Talk:Hapa/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hapa: An insult (in some places)?

Is Hapa a pejoritive or deragatory term? It is not stated. I beleive many Eurasians consider it a deragatory term when applied to them. Perhaps Hawaiians do not? Perhaps splitting the article into the word as used in Hawaii and the word as used elsewhere. This would seem to address many of the issues. Hawaiians do a lot of things differently, it is still a very seperate culture from anywhere else.

--There is not a negative associated with the word hapa in Hawaii. There are some who feel that the word should only be used to describe part ethnic Hawaiians, but as a Hapa-pake family (part ha'ole, part Chinese), living on O'ahu and the Big Island, no one ever responds negatively when we identify as hapa. There is some prejudice among darker skin colored Hawaiians (more Hawaiian genes) to lighter skinned Hawaiians, specially among teenagers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patfromlogan (talk • contribs) 19:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hapa

The list of Japan actors should be pruned or removed since the term hapa does not extend outside of Hawaii. Only individual from Hawaii or having something to do with Hawaii should be included.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Aren't Hapas Hawaiians or from Hawaii?

Why are there so many non-Hawaiians in this list? 99.179.174.131 (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Aiming to reach consensus on lead

In my edit here I have added a sentence referring to the difference in the usage of hapa between local Hawaiians and other groups. This is acknowledged in several sources. My hope is that editors can reach a WP:Consensus on the wording of the lead. I have tried to remain neutral and close to the literature, however, but please forgive any missteps as I lack local expertise in this subject.

• Bernstein, Mary; De la Cruz, Marcie (2009). ""What are You?": Explaining Identity as a Goal of the Multiracial Hapa Movement". Social Problems. 56 (4). University of California Press: 722–745. doi:10.1525/sp.2009.56.4.722. Retrieved 2 September 2013.

• Taniguchi, Angela S.; Heidenreich, Linda (2005). "Re-Mix: Rethinking the use of 'Hapa' in Mixedrace Asian/Pacific Islander American Community Organizing". Washington State University McNair Journal. No. Fall. Washington State University. pp. 135–146. Retrieved 2 September 2013.

Regards, Pendrop9 (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Continuing to work towards consensus

Thank you for your thoughtful edits. In my subsequent edit here I attempted to continue your idea of creating consensus by citing numerous links documenting the word's usage as meaning part Asian or part Asian/Pacific Islander in the continental U.S. (rather than California only) while also keeping the previous Hawaiian definition referring to any type of ethnic mix.

User 74.108.86.228 continues to revert without explanation. I invite user 74.108.86.2289 (or various 74.108.86 variants; see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.108.86.78) to join in the discussion rather than engaging in edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.221.68 (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Working towards a data-supported consensus

I am working towards consensus too, but only one that is supported by the data. Explanations for the reversions to Pendrop9's edit and 128.111.216.224's edit have already been given on their talk pages. Please see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pendrop9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.111.216.224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.101.70.128 (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Realistic Observation vs. Personal Opinion

I do not understand 74.101.70.128's argument. I am in Japan and we have a hapa club here which means half Asian (Japanese obviously). The examples given by Pendrop9 and 128.111.216.224 show the word is being used in areas across the U.S. as well (74.101.70.128 saying the MIT hapa club must be made up of people from Hawaii is stretching it).

A quick google search shows many more examples outside California of "hapa" being used to mean part Asian:

http://www.wikicu.com/Hapa_Club http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/harvardhapa/ http://www.tuftsdaily.com/tufts-hapa-reaches-out-to-mixed-race-students-1.2772876#.Ui708mSkcTk

Then you have examples like http://hapavoice.com/ and http://seaweedproductions.com/the-hapa-project/community/ which have hundreds of people posting from all over the world identifying hapa as part Asian.

And the definition on Urban Dictionary with +3400 votes http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hapa

With all this said it's pretty obvious the word is being used outside of California to mean part Asian so why not just relax and let the wikipedia page say "particularly part Asian" or something like this? Viewing the page's edit history it appears it is only one person who keeps reverting the page and Wikipedia is not a place to promote your personal positions it is about accuracy. The word has obviously changed and with all these examples it is clear that to be accurate about the usage of the word today you must include its definition as part Asian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.72.194.148 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

De-Politicizing Article

In my edit here I attempt to de-politicize the article's overall tone:

- Moved the "Some see the use of the term as a misappropriation of Hawaiian culture" line to article's body rather than lead section;

- Added "especially with a partial Asian and/or Pacific Islander background" to lead line (taken directly from existing edit's citation)

- Added "Pacific Islander" to above line

- Added additional support from previously cited University of Hawaii article "Jonathan Okamura, professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa, explained that although hapa is a word that describes all people of mixed ancestry, hapa is primarily used to describe people who are half white and half Asian American"

-Added article from Stanford Journal of Asian American Studies "Today, the term is commonly used to describe Asian Pacific Islanders of mixed race heritage."

The previous edit here can be read as promoting a false controversy via a Hawaii vs. California usage (curiously both the University of Hawaii and Double Tongued Dictionary citations were cited as evidence of this, but I find no mention in either source); whereas the controversies discussed on this Talk page revolve more about cultural appropriation and linguistic evolution. If anyone can find proof of the Hawaii vs. California usage this should go in the article's body or perhaps a new section.184.189.221.68 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

No Political Tone Exists, Yet Ironically Politics is Being Added

Prior to 184.189.221.68's edit on September 24, 2013, the article was very objectively accurate and empirical: it described the two different usages of the word hapa in Hawaii and California. Despite's 184.189.221.68's alleged attempt to "de-politicize" the article, 184.189.221.68's edit ironically makes it more politicized.

184.189.221.68's edit politicizes the article because 184.189.221.68 tries to give priority to the California usage over the Hawaii usage, when both usages clearly exist, both in reality and in the documentation. The most politically neutral way to approach the two usages is to describe their existence and leave it at that.

184.189.221.68 eliminated all references to the Hawaii usage. For example, the article used to cite the Taniguchi and Heidenreich's quotation: "Currently, Hawaiian locals use Hapa to refer to any individual who is racially mixed." (Taniguchi and Heidenreich (2005), p. 137). 184.189.221.68 is clearly trying to eliminate evidence of the Hawaii usage and wants the article to default to the California usage. Such behavior is political. It is worth noting that 184.189.221.68 is located in Santa Barbara, California. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.89.235 (talk) 13:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Article Lead & Citation Clean Up

In my edit I hope to resolve an edit war between anonymous IP users. I have written the lead based on searchable evidence regarding the current use of the word (many of the previous citations were dead links).

My supporting argument follows:

Lead & Recent Citations

The lead has seemed to cause the most edit warring with one editor arguing a dichotomy of Hawaiian-centric vs. California-centric use.[1] While there is evidence of the Hawaiian use originally meaning part-Hawaiian (and later meaning any mixed ethnicity), there is also evidence of the word being used to mean half or part Asian in Hawaii (please see citations below), as well as a great deal of evidence of the word being used to mean partial Asian/Pacific Islander ancestry in the continental U.S. including outside California (please see below - Additional References). Therefore I have used "mixed ethnicity" as the main lead and added especially with an Asian or Pacific Islander background as such:

"A hapa is a person of mixed ethnicity, especially with an Asian or Pacific Islander background"

This quote is taken directly from the Double Tongued dictionary link previously cited by numerous editors: "hapa adj. racially mixed, esp. with an Asian racial background. Editorial Note: This is “Asian” in the North American sense, where it usually refers to East Asians from China, Japan, Vietnam, and Korea. Etymological Note: Hawaiian hapa ‘half.’" . (I added "Pacific Islander" to include the Hawaiian lineage.)

Citing a University of Hawaii at Manoa article (Folen and Ng) also supports article lead: "Jonathan Okamura, professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa, explained that although hapa is a word that describes all people of mixed ancestry, hapa is primarily used to describe people who are half white and half Asian American"

I removed the Ozaki and Johnson link because it is dead. Please re-add if appropriate.

The second part of the lead I changed to: "The term originates in Hawaii from the Hawaiian word for "half." I am unable to find the previously cited Pukui definition online. Can anyone help? In lieu of this I am using the Merriam-Webster definition: "Hawaiian, from hapa half (from English half) + haole, First Known Use: 1919"

I am unable to read the Bernstein and De La Cruz article as it must be purchased. Previous citations quote p. 723: "Today, Hapa is used to describe any person of mixed Asian Pacific American descent." Can anyone verify this?

I read the cited Taniguchi paper which focuses on the use of hapa in California. From the abstract: "Recently, many mixed-race Asian/Pacific Islanders on the mainland began identifying with and using the term Hapa to create organizations specific to their needs. Largely recognized as a California phenomenon, the number of Asian-descent multiracials identifying as Hapa is ever increasing." While the author summarizes by criticizing California-based Hapas for excluding indigenous Hawaiians from Asian/Pacific Islander panethnicity, I do not feel this sufficiently warrants a California-only definition and/or Hawaii-only definition for the Wikipedia article, nor have I been able to find anything else supporting this dichotomy. On a separate note and with all due respect, I'm curious how other Wikipedia editors weigh this graduate student paper versus more mainstream sources.

The Huynh-Hohnbaum citation does not mention any geographical use of the word aside from its Hawaiian origins: "The term 'hapa' is commonly used to refer to multiracial Asian and Pacific Islanders (APIs) and originates from a Native Hawaiian word. 'Hapa,' which roughly translates to mean 'half,' refers to individuals of mixed descent and is frequently used as a label to describe API mixed-race panethnicity, although it's most common application is to multiracial Asian and white individuals." This citation supports a partial mixed Asian/Pacific Islander definition as opposed to any mixed ethnicity.

The Stanford Journal of Asian American Studies (Gamble 2009): "Today, the term is commonly used to describe Asian Pacific Islanders of mixed race heritage."

Additional References Showing Use of Hapa

Examining the sources and external links I find the following support for the lead:

Hapavoice.com - this website features scores if not hundreds of submissions by self-identifying hapas from around the world. I would think this clearly supports the use of the word outside Hawaii and California

TheHapaProject.com - another website with hundreds of submissions by individuals identifying as hapa

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Hapa Club - "Hapa is the Hawaiian word for "half" and was initially a derogatory term used to describe someone who was half Hawaiian. The phrase "hapa haole" was commonly used, meaning half white. The term hapa was initially adapted by people of Japanese-White mixed heritage to describe themselves, and is now used to describe anyone of mixed heritage with partially Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry."

Harvard Half Asian People's Association - More evidence of the word's use outside California. "The term hapa is a Hawaiian word that means half or part. Originally a derogatory term for a person of half-Hawaiian descent, the word has since been embraced by people of part Asian/Pacific Island descent."

Orange County Register, "Hapa Nation" - "Derived from the Hawaiian term "hapa haole," or "half white," the label was originally derogatory. Over the past decade, it's been adopted by a wide range of people whose ancestry is part Asian or Pacific Islander."

Psychology Today, "Mixed Race, Pretty Face" - "Known in popular culture by the Hawaiian term hapa (meaning "half"), people with mixed Asian and European origins have become synonymous with exotic glamour." This definition also focuses on Asian/European mixes.

Urban Dictionary - While I am skeptical of any user generated dictionary, it is noteworthy that the top definition reads: ha•pa (hä’pä) adj. 1. Slang. of mixed racial heritage with partial roots in Asian and/or Pacific Islander ancestry. n. 2. Slang. a person of such ancestry. {der./Hawaiian: hapa haole. (half white)} with over 3400 votes

I welcome discussion and hope these edits make sense to the community.TAG speakers (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to allow time for interested parties, including IP editors to comment, before you re-add this material to the article. Normally 7 days is adequate. GregJackP Boomer! 04:23, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Eurasians are Hapas too.

I know you want Hapa to be only half Mexican and half Black but Eurasians are the ones who made Half White popular. It is not Half White, it is Half Asian that is Hapa not Half White. I am Half White, but I am not Half Mexican and Half Black. Half White is more popular because of me. I am Eurasian.

"Hapa" is more commonly known for half asians with either half latin or half black, rather than half white and half asian Eurasians.

I thought Jessica Sanchez was Eurasian but she said that she's not white so she is half mexican not half white. Sanjaya is half italian and half indian so he is Eurasian not her and they are both American Idol. That is another thing you're confused about. 24.211.179.19 (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

oh and eurasians can be white when a group of hapas are either mexican or black because they are all half asian. 24.211.179.19 (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I am still the lightest foundation skin color. I am a half white. Half whites are usually darker than beige, olive, or golden, or as dark as black people. I am not them. I am the fairest skin color. I am still half white because my parents are French dad and Vietnamese mum. So I am still half white even though my neutrogena foundation is classic ivory, the lightest and fairest and whitest skin color and I have alabaster pale skin, pale alabaster skin. Even though I am still half white. That is life. That's life! That's life. 24.211.179.19 (talk) 12:16, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to buy this in a million years, I'm thinking of buying it within a month! I just haven't gotten to it yet! I haven't gotten to it yet! Neutrogena Skin Clearing Foundation in Fairest/Lightest. Which is Classic Ivory. I didn't choose it. It really is my skin color. I didn't choose my skin color! I am the fairest/lightest pale alabaster skin color. I am half white. That's life. That's Eurasian. French dad and Vietnamese mum. That's life. 24.211.179.19 (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Foundation really is darker than my skin. It is the lightest/fairest color. I am lighter/fairer than it. We don't choose. Whatever is the lightest darkest than us is what we have to buy. For me, it's the lightest/fairest foundation, because the lightest/fairest foundation is darker than me. Vietnamese probably isn't Asian but we are playing so it is Asian so I am Eurasian which is half white and half asian which is half french and half vietnamese which is Eurasian. That is my race. It is called Eurasian. I am Eurasian. I am half white. I am half asian. I am half french. I am half vietnamese. I am Eurasian. That is me. I was born in the era of David Archuleta, he is a Capricorn like me and Chris Daughtry. That is who I am. A Capricorn. Not so much as a Eurasian or a half white or a half asian. or a half french or a half vietnamese. But I am eurasian. I am half white. I am half vietnamese. I am half asian. I am hapa. That is me. That is who I am. I am buying the lightest and fairest foundation from Neutrogena SkinClearing company at Amazon.com. I am online. I am internet. I am mirc. that is called miranda cosgrove because my children are called miranda cosgrove because my children's father and I met on mirc. That is an American Story. A classic American LEGEND! I am Eurasian.24.211.179.19 (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I can buy whatever I want, but I didn't choose it! It chose me! I haven't gotten this yet but it's mine! I do whatever. I am Classic Ivory. http://www.amazon.com/Neutrogena-SkinClearing-Liquid-Makeup-Classic/dp/B001MS7H1O/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1381063070&sr=8-1&keywords=neutrogena+skinclearing+foundation+classic+ivory I am Classic Ivory. 24.211.179.19 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Article Lead & Citation Clean Up

TAG speakers' points have already been addressed in the following links:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:74.108.86.78

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pendrop9

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:128.111.216.224 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.89.56 (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Article Lead & Citation Clean Up

Dear 74.108.89.56 - It would be helpful if you addressed the points made on this talk page directly. I refer to those by myself, Pendrop9, TAG speakers, and 119.72.194.148 (writing from Japan). 184.189.221.68 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Lead Change ... All 3 sources say Asian descent

I undid the last revision which does not emphasize any type of Asian/Pacific Islander descent. The previous edit states "A hapa is a person of mixed ethnic heritage" and they cite 3 sources but all 3 of these sources in one way of another say mixed ethnic heritage especially with Asian descent. I am fairly new to wikipedia so please excuse any rookie mistakes. I'm referring to the edit by 74.108.89.215

one person with an agenda vs the world

Yeah came here via multiracial forum discussion obviously one person trying to push their issue despite all facts and citations. If everyone in every Hapa club started editing it's just what they want so don't play along. So I say we all just come on now and then to correct the site. Let this person check Wikipedia every hour every day ..it'll give them something to do!!! ;) Hapa power! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.111.14 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read "Re: Article Lead & Citation Clean Up"

There is no agenda other than accuracy. Please read the links in the section titled "Re: Article Lead & Citation Clean Up".

Furthermore, 216.9.111.14 is encouraging a bullying mentality, which is inappropriate. An active minority of people pushing for an inaccurate article lead doesn't make the article any more accurate, nor does it address the legitimate concerns made above. Also, the version of the article lead that delineates the two usages incorporates the usage that 216.9.111.14 is bullying to institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.79.59 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

the real bully

Sorry 74.108.79.59 but looking at all the evidence on this talk page and the article's edit history it really seems YOU are the bully. We have hapa clubs all over the country and apparently Japan too using the word to mean part Asian/Pacific Islander (you know like it says IN YOUR OWN CITATIONS) yet you continue to assert your own personal view.

I think this post is the most thoughtful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hapa#Article_Lead_.26_Citation_Clean_Up) why don't you answer it instead of edit warring?

Wisconsin represent!

Just a shout out from Wisconsin! We have a hapa club here and it's all good and yes we're all part Asian. My guess is this person who keeps undoing everything may be the same troll who did that realhapas.com site some years back. After she got called out everywhere it got pulled down. Who knows? But I know I'm not in California or Hawaii so Hapa Hapa Hapa Hapa Hapa 64.83.234.211 (talk) 02:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The Importance of Statistical Significance & The False-Consensus Effect

72.21.225.66 has not read the section right above his own. The points in "Article Lead & Citation Clean Up" has already been addressed in the links in "Re: Article Lead & Citation Clean Up". If people really want the responses to be reposted on this talk page, then that can be done. It would be redundant though.

72.21.225.66, 64.83.234.211, etc. are all using the argument "This hapa club in State X is all part Asian, therefore hapa must mean part Asian." The article lead addresses the two main usages: the Hawaii original and the Californian evolution. The second usage is a California usage because it originated there. Just because a hapa club in Wisconsin uses the California usage doesn't change the fact that they're using a usage that's from California.

Similarly, in Massachusetts, people say "wicked". If someone in Georgia or even an entire neighborhood in Atlanta started saying "wicked" in the same way as the people in Massachusetts do, it doesn't change the fact that "wicked" is a New England usage nor does it mean that "wicked" has suddenly spread to Georgia. The article lead merely points that out.

Until someone produces documentation that statistically significant numbers of people who aren't hapa themselves in places other than Hawaii and California know and use the word hapa (in either usage), the sources currently only prove that there are two definitions and that the California usage has not really become universal in the way the other reverting editors seem to want to believe is the case. Please see the Wikipedia article on the false-consensus effect <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect> and Wikipedia's policy on reversions due to no consensus <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_revert_due_solely_to_%22no_consensus%22>.

Furthermore, the reverted version is less accurate because it doesn't explicitly address the clear difference in the meaning of the original usage in Hawaii, which is still used to this day. Making that difference clear only makes the article better, not worse.

In the end, there is no need to change the article lead to a less clear version when the more complete article lead acknowledges both usages and indicates their origins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.80.181 (talk) 04:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Persistent Trolling

74.108.80.181 seems more interested in persuading others to his/her argument than finding consensus.

FWIW I was at the University of Chicago as an undergrad in the early 00's and we had a loose Hapa group. All of us were part Asian and we felt the term came from Hawaii. I know this isn't important to 74.108.80.181 but that's the way it was. Two of us were from Hawaii BTW.

It would help if 74.108.80.181 addressed why their own citation (double tongued dictionary) says "especially with an Asian background" and their UH article does the same.166.147.104.174 (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The edit I reverted to seems much more accurate in its citations. 166.147.104.174 (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Another try at concensus

We seem to have several differing opinions and it appears 74.108.80.181 seems to be taking on all comers.

So I tried to re-write the lead (please read this carefully) using exactly the citations 74.108.80.181 cites.

"Racially mixed, especially with an Asian background" ... I took this directly from 74.108.80.181's third citiation, NPR's Way with Word radio. 74.108.80.181's first citation (Ozaki and Johnston) cannot be found online, so I would encourage 74.108.80.181 to either give us more information on this if they wish to continue to use it or leave it out. I have removed the citation.

74.108.80.181's second citation for the opening line is from a University of Hawaii article by Folen and Ng. I quote directly from it: "Jonathan Okamura, professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa, explained that although hapa is a word that describes all people of mixed ancestry, hapa is primarily used to describe people who are half white and half Asian American." Since this is a UH prof I think this calls in to question 74.108.80.181's argument that in Hawaii it means only anyone of mixed heritiage.

Anyway I concluded the lead with the following: "The term originates in Hawaii from the Hawaiian word for "part" or 'mixed'.[4][5]"

I also moved the statement "Some see the use of the term as a misappropriation of Hawaiian culture" into the article's body. This is way to political for the lead IMHO ... plus I can find citations that argue against this but better to leave politics out I'd say.

Finally I agree with several of the commenters above regarding a "California" usage. 74.108.80.181's seem specious in requesting specific statistical documents. Just looking at hapavoice.com I'm seeing scores of people from all over the world using the word and they are all part Asian. What more do you want?

Look 74.108.80.181 I know it feels like you are being ganged up on (and I agree some of the commenters could use a bit more tact and maturity) but I really feel the other editors are expressing a majority opinion. No one else seems to be taking up your argument. I also think everyone could stand to identify themselves by user names as well.. Sure I'm pretty new here but it would seem to be a good idea towards having civil discussion. Thanks! Polyglottz (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Another try at concensus

Polyglottz ignores the fact that Professor Okamura specifically said "hapa is a word that describes all people of mixed ancestry" and prefers to focus on the clause after that. The reason why hapa primarily describes those who are part white and part Asian is because that's the most numerous type of hapa. Being part Asian is merely a subtype of general hapa-ness. Similarly, just because the iPhone is the most common smartphone doesn't mean the iPhone itself is the *definition* of a smartphone and any non-iPhone phone is not a smartphone. The definition of a smartphone is more general, even if the iPhone is the most numerous type of smartphone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.83.116 (talk) 08:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The Slippery 704. IP and Their Personal Agenda

This Talk page shows at least 10 editors being reverted and bullied by one individual over the past month, the elusive 704.101-108. Many more examples in the article's history too. Your agenda is evident: you believe hapa has two separate definitions and cling to one graduate student paper as evidence while ignoring reams of mainstream media sources and citations. Renewing your IP doesn't anonymize you. 174.74.10.11 (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: The Slippery 704. IP and Their Personal Agenda

174.74.10.11 does not actually address the substantive arguments being made on the talk page. His point about mainstream media sources have already been addressed above.

Furthermore, I am not engaging in bullying. I am merely trying to make the article as accurate as possible. In fact, one could make the claim that everyone else is bullying me and trying to enforce an illusory consensus that is not supported by the data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.91.34 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Re: The Slippery 704. IP and Their Personal Agenda

The substantive points have been repeatedly addressed by numerous editors including myself. I will repeat some of them here:

1) You cite the Folen & Ng article: "Jonathan Okamura, professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa, explained that although hapa is a word that describes all people of mixed ancestry, hapa is primarily used to describe people who are half white and half Asian American" yet choose only to use only the first part of one quote. Since this is a University of Hawaii professor speaking it calls into question your argument that in Hawaii 'hapa' means only anyone of mixed heritage. In my edit here I do not focus only on a single clause of the quote as you accuse, but rather include the entire quote in my edit. Your edit focuses only on a single part of the quote.

The more important point however is being missed-- this Okamura quote comes from your edit's citation. Editors across this page are listing many other established and clearly credible sources which you ignore including CNN, Psychology Today, the Orange County Register, the Los Angeles Times, college and university organizations nationwide, mainstream published books, and websites with thousands of participants.

2) Your Ozaki and Johnston citation cannot be found online. Other editors have caught this as well. Yet you continue to list it without backup.

3) You also cite NPR's Way with Word radio, which defines hapa as "Racially mixed, especially with an Asian background." I have quoted directly from this source in my edit yet you revert it while also citing the very same article.

4) You have not provided any credible evidence that there are Hawaii-only and/or California-only definitions of the word. Clearly language evolves and this word which itself is borrowed from the English word for "half" has evolved to mean racially mixed especially with an Asian background. You list many citations after your Hawaii/California allegation yet none of them specifically support this argument. The only one which even discusses a "California" phenomena is a graduate student paper (Taniguchi and Heidenreich).

5) You continue to put the politicized statement "Some see the use of the term as a misappropriation of Hawaiian culture" into the article lead which demonstrates a politicizing and Hawaii-centric bias. This should be included in the article body under its own section if at all. Polyglottz (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Ding Dong 704 is Gone

BOOM! Well done locking the page Wikipedia! Hopefully 704 will find somewhere else to troll now. 12.39.6.101 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Aggregated Response

Since no one seems to acknowledge that I've already addressed all of Polyglottz's and others' points (albeit in disparate places), I'll just put all of them together here on the talk page.

First of all, the words "especially with X" does not mean something needs X to be something. If you say "smartphones are mobile phones built on a mobile operating system, especially those with touchscreens," that doesn't mean those without touchscreens aren't smartphones; the "especially" indicates that a lot of smartphones do have touchscreens. The actual definition of a smartphone is "a mobile phone built on a mobile operating system."

Second, the etymology section (along with its references) makes clear that the word "hapa" in the Hawaiian language literally means "of mixed blood, person of mixed blood." One does not have to have Asian or Pacific Islander heritage to qualify as a hapa. Otherwise, the term "hapa ʻInikiki ʻAmelika" doesn't make sense because the word "hapa" was originally used to denote people who were mixed with Native Hawaiian blood and something else (in this case, Native Hawaiian and Native American). Many hapas do have Asian or Pacific Islander heritage, but having the definition of hapa be "a person of mixed Asian or Pacific Islander heritage" makes it sound like one cannot be a hapa without such heritage.

Polyglottz ignores the fact that Professor Okamura specifically said "hapa is a word that describes all people of mixed ancestry" and prefers to focus on the clause after that. The reason why hapa primarily describes those who are part white and part Asian is because that's the most numerous type of hapa. Being part Asian is merely a subtype of general hapa-ness. Similarly, just because the iPhone is the most common smartphone doesn't mean the iPhone itself is the *definition* of a smartphone and any non-iPhone phone is not a smartphone. The definition of a smartphone is more general, even if the iPhone is the most numerous type of smartphone.

The sources do not document the usage of the word "hapa" beyond California. The new usage appeared in California, but has not been shown to have spread beyond it. Perhaps Californians who moved away to other states are using the word in their new places of residence or some non-Californians who have exposure to California have adopted their usage, but that can be true of any phenomenon. It is inaccurate to present the California usage of "hapa" as ubiquitous without further documentation.

The crux of the question is: how many people in places other than Hawaii and California actually use the word hapa? The problem with the sources cited for this revision is that none of them actually document large numbers of people who use the word hapa outside of Hawaii and California. Let's go down the list:

1) The mere existence of the MIT Hapa Club does not indicate anything about the usage of the word hapa in Massachusetts or even just Boston. The MIT Hapa Club's website does not indicate where the members are from. For all we know, all of these hapa members could be from California. If that was true, it would still remain a California usage.

2) The Orange County Register article is a profile of Kip Fulbeck's book <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Fulbeck>. Fulbeck is from Fontana, California. One would expect a Californian to use the California usage, so that's not surprising.

3) "One Big Hapa Family" is a clever title (as a play on "One Big Happy Family"), and quite simply, that is probably why the filmmaker Jeff Chiba Stearns used the word hapa in the title. For a documentary on mixed Japanese-Canadians, of course Stearns is going to do his research and eventually come across the word hapa. The website does not prove anything statistically about the actual usage of the word in Canada.

4) The Psychology Today article only says that the word hapa means half. It doesn't even go as far to mention if that means half Asian or half European. In fact, it doesn't even stick to the word hapa; it uses the word Eurasian more than hapa.

Furthermore, one article in a publication with national distribution doesn't indicate nationwide usage. In Hawaii, the locals use the word "slippers" to refer to "flipflops". If a journalist from Hawaii uses the word slippers to refer to flipflops in an article and gets the article published in a nationally distributed magazine, it doesn't mean the word slippers suddenly has nationwide usage with the definition of flipflops.

5) The Huffington Post blog post is similarly flawed as #2 and #4. This blog post mentions Kip Fulbeck's book and one blog post by a New York pastor doesn't indicate common usage of the word hapa by New Yorkers.

6) The CNN video has Betty Nguyen <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Nguyen> discussing Kip Fulbeck's book. There's nothing in the video to indicate that Nguyen, who grew up in Texas, is doing anything other than deferring to Fulbeck's California usage of hapa. She does not say in the video that she grew up using the word in Texas, and even if she did, that's still the word of one person from Texas.

In the end, without clear proof (preferably with statistics) that the word hapa is being pervasively used in places other than Hawaii and California, it is inaccurate to write the lead as if the word hapa has some sort of universal definition and ubiquitous usage. Explicitly delineating the places the two concurrent usages have been documented to be occurring is clearer and more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 11:38, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Civil Discussion with 704.108/GaryKia

First, GaryKia thank you for coming out of 704.108 IP anonymity.

I realize you have been blasted a lot on this page and that is not my intent. If you read back I have asked for civility from others in dealing with you even though we do not agree. Obviously you have a minority viewpoint on this page but that is no excuse for attacks on you.

I do not believe, nor do any other editors on here, that you have sufficiently proven any type of Hawaii vs. California definition. There is zero verifiable information supporting your alleged dichotomy. Furthermore, reams of reliable information from verifiable sources support the current definition of racially mixed with partial Asian/Pacific Islander background. I am listing just a few below ... none of which support a "California" or "Hawaii"-based difference in definition:

NPR's A Way With Words quoted directly and verbatim in my edit (a source you cite as well): "hapa adj. racially mixed, esp. with an Asian racial background. Editorial Note: This is “Asian” in the North American sense, where it usually refers to East Asians from China, Japan, Vietnam, and Korea. Etymological Note: Hawaiian hapa ‘half.'"

MIT Hapa Club (direct quote): "Hapa is the Hawaiian word for "half" and was initially a derogatory term used to describe someone who was half Hawaiian. The phrase "hapa haole" was commonly used, meaning half white. The term hapa was initially adapted by people of Japanese-White mixed heritage to describe themselves, and is now used to describe anyone of mixed heritage with partially Asian or Pacific Islander ancestry." (With all due respect, your claim that "The mere existence of the MIT Hapa Club does not indicate anything about the usage of the word hapa in Massachusetts or even just Boston" is incorrect. It's very existence documents the usage at MIT -- as do others below from New York, Rhode Island, etc.)

Harvard Hapa Club (direct quote): "The term hapa is a Hawaiian word that means half or part. Originally a derogatory term for a person of half-Hawaiian descent, the word has since been embraced by people of part Asian/Pacific Island descent."

Columbia University Hapa Club (direct quote): "Hapa Club is a cultural club for students of partial Asian ethnicity (from the Hawaiian word "hapa", which means exactly this."

Columbia Spectator (direct quote): ""Hapa" is a Hawaiian word used as both a noun and an adjective to refer to a person of partial or mixed Asian ethnicity. This quality distinguishes Hapa students from others of Asian descent at Columbia."

Brown University Hapa Club (direct quote): "The Brown Hapa Club is a safe space for students who have the unique experience of being not only multiethnic/multiracial, but specifically of part Asian and/or Pacific Islander descent."

Tokyo Hapa Club (direct quote): "The Hapa Club was founded by yours truly after Tak Norris and I organized a few dinners with friends and friends of friends who were all hapas, i.e., people whose ethnic mix consists of Asian/Pacific Island and another."

Psychology Today (direct quote): "Known in popular culture by the Hawaiian term hapa (meaning "half"), people with mixed Asian and European origins have become synonymous with exotic glamour."

Orange County Register (direct quote): "Derived from the Hawaiian term "hapa haole," or "half white," the label was originally derogatory. Over the past decade, it's been adopted by a wide range of people whose ancestry is part Asian or Pacific Islander."

Huffington Post (direct quote): "Hapa is a Hawaiian term that has come to refer to people who are multiracial, with one part of their heritage being Asian or Pacific Islander."

CNN (direct quote :30): "It's a Hawaiian term and technically it means half but essentially it means part Asian"

University of Hawaii article (direct quote): "The term hapa originated in Hawai`i from the Hawaiian word for “half.” While the term hapa was originally a derogatory name for people of mixed racial ancestry in Hawai`i, it has since been embraced as a term of pride for people who are racially and ethnically mixed ... Jonathan Okamura, professor of ethnic studies at the University of Hawai`i at Manoa, explained that although hapa is a word that describes all people of mixed ancestry, hapa is primarily used to describe people who are half white and half Asian American ... Okamura says that locals who live in Hawai`i “use the term primarily for white and Asian American and this is how they [hapas who live on the mainland] somewhat argue they’ve appropriated that term."

GaryKia, you also do not address cites such as hapavoice.com which features individuals worldwide using the term (direct quote): "Hapa, literally “half” in Hawaiian, was originally used as a derogatory term to describe people of biracial ancestry. Today, many multiracial individuals of Asian or Pacific Islander descent have embraced the word as a term of prideful self-identification. Although some object to the term’s appropriation and perceived misuse outside of its traditional Hawaiian context, “Hapa” has been widely adopted by the Asian and Pacific Islander multiracial communities."

Finally, you have argued against editors on this very page writing from Japan, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc. who challenge your edits. Surely you are not arguing that your theoretical "California" definition has spread worldwide while a different "Hawaii" definition remains locked in the islands.

Therefore I have chosen to revert your edit until you can provide legitimate citations supporting your claim about a "California" usage. Thank you.Polyglottz (talk) 22:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Lack of Sources for Statistically Significant Non-California Usage

Polyglottz continues to revert while avoiding responding squarely to my arguments. Quoting a barrage of media sources (particularly sources that I've already rebutted) doesn't address the fundamental logical flaw that I've reiterated multiple times about all of these sources: there is no statistical data to prove *usage* of the word hapa using the definition of "part Asian or Pacific Islander" beyond California. A million quotes from a million sources that have the same flaw does not prove anything. Please refrain from repeating the same arguments. Polyglottz has already done this several times, and this behavior does not further the discussion.

I actually do not need to prove a California usage beyond the current sources because most of the sources reference Californians like Kip Fulbeck for a definition. Until multiple sources document non-Californians with no ties to California using the California definition in statistically significant numbers, a universal definition of "part Asian or Pacific Islander" for the word hapa remains unproven.

In regards to HapaVoice.com, this blog was started by Erica Johnson, a graduate of UC Santa Barbara <http://aaja-la.org/2011/03/banana-2-the-bloggers-cometh/>. If you look at her LinkedIn profile, her background is completely set in California. <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ericarenaejohnson>. Yet again, this only proves that a Californian is perpetuating the California usage, and if international contributors to her blog think that the word has only one definition, then they're contributing while being misinformed. It would behoove Erica Johnson to clarify on her blog that people in Hawaii currently do not use the California definition, if she cares about editorial accuracy.

Polyglottz said "Surely you are not arguing that your theoretical 'California' definition has spread worldwide while a different 'Hawaii' definition remains locked in the islands." Actually, this is exactly what is happening. When mainstream media sources only talk to Californians like Kip Fulbeck and Erica Johnson and these same Californians produce works like "Part Asian, 100% Hapa" and HapaVoice.com, people who are not familiar with Hawaii and have never traveled there will only come to know the California usage. So yes, any incidental usage of the California definition outside of California is clearly being perpetuated by Californians. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with this phenomenon; however, the article lead should not perpetuate a universal definition until the California usage has actually (in a statistically significant sense) become the predominant usage worldwide. Until then, there are only two documented definitions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

"Hawaii" Usage Not Proven

It seems we are going in circles GaryKia. Let me try another tactic.

I understand your argument to be that there are two definitions of "hapa," one in Hawaii and one in California. I respectfully disagree. You feel that the plethora of mainstream citations I have listed are based in your "California" definition (i.e. mixed ancestry with part Asian/Pacific Islander background) as opposed to your "Hawaii" definition (any mixed ancestry).

Therefore I will provide a few examples of rebuttals to your "Hawaii" usage (all from Hawaii-based sources). These challenge your assertion that there is any sort of uniform "Hawaii" definition of the word to mean only of mixed ancestry rather than with the "especially Asian" caveat. Since then is no blanket Hawaii definition proven, I feel the article is more accurate with the lead reading "mixed ancestry, especially with an Asian background" as quoted from the NPR citation.

hawaiilife.com "Hapa is a Hawaiian word that was originally part of the full phrase hapa haole, which was a derogatory term for someone half Hawaiian and half “white foreigner.” Today, the phrase has been shortened to simply “hapa” and generally refers to anyone part Asian or Pacific Islander and part Caucasian."

How To Live In Hawaii "hapa (HAH-pah) – Part, half (for example, hapa haole). Someone of mixed racial or ethnic heritage, especially involving Asian or Pacific Islander heritage."

kalakoa.com "HAPA : Hawaiian word for "half", 2: Of mixed racial heritage with partial roots in Asian and/or Pacific Islander ancestry. If an individual has one parent whom is a Pacific Islander, and one parent whom are of an ethnicity outside of Pacific Islander, they would generally be considered Hapa"

Polyglottz (talk) 03:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Hawaii" Usage Not Proven

Thank you for bringing up these sources. However, you're misrepresenting the sources. Here we go:

1) HawaiiLife.com: You forgot to include the important second sentence after your quote. Darian Peralta, a realtor in Hawaii, clearly wrote "However, the definition of 'hapa' has come more and more to mean 'half' or 'of mixed blood,' in which case, many different racial combinations are beginning to fall under the umbrella of 'hapa.'" She's referring to the Hawaii usage.

2) How To Live In Hawaii: The issue with the word "especially" has already been addressed in the second paragraph of the section "Aggregated Response". My response to this definition is the same as the third paragraph of "Aggregated Response".

3) Kalakoa.com: If you go to the main home page, Kalakoa.com declares that it is "Home to the annual Los Angeles Guitar Festival, Southern California Slack Key Festival and Los Angeles International Flamenco Festival, Kala Koa Entertainment concert events have showcased some of the hottest talent in the world since 2006." It is clearly a Southern California website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 04:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Re: "Hawaii" Usage Not Proven - Staying on topic

Thank you for your civility. The main issue I am addressing is your assertion that there is one uniform Hawaii definition for hapa (mixed ancestry only). These sites listed above and here again are all Hawaii-centric sites which prove your analogy false since they all emphasize mixed ancestry with part Asian background. Here's my take on your points:

1. Hawaiilife.com Yes after she defines hapa as part Asian/Pacific Islander and part Caucasian she says the word is moving more towards any mixed blood. However this is exactly the opposite of your argument (which you say any mixed race is the original Hawaii definition. If this is the original definition it cannot move towards itself). If as you claim there is a blanket "Hawaii" definition of hapa which does not include part Asian background this refutes it.

2. howtoliveinhawaii.com Your argument about phones is not applicable. Again the point of citing this link is to show Hawaii-centric sites which list hapa as especially part Asian/Pacific Islander. This site does this.

3. Kalakoa.com If you had looked a bit deeper into the site you'd see that the company's producer and promoter, Mitch Chang, was "born and raised in Honolulu, music major grad from University of Hawaii now living in the South Bay of Los Angeles." I don't think his moving to California would mark any type of change in his definition of hapa, especially since his site promotes Hawaiian music. In fact, it would probably reinforce his belief in whatever definition he felt was correct as a Hawaii-born and raised individual. Thus I would argue his definition here evidences a clear variance among what you call a Hawaii definition ("of mixed racial heritage with partial roots in Asian and/or Pacific Islander ancestry"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyglottz (talk • contribs) 17:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: "Hawaii" Usage Not Proven, Part 3

1) Polyglottz, you are now equivocating <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation> and demonstrating your lack of familiarity with both the hapa Wikipedia article itself and Hawaiian history. If you want to talk about the strict original original definition of hapa, then you have to go back in Hawaiian history. Since the first non-Native Hawaiians to make contact with the Native Hawaiians were white Europeans, it makes sense that the first usage of hapa was applied to the children of Native Hawaiian women and white European sailors (i.e. specifically, the word "hapa haole"). Since that was in 1778 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Cook>, hapa was really short for hapa haole for a very long time. Remember now, hapa haole in the 18th century meant part Native Hawaiian and part white, therefore part Asian was not part of this original original definition. In fact, that definition wouldn't be possible because Asians didn't arrive in Hawaii until decades later.

Darian Peralta is referring to the current Hawaii usage of "any mixed ancestry" when she says that the word hapa has evolved from the original original definition of "hapa haole" to the current Hawaii usage of "any mixed ancestry". This makes sense because as Hawaii became progressively more diverse with each wave of immigrants, the category of hapa expanded to accommodate hapas of different sorts (hence the hapa subtypes in the etymology section).

By the way, the etymology section of the hapa article also corroborates this point about the original original definition. The hapa subtypes show that being part Asian isn't necessary to being hapa in Hawaii. This is why the article lead should mention both the current Hawaii usage and the California one.

2) Choosing to ignore the applicability of my smartphone analogy and the misleading nature of using the word "especially" doesn't change the fact that people in Hawaii currently use the definition of "any mixed ancestry" as their definition. Once again, for the umpteenth time, the word "especially" merely acknowledges the large population of part Asian hapas, *not* that the definition of hapa itself is "part Asian".

3) Kala Koa Entertainment is a business operating in Southern California. Many businesses, for profit-making purposes, make accommodations to the locals. For example, L&L Drive-Inn <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%26L_Hawaiian_Barbecue>, as it's known in Hawaii and as its Wikipedia article states, is called L&L Hawaiian Barbecue on the mainland. The second paragraph of the history section further clarifies that the founder created the term "Hawaiian Barbecue" for use with his mainland customers. Just because the term Hawaiian barbecue is used on the mainland by Eddie Flores, Jr. doesn't mean Eddie Flores, Jr. actually grew up with the term Hawaiian barbecue and not the original Hawaii term "plate lunch".

Similarly, Mitch Chang, as a current resident of Los Angeles and operator of a Californian business, has probably made the astute business decision to not enforce the Hawaii definition that he grew up with, but rather to cater to his Californian customers who, of course, will be more familiar with the California definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 18:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Seeking Compromise with GaryKia

Rather than continue arguing my edit here attempts to compromise both our positions.

I have kept your premise of a slightly different definition in Hawaii and the continental U.S. even though I do not agree with it. (I changed it to continental as I feel this is more accurate given sources from the New York Times to clubs in Boston, Providence, etc. using the word).

I also included "especially with an Asian background" in the lead which you take issue with.

I trust in the spirit of good will and compromise you will allow this given that 1) multiple verifiable sources including Hawaii-centric ones include this phrase in the definition; and 2) I am allowing your separation of definitions to remain despite what I feel are strong citations refuting it.

If we cannot agree to compromise here I am at a loss as to how to proceed without administrative intervention. Thank you. Polyglottz (talk) 23:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Seeking Compromise with GaryKia

Polyglottz, a compromise would be appropriate if either of us owned the article. "To compromise is to make a deal between different parties where each party gives up part of their demand" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise>. I cannot be making a deal because this isn't a transaction. Wikipedia makes it very clear that no one owns articles. Therefore, the collective goal must be to achieve accurate information. Accurate information cannot contain logical fallacies nor be unnecessarily confusing.

In any case, you present a specious proposal that your current edit is a "compromise". Well, then why would you include the very two things that are problematic: the misleading and confusing wording of "especially with an Asian background" and the assertion that part Asian is a definition used anywhere in statistically significant numbers other than California? In short, this is not a "compromise" at all, by any definition. Aside from some superficial changes in wording, you retained the same flaws as your previous edits.

The language of "especially with an Asian background" is very confusing and potentially misleading. First of all, if there are going to be two definitions presented in the article lead, then the words "especially with an Asian background" are unnecessary. In fact, since the two definitions follow those words, those words are likely to be interpreted as indicating that the California definition is the primary one or even that being an Asian hapa is being more of a "real" hapa than a non-Asian hapa. But that's inaccurate: neither definition is more important and an Asian hapa is not more of a "real" hapa than a non-Asian hapa. They are just two definitions with different geographical scopes. A person of Brazilian, Czech, and Cherokee background would be a hapa under the Hawaii definition, but not under the California one, but in no case is this person "less" of a hapa than an Asian hapa.

Polyglottz, if you can prove that statistically significant numbers of people (which of course have to include non-hapas) on the continental US regularly use the word hapa with the definition of part Asian, then *of course* that's what the article lead should say. It has been reiterated many times that no sources have been given to prove that that is the situation on the mainland. The article contains the fallacy of insufficient sample <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization>. One cannot conclude that the entire continental US uses the word hapa as meaning part Asian when the sources only document statistically significant numbers in California.

Your New York Times citation <http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/opinion/09mon4.html?_r=0> is a complete misrepresentation. The word "Asian" is mentioned only twice: once to describe Barack Obama's high school and second to describe the word hapa. You used this citation to support the line "In the continental U.S., the term describes a person of part Asian or Pacific Islander descent." Why? The relevant quote in this article is:

"In one sense, he wasn’t alone. Being black isn’t common in Hawaii, but being biracial is. There’s a Hawaiian word for it — hapa, or half — that traditionally refers to combinations of white with Hawaiian or Asian, though many use it for any racial blend."

Obama is not part Asian, so why would you use this article to support a line in the article lead about the California definition of part Asian? In fact, this article goes to further prove that there is a clear Hawaii definition of "any mixed ancestry". It's telling that the article does not even mention the California definition; it only mentions the original Native Hawaiian usage and the current Hawaii usage.

You also erroneously attributed the HowtoliveinHawaii.com citation <http://www.howtoliveinhawaii.com/1023/35-hawaiian-words-every-new-resident-should-know/> as supporting the line "In the continental U.S., the term describes a person of part Asian or Pacific Islander descent." How does that make any sense? Not only is the webpage titled "35 Hawaiian Words Every New Resident Should Know", not "35 Words That Residents of the Continental US Should Know", but the author even states that she was making "a list of all these words and phrases unique to Hawaii". You cannot use a source about Hawaii to support a statement about the continental US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaryKia (talk • contribs) 02:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Input to Hapa Discussion

Hello all, I have been following this discussion and after sitting on the side lines for a while, I have taken a stance and I want to offer my input:

I agree with GaryKia - the article revision that uses the word “especially” ("especially with an Asian background”) is also confusing to me. In what situations should I take hapa to mean with an Asian background? In what situations should I take hapa to mean with not an Asian background? There's an ambiguity with that language which makes the usage of the word hapa unclear to me. I prefer the version of the article (as it is now) that resolves this ambiguity. Now I know that in Hawaii, the word hapa is used to indicate mixed of any race, and that in California hapa is used to indicate mixed with part Asian descent. It clearly spells out that I can expect the word hapa to take on two different meanings when I'm in Hawaii vs California.

Polyglottz, I'm also a little confused by what you mean by continental US in your revision of the article. I grew up in Arizona, and at least I've never come across the word being used there. The wording of that sentence implies that the word is in mainstream usage across the US, which I don't think is accurate. It might be worth noting that the California centric usage is used by subgroups across the continental US, and that usage of the word hapa is uncommon outside of California and Hawaii. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1001:B106:627D:F5D3:C449:1A56:70FE (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)