older reference pronunciations given for the period. The T sound was common for the K making Kamehameha Tamehameha.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The T sound is from the original Tahitian language (Hawaiians came from Tahiti -- Tahitians discovered and populated the archipelago), which over time became a K in Hawaii, but is still a T in Tahitian-language cognate words. T sounds are still often used to replace K sounds in Hawaiian while chanting, as it's easier to chant using the T. Maori language (in New Zealand -- the third main point of the Polynesia triangle) also retains the Ts where Hawaiian has Ks. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe is fine with me if it is OK with people who actually know Hawaiian language. Beats no punctuation and confusion with a completely different word. Montanabw ^(talk) 05:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like the three of us agree. Softlavender (talk) 05:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a technicality ...

Just as a technicality, and I don't have time to find scholarly written proof (although it exists), pa'u as it is pronounced by all of the historians, documentarians, and newscasters in the 5 videos I posted in the discussion above, definitely pronounce pa'u without kahakōs. These are native Hawaiians or historians and newscasters who especially when discussing matters of Hawaiian heritage and language are at pains to pronounce things authentically. Their pronunciation of the word is remarkably brief, even with the glottal stop. If there had been any kahakō(s), they would have lengthened the vowel(s). (Just as a referent, the difference is similar to the difference in German between Stadt and Staat, but often more pronounced.) I'm just saying this because I'd like to get clearer on the spellings and such (with citations), and remove the less authentic stuff, but I don't have time to do that right away. I'm just happy that we've changed it back to Pa'u now, so thanks everyone for that. :) Softlavender (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I gave up on the article and walked away because there was just so much to deal with that writing the article itself became second to just defending its title or trying to find some consensus. Whenever you have time let me know and I would love to collaborate on the article further to try and raise it to A class or GA and eventually FA. I found an old source with public domain images that shows how to tie the pa'u and the items used. I would also like to get a little more detail on the history of the Kamehameha Day parades. I found an old newspaper article that discusses some of the riders who were given awards and mentioned that Kamaka Stillman was missing from the Honolulu parade that year and everyone was looking for her so it seems she is an old name in the parade as is Puahi who was known for his dog riding astride the back of his saddle.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I had not even heard the term before I happened upon this article in October for some reason. In any case, when I rechecked those 5 videos above briefly today, I realized there is a lot of good stuff in them, if one can spare the time to watch and take notes. As with many things in Hawaii, whose culture and history has been an oral one and passed down through word of mouth and oral teachings (and often secretly so), a lot of information on Hawaii and its culture is not written anywhere but is rather disseminated orally and visually. Things the average (even haole) resident of Hawaii is as familiar with as with the back of their hand, are sometimes not accurately present in any written form anywhere (except maybe in some document locked up in the Bishop Museum), much less on the internet. For that reason, I'm a big fan of using videos, if deemed accurate, as information references/citations for many items of Hawaiian culture, for items not otherwise accurately or thoroughly covered in print media or readable on the internet. Hawaii is still not a very written or intellectual culture -- the state of publishing, education, etc. here is dire LOL. Softlavender (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Videos of that nature are great but they don't keep the documents locked up all the time. You can make a reservation to access most of the library except for historic documents themselves which may need special permission to view. But many of the things you speak of, I was told by the head archivist at the Bishop Museum, could be found in the Hawaiian newspapers. There is a vast amount of oral history there. Also, court documents are good places for biographical information on a good deal of the aliʻI. Sad thing is, the average Hawaiian has a pretty high IQ as I understand it. Many of the first nobles of the kingdom went from completely illiterate to prolific writers within the span of only a few years or more.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 12:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mostly here for WikiProject Equine to keep an eye on the equestrian angle, so just ping me. I'm also not too bad for just a neutral eye on other things if needed. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Softlavender you have to understand beside there being a difference between pau and paʻu, there is also a difference between paʻu, pāʻū paʻū, and pau. Four forms of writing it and each with various meanings.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pau spelling

I've already given up on changing this title to the correct spelling reflective of the original meaning. The only legitimate reason the current title stands is that modern Pa'u rider organizations have not meticulously corrected themselves as Hawaiian linguists have for the creator to claim this is the official spelling of these organizations...But it is incorrect to state "The term paʻu means skirt in the Hawaiian language." Paʻu means soot while pāʻū means skirt: Extract from Nā Puke Wehewehe ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi by Hawaiian linguists Mary Abigail Kawenaʻulaokalaniahiʻiakaikapoliopelekawahineʻaihonuaināleilehuaapele Wiggin Pukui and Samuel Hoyt Elbert:

paʻu
nvs.
1. Soot, smudge; ink dregs; ink powder; ink used for tattooing made of burned kukui shells; tarcolored excrement as resulting from hemorrhage; sooty. hoʻo.paʻu To soil, smudge, make sooty.
2. Drudgery, slaving; tedious and laborious work, toil; toilsome. hoʻo.paʻu To treat as a drudge, overwork, oppress with tedious labor.
pā.ʻū
1. nvt. Woman's skirt, sarong; skirt worn by women horseback riders; to wear a pāʻū. Fig., the sea (UL 36). Cf. pāʻū halakā. Pāʻū hula, any kind of dance skirt. Pāʻū lāʻī, ti-leaf skirt. Pāʻū-o-Luʻukia, ornamental sennit lashing of canoe float to outrigger boom, said to have been named for the chastity belt worn by Luʻukia (Malo 134, Emerson note.) hoʻo.pā.ʻū To put on a pāʻū.
2. n. Mat covering for a canoe, sometimes with crew sticking their heads out through holes in the mat. (Malo 135, Emerson note.) 3. n. Red feathers bound to base of yellow feathers in an ʻuo, bunch.

paʻū
vs. Moist, damp, soaked, drenched, moldy. Also maʻū. See Paʻū-pili. hoʻo.paʻū To soak, moisten, dampen.
pau
1. vs. Finished, ended, through, terminated, completed, over, all done; final, finishing; entirely, completely, very much; after; all, to have all; to be completely possessed, consumed, destroyed. (Used in loaʻa-type constructions, Gram. 4, as: E pau nō kēia hana iā kākou, we will finally finish this work; also an intensifier before verbs: see pau ʻeka, pau kilo, pau lehia, pau ʻono, pau pāʻele. Pau or pau ā precedes some words with meaning of “very, very much.” Cf. pau maʻalea, pau ʻole, pau ʻono. Cf. also apau, kūʻike, pau a pau, pau loa, pau nui, -pau pilikia. Pau ka haʻawina, the lesson is finished. Pau ke kaʻa i ka nāhāhā, the car was completely destroyed. Pau ʻeka, very dirty, filthy. Oki pau ka hana a ka huila, extremely wonderful is the doing of the wheel. Pau nā luna i ka ʻeha, all the officers were injured. Pau i ka lilo, all sold, gone, taken, consumed. Ka pau ʻana ihola nō ia o kaʻu haʻawina, my lesson is just finished. Pau Pele, pau manō, consumed by Pele, consumed by a shark [an oath meaning “may I be destroyed if I have not spoken truth”]. Pau poʻo, pau hiʻu, consumed head, consumed tail [total destruction]. hoʻo.pau To put an end to, finish, get rid of, suppress, terminate, conclude, annul, stop, cancel, revoke, repeal, abolish, consume; to dismiss or discharge, as from work; to use too much, waste; cancellation, finishing; completely, all. Cf. hoʻopau manawa. Hoʻopau ʻana, abolition, cancellation, revocation. Hoʻopau hoʻoʻino ʻia aku, dishonorably discharged [as from the armed services]. Hoʻopau ʻai, to waste food, said figuratively of one not worth his food. Hoʻupau wale, nolle prosequi. E hoʻopau ʻoe i kāu uwe ʻana, stop your crying. E hoʻopau ʻia ā ma kēia ke hoʻopau loa ʻia nei ke kānāwai, the law shall be and hereby is revoked. Ka hoʻopau ʻana o ka ʻaelike, cancellation of contract. Ua hoʻopau ʻia kō Hauaʻīliki naʻau ʻeʻehia, ala aʻela ia ā halo wikiwiki akula (Laie 457), Hauaʻīliki's heart was completely filled with terror, he jumped and ran swiftly away. (PNP pau.)

2. idiom. Said to be (used in special idioms, unfavorably). Hele akula i kauhale e kamaʻilio ai, i laila pau koʻu hiamoe nui, ka hana ʻole, going to houses of others and chatting, there saying that Iʻm sleeping all the time, doing no work. Pau kona lapuwale i nā hoahānau, said by his cousins to be worthless.

The difference between pau, pāʻū, paʻū, and paʻu is one the most cited mistaken use of Hawaiian orthography for the modern language.

Not only can the kahako and 'okina change the sound of a word, but its use can change the meaning. Pau, when spelled without any diacritical mark, means finished, ended, all done. When spelled with an 'okina, pa'u describes soot, smudge or ink powder. The same letters with a glottal and a macron over the u - pa'u - means moist or damp. And pa'u, with a macron over the a and u and when separated with a glottal, means skirt.[8]

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original research trying to justify your opinion. As I said, this is not a traditional ancient Hawaiian tradition and I think you have a lot of nerve saying the Pa'u Riders Association hasn't "corrected itself". You are not incorrect in ally assertions. Seriously. you are doing EXACTLY what the MOS tells us not to do...a word for word translation. It isn't up to you to decide the meaning of Hawaiian words.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Pa'u rider image

Yes, that image is further away to include the horse. That is not the only image I have of course. I will upload the best of my images from the 2016 parade and pre-parade gathering at the palace of the Pa'u riders and cowboys. There are much better images. Perhaps there is something we can agree on.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Miller, I'd suggest cropping it tightly so just the horse and rider are shown; as is, it's hard to see the detail of the rider. I'd have no problems with it as a lead image (as it shows an entire horse and rider body) if they were simply larger and all the other horses and such were cropped out. Does that make sense? Montanabw ^(talk) 02:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]