Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Use of Hawaiian symbols in names

User:Pacamah added the appropriate symbols to words like Hawai'i. They were quickly removed. Apparently it is the longstanding practice here at Wikipedia not to include those marks - see, for example, the article Hawaii - even though the state itself does sometimes use them, see Hawai'i State Legislature.[1]

Pacamah also changed the spelling of of Lahaina to Lāhainā. I have changed it back, pending discussion and consensus here at the talk page. That format is not used in our article Lahaina, Hawaii. It is not used by the Maui County government.[2] It is not used at the Town of Lahaina website.[3] It is not used in any of the sources cited in this article. Lahaina is the longstanding spelling used here and I have changed it back, pending discussion and consensus here at the talk page. MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I do believe that it is important to have them listed, as the argument was that multiple sources do not use them. Quite a few sources have listed it with the appropriate kahakō (see [4], [5], [6], [7] etc.) I don't think it's fair to say that the Maui County government doesn't use it, ([8], though extremely outdated), though I understand not using it by precedent.

I feel that given whether or not to use it, maybe adding just a singular note like in the Lahaina, Hawaii article that it is "Lāhainā" in Hawaiian may be able to fix this issue. I'm not sure where to add it, but I feel that it is important to have it at least somewhere as it is the proper name and holds quite a bit of significance. That's why I propose that one line (or three word) solution to quell the problem quickly. Pacamah (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not that familiar with the issue but WP:MOSHAWAII says, "In general, follow the orthography of use for the kahakō and ʻokina wherever possible when using Hawaiian words and phrases, except in article titles." Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 22:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out and linking to that MOS article, @Adflatuss! That's great to hear. These spellings (with Hawaiian diacritics and characters) – not the anglicized versions – are often used officially by the State and County, in official announcements (including regarding the fires), in government documents, business names and trademarks, on many street signs here, and so on. Some local newspapers use them but not all (this is a practice that has changed a lot over the years and often reflects corporate mergers and mainland owners of the publications). They are pronounced when people are speaking place names in conversation – they are part of Hawaiʻi English, the variety and dialect/sociolect of English spoken here. They should be reflected in the article, surely. –Fpmfpm (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it's long overdue to have the correct orthography used. It's used on official state documents and they're not just symbols, but actually a critical part of the language. Omission of an ʻokina can fundamentally change the word in question, since it's a consonant. It's been a very long time since this discussion came up, and I think it's high time we start recognizing that the island of Hawaiʻi and the island of Oʻahu are not Hawaii and Oahu, and that should include article titles. The names are in Hawaiian; not English, and we should respect that the spelling of the Hawaiian language is still considered official.

"Lahaina is the longstanding spelling used here"

I think it's worth considering that the cultural acceptance around indigenous spellings and names has change considerably since this was settled in what, '06? Tradition (of a certain spelling on Wikipedia) shouldn't be considered justification for simply ignoring a whole dang consonant. The characters in question are not (just) simply diacritics. The state has been pushing for the correct use of the ʻokina and kahakō, as well.

The "common English spelling" is typically just a result of "my keyboard doesn't have that character", if anything that's the one which should be in a parenthetical. Warrenmck (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Probably the best comment I've read all year. Complete support. Thank you for adding this critical comment and being willing to say it's finally time to do better and for us to come around on this – it is! Speaking of the state pushing for the correct spellings, Oʻahu is currently updating street signs to include missing letters and diacritics like this via their Word On The Street campaign/project... it's great to see! –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I also completely support this. Just as other languages have long had their diacritics used and respected, I think it is important to have it also respected when writing words in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi. I think it's also important to note the history of the Hawaiian language as well and remember how long it had been banned from being spoken and heard where and by whom it originated. Given the enormous weight of this website and its information, as well and the growth of the preservation of the language (you can even start learning it on Duolingo!), I think it is absolutely necessary to incorporate ʻokina and kahakō wherever necessary. Pacamah (talk) 08:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just use the wording that's most commonly used in the sources, which seems to be Hawaii Neo Trixma (talk) 19:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Pacamah. As you suggest, we could do what we do at the Lahaina, Hawaii article. At the first mention in this article, which is in the second sentence of the lead paragraph, we could say "in the town of Lahaina (Lāhainā in Hawaiian)." And then use the common English spelling in the rest of the article. Would that be to your satisfaction?

BTW I would say that the WP:MOSHAWAII guideline is not generally followed in our articles here. See Hawaii, Molokai, Lanai, etc. In those articles, the English spelling is used, with a parenthetical reference to the Hawaiian spelling in the lead sentence. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like there's editing to be done, then! ;) I would also note that this is not only the Hawaiian language spelling, though – it is also an English spelling. For an example, see https://www.hawaiicounty.gov/. It reads "County of Hawaiʻi" at the top, includes text like "…toward forging a sustainable Hawaiʻi Island…", and so on. I'm sure you would agree the contents of that page are written in English. So, while technically accurate, I'm not sure if a parenthetical like that would be telling the full story or the best way to phrase things. –Fpmfpm (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I left a note about this discussion at WP:WikiProject_Hawaii. I was typing out a reply but keep going back and forth on the issue--I don't think it's clear-cut. I might respond this evening when the temperature falls back to a level conducive to thinking. If I don't respond further, my current mindset is that the compromise proposed by MelanieN is fine (but I have a lot of additional thoughts on the issue). Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Government entities that use the non-Hawaiian conventions should likely be spelt without the ’ (like the Hawaii National Guard). No comment on localities as they predate modern government boundaries. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It seems like whether or not the ʻokina is used in things like the Hawai(ʻ)i National Guard is inconsistent, even on the same website. Though on the hawaii.gov site, an ʻokina is used when listed under the Hawaiʻi Army National Guard, but not the Department of Defense. But, it's also not present on a different Hawaiʻi Army National Guard page.

Also strangely, the second link has three marks used as an ʻokina, mainly ( ‘ ) left single quotation mark, ( ` ) grave accent, and ( ’ ) right single quotation mark, rather than ( ʻ ) modifier letter turned comma (which Unicode lists as for use as an ʻokina). The other links are correct as far as I can tell. Thankfully this article uses the correct one, and it's something to look out for in the future. Pacamah (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The proper ʻ <U+02BB> Modifier Letter Turned Comma is indeed the proper Unicode character for the ʻokina (which is actually a letter of the alphabet, not a symbol or diacritical mark) but it's oftentimes approximated with other symbols like the single quote, as you pointed out, as these are easier to type on standard (Latin/English) keyboards. Straight or "dumb" quotes (the actual keyboard input) often will get converted to curly/"smart" quotes by certain applications or operating systems. And the grave accent ( ` ) was more common, arguably even the standard way of approximating the ʻokina around 25 years ago, but in the mid-90s this began to change and people transitioned to using apostrophes instead. I'm not exactly sure what was behind this change but I've dug into a bit myself as I study orthography & sociolinguistics, so this is up my alley! You do still see grave accents around from time to time, though, especially on older websites (government stuff, old university pages, etc.) Dr. Keola Donaghy at the University of Hawaiʻi at Hilo is who we have to thank for advances in getting important Hawaiian orthography supported on computers & keyboards even back then. ;) –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

My second reply here is to say that yes, indeed there is a lot of inconsistency as to when & where it gets used, and by who, but certain organizations do have it formally in their names, e.g. the University of Hawaiʻi (and even if webpage <title>s or whatnot sometimes leave it out for legacy computing support, to avoid the potential for mojibake, the official logo/wordmark/seal/etc. all include it). I agree that government entities that consistently never spell their name with these letters/diacritics, i.e. consistently remove them, should also be represented here without, as that's most accurate and reflects the actual language use, as @Pbritti said above. (But as was also pointed out, it is almost always inconsistent…)

It seems someone has gone through the article and taken the ʻokina out of instances of "Hawaiʻi" and "Oʻahu" but left the kahakō (macron) in "Lāhainā". This seems inconsistent to me – why one and not the other? I guess because Lāhainā is less familiar and therefore less """standardized""" (see: commonly anglicized, in the recent post-colonial past) than the names of the islands? But unlike what @Pacamah suggested below, I don't think this was what the majority decided, and it seems someone just did an editing pass overnight without seeing any of this discussion. Any thoughts on how to proceed, @Aoi or others? Perhaps this discussion is more suited to the WikiProject linked above (?) and not here since it's not only relevant to this article (but also, this discussion here has been linked on the WikiProject too, so…)

I'm not sure how we could do this, but perhaps we should somehow include both representations, where necessary/appropriate. This would also mirror what is often done here in Hawaiʻi, with an English representation followed by the ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi/Hawaiian representation. An example of this can be seen in the infoboxes in the articles for Haleʻiwa and Lāhainā. Again, not sure how we'd do that here much less for inline text but just musing… –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"I'm not sure how we could do this, but perhaps we should somehow include both representations"

The intro to the Oahu article probably shouldn't say that the correct spelling is "Hawaiian", since locally the ʻokina is still widely used in English. Something like

"Oʻahu (/oˈʔɐhu/, /oʊˈɑːhuː/) (often spelled 'Oahu')"

would be a much more accurate introductory sentence, though an issue is likely to emerge with the impression visitors have when it comes to editing articles (i.e. not recognizing the ʻokina is a consonant vs. a diacritical mark). Warrenmck (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm in full support of this suggestion. I'd love to see others from WikiProject Hawaiʻi weigh in as well. cc @Aoi (just to make sure you see this proposition) who will most likely be interested. –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your responses, and I completely agree that there's definitely a need to have one or the other when it comes to diacritics, and that the historical names of locations should be preserved due to their weight. I had no idea about the history of the ʻokina when it comes to unicode, so thanks for letting me know! I'm an avid fan of unicode (aka, I just watch whatever Tom Scott posts about it), so it was a pretty fascinating read.

I think personally that the ʻokina and kahakō should be kept wherever it is needed. Like the Haleʻiwa article you linked, I did a bit of digging around and it seems like some article titles do have diacritics included and in the url (ʻEwa Beach, Kaʻaʻawa, and to an extent Māili and Mokulēia, though both are missing the ʻokina. Others in the census-designated place of Honolulu County don't seem to have it though, and it seems pretty inconsistent.), and I think therefore that it's important to have it. Take, for instance, Lāʻie, whose article title is just Laie. To most readers, it would seem that it is pronounced more along the lines of Lai-ye rather than La-e-eh if the diacritics are not included. While I may know where to put the ʻokina, I wouldn't expect the majority of readers to. I think it's really important when there's multiple leters, like the aforementioned Kaʻaʻawa, as not having diacritics would possibly cause the smushing of the three As together.

While I know it's probably different, I've also thought about why articles that contain languages like French retain their diacritics (and often times write the names of organizations in French), but that is not done for words or places in Hawaiian? Ultimately I believe that it's important, regardless of language, to retain the correct diacritics. Pacamah (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. As a personal preference, I've generally preferred using ʻokina or kahakō everywhere possible. Of course, this isn't generally how Wikipedia handles the issue, as can be seen in the comments here. I had a boring essay written out about conflicts between Wikipedia guidelines over the use of ʻokina or kahakō, but I think I'll sidestep that issue for now.

Instead, I want to note that both the federal and state governments have been working to ensure that Hawaiʻi place names use the proper ʻokina or kahakō in both state and federal documentation. In particular, the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names (which includes representatives from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, University of Hawaiʻi, Bishop Museum, and others) has been working with the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to update names on topographical maps and federal databases to reflect proper Hawaiian spellings. The Hawaiʻi Board has a policy of updating a name with ʻokina or kahakō only if there is "solid evidence that there should be ʻokina or kahakō."

For Lahaina (or Lāhainā), the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names indicates that both "Lahaina" and "Lāhainā" are acceptable spellings. Apparently, the Board lacked "solid evidence" that the name should use kahakō—at least one source used kahakō, but apparently others didn't.

Put another way—at least as far as the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names is concerned, both "Lahaina" and "Lāhainā" are acceptable. Going forward, U.S. topographical maps will continue using "Lahaina" for that reason.

With all that in mind, it looks like omitting the kahakō in "Lahaina" is not wrong. So, using "Lahaina" throughout the article but also noting that "Lāhainā" is an acceptable variation of the name (whether as a note, parenthetical, or something else) would be an adequate way to address the spelling variations, at least in my opinion. Aoi (青い) (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I was a bit busy with work haha! Anyways, I definitely think that is an okay solution. However I do think that it is important to get a consensus and go with what the consensus decides on. I know it's definitely a bit difficult (I had no idea WP:MOSHAWAII even existed) so I think it's probably best to go with what the majority decides atp. Pacamah (talk) 05:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The ʻAhahui Haku Moʻolelo (Hawaiian Journalists Association) and AAJA-Hawaiʻi released guidance on how to write about the fires that could be of interest. While they leave the decision open, I fully support using the diacritical marks. Tiggeritian (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for linking this, fantastic resource – very happy to see guidance like this being released! –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Follow the sources, per WP:RS; they seem to all use Lahaina, not Lāhainā, for this topic. —  AjaxSmack  05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Newspapers run by media conglomerates on the mainland are in fact not "reliable sources" when it comes to Hawaiian (that is, traditional Native Hawaiian and local, all mix up, modern-day Hawaiʻi) culture. Or they simply don't care there's one place in the U.S. where non-standard English/Latin characters are important and can change the meanings and understandings of words – and they also probably aren't aware of the efforts during colonization to violently erase Hawaiian culture, ban the language from use, and so on. The place name is officially Lāhainā, not "Lahaina" – even if, yes, it's easier to type that for most people, or casually write it that way. "Lāhainā" means "cruel sun" (fitting, when you think of the climate, and now these fires). "Lahaina" is a variety of sugar cane and sweet potato.

Look at how local news publications spell it – written by journalists who live here, not those who have likely only experienced Hawaiʻi as a tourist destination:

• https://www.hawaiimagazine.com/maui-fires-what-you-need-to-know/
• https://mauitimes.news/updated-lahaina-wildfire-death-toll-rises-to-111-police-say/
• https://bigislandnow.com/2023/08/15/death-toll-rises-to-101-following-ferocious-wildfire-in-lahaina/

All "Lāhainā"!

By anglicizing the orthography, are we not also supporting the erasure of culture, history, and memory in the name of "following the norm and common usage"… given that the so-called "norm" is set by people outside of Hawaiʻi who are lacking in knowledge and in care? I fear that in many cases, it's a subtle case of "oh, who cares what those people all the way over there in Hawaiʻi think, but we know better, and our way always becomes the standard because we're more powerful".

I'm a linguist and I'm interested in representing & capturing language how it is actually used, but please don't confuse "big newspaper on the mainland doesn't care enough about Hawaiʻi to use certain diacritics or even entire consonants and hasn't happened to update their style guidelines yet" with "this is not the actual name of the town". And I believe we should be spelling it this way, not the whitewashed way – especially if you know anything about the history of Hawaiʻi. I can't seem to remember or find the link at the moment, but a major publication recently updated their obituary & biographical article about a Vietnamese man to include the diacritical marks in his name. Without those, they were talking about someone else – because it was not his name, even if publications sometimes wrote it as such.

I'd urge you to check out the guidelines @Tiggeritian linked above, too: https://www.aaja.org/2023/08/14/%CA%BBahahui-haku-mo%CA%BBolelo-hawaiian-journalists-association-and-aaja-hawai%CA%BBi-encourage-sensitivity-and-precision-in-reporting-on-the-devastating-lahaina-wildfire/ –Fpmfpm (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I think this is an important distinction, you’re seeing those of us who live here pointing out that WP:COMMONNAME actually is the one with the correct orthography, and we’re citing that fact (since obviously “we live here” isn’t valid evidence). Common perception doesn’t mean the common name if your perception is informed by either a tourism brochure out a news article once a year. It’s easy to mistake a perception that something is the common name if you read it very infrequently and it’s written by people who mistake consonants for diacritics. Just on the merits it seems pretty clear that the usage of the correct orthography has a preponderance of sources behind it.

It’s completely reasonable to point out that mainland sources aren’t reliable for the purposes of correct Hawaiian orthography. Warrenmck (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Warrenmck's reply above ("I think it's long overdue...") is extremely worth reading as well, and expresses a lot of what I tried to say here in perhaps more effective ways :) –Fpmfpm (talk) 13:13, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This is correct: please don't confuse "big newspaper on the mainland doesn't care enough about Hawaiʻi to use certain diacritics or even entire consonants and hasn't happened to update their style guidelines yet" with "this is not the actual name of the town". Jingoistic publications do not determine what WP does. WP uses diacritics where they belong, according to high-quality sources (which on style matters is not newspapers; WP is not written in news style as a matter of policy - WP:NOT#NEWS). That said, "Hawaii" appears to be the official name of the US state, while Hawaiʻi (with an ʻokina not an aprostrophe) seems to be the most appropriate way to refer to the culture and the place as a historical location generally not just a US state). WP should be using the spellings with or without diacritics that are official for particular municipalities. That's not going to make every Hawaiian native perfectly happy, nor every "death to diacritics" English-language jingoist happy, either, but that is the nature of compromise.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"Hawaii" appears to be the official name of the US state

Just as a comment, this is specifically true of only the state name, and the NPS has a whole document on this fact. Officially it is the State of Hawaii (since the statehood act omitted the ʻokina), but all other subdivisions (islands, ahupuaʻa, etc.) should have correct orthography, which the government is in the process of fixing themselves for parks, as an example. Warrenmck (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

​"It's completely reasonable to point out that mainland sources aren't reliable for the purposes of correct Hawaiian orthography." Absolutely. But this is English, not Hawaiian Wikipedia, and usage is determined by reliable English-language sources (with a dose of WP:OFFICIALNAMES), not rules of Hawaiian orthography. Whether sources from outside of the island are to be considered generally unreliable is another topic. —  AjaxSmack  19:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing macrons

@AjaxSmack as many people have been pointing out here and citing, the delineation of the spellings into "English" and "Hawaiian" is not correct. The Hawaiian orthography is standardly used in English in Hawaiʻi. That some people drop a consonant for simplicity's sake doesn't make it correct. This appears to be an issue with perception vs. reality. Warrenmck (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but the macron and ʻokina don't seem to be used much in Hawaii either. Before the events of this article, you could drive into town on the Lahaina Bypass (no macrons), pass the Lahaina Recereation Center I (none here either), the Lahaina Aquatic Center (zilch) and the Lahaina Baptist Church (ditto). Going into town, you would have seen the same. I wouldn't even know where to tell you to go to find any evidence of the existence of "Lāhainā" with macrons in the real world. Usage this scarce borders on an affectation. Even online, while there area few notable exceptions listed in the discussion above, most online mentions from local sources do not use the macrons (e.g. [9][10][11]); this includes the Lahaina News itself. So what about more official sources? State agencies that do use the ʻokina with Hawaii, eschew macrons on Lahaina for the most part (e.g. [12][13][14]). In short, there is not much evidence that "Lāhainā" is the common name. —  AjaxSmack  22:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of state guidance and they're updating signs. I think it's mistaken to differeniate "Lahaina" and "Lāhainā" as separate entities, rather than the latter just resulting from American keyboards lacking macrons. That's why my proposal, above, was:

>"Oʻahu (/oˈʔɐhu/, /oʊˈɑːhuː/) (often spelled 'Oahu')"

Because stating that the stripped version of the name is "English" and proper orthography is "Hawaiian" isn't accurate in any meaningful sense, so regardless of the MOS outcome I think that needs to be changed per WP:VERIFY. It's generally just a case of effort and access to keys on a keyboard, which is basically what HTA says in the link above. Warrenmck (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we're talking past each other. I'm not talking about about whether keyboards can easily render ā or not. I've argued your position on that many times about places where few English speakers have ever set foot (like Sông Công or Ağdam). But Lahaina is an English-speaking town and its English speakers, along with those in other parts of Hawaii, overwhelmingly use "Lahaina". No diacritic has been stripped; it was never there. Wikipedia is (and should be) an encyclopedia of the real world, not an aspiration of what people should type on the internet. That's why UCN is an important policy. —  AjaxSmack  01:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to repeat what I said earlier in the discussion: Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names (which is a state board responsible for maintaining the official names of geographic locations in Hawaiʻi) has been working with the USGS and other federal agencies to make sure that geographic locations in Hawaii are presented using the proper ʻokina and kahakō on maps and other documentation.

If you download the newest topographical maps from the U.S. Geological Survey, many Hawaiʻi locations use ʻokina and kahakō. For example, the maps use Kāʻanapali, not Kaanapali. However, the same topographical maps use Lahaina and not Lāhainā. The reason is that the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names considers both "Lahaina" and "Lāhainā" to be acceptable spellings. You can see Lahaina/Lāhainā's listing in their listing here.

Therefore, I'm not sure it's necessary to debate whether we should be using "Lahaina" or "Lāhainā" in the article, since both are acceptable (or, alternatively, neither is wrong) according to the official source on the matter. And I am saying this, again, as someone who would generally prefer to see ʻokina and kahakō used in references to Hawaiʻi place names. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Break

I helped write the MOS Hawaii but consensus determines content. Am I misreading the consensus here? Perhaps we need a !vote? My exact issue is the pronunciation differences and how they may actually relate to the etymology of the name and whether or not the origins pertain to one story or another. Sources are at least clear that use of the diacritics is an ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi pronunciation in this case and is not the English pronunciation and the two differ. At the very least some explanation should be made in text about the name, even on this article. I am only for clarity and encyclopedic value.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Reading though the above I have to comment about the Asian American Journalist Association article. That is not an MOS. And it is horribly wrong on many counts. Some points to consider;

• From AAJA, "Please use the term “Hawaiʻi residents” to refer to people who live in Hawaiʻi. The term “Hawaiian” should only be used to refer to the islands’ Indigenous people."

Hawaiʻi is an Island. Hawaiʻi is the name given to the Kingdom by the Kamehamehas but Hawaii is the state and Hawaiian residents refer to modern state residents. Native Hawaiians refer themselves as kānaka ʻōiwi or kānaka maoli.

• From AAJA, "Hawaiians write the name of their land as Hawaiʻi, while AP Style uses Hawaii. If you do choose to use Hawaiian diacritical marks, use them consistently. ʻOkina are glottal stops and look like backwards apostrophes. Kahakō, such as in “Lāhainā,” lengthen and add stress to marked vowels"

Use of diacritics is important in the right place. In the wrong place it changes meaning.

• From AAJA. "Consider additional historical context when describing Lāhainā. The town is not only a tourist destination, but also the former capital of the Hawaiian Kingdom"

How does that effect the context here? No...seriously? Kamehameha I called his Kingdom Atooi.

I agree with the association that people should research Hawaiian culture and people, maybe they should do so as well. Lahaina was a center of Maui royalty going back way past the 14th century. That is only when the island was conquered by one ruler, Piʻilani. Also Kamehameha I established the capitol in Lahaina in 1802... not 1820. I am Asian American but not a journalist. I also have kanaka genealogy that I have been endeavoring to research and write about on Wikipedia for ten years but have been a registered editor for 16 years. Mahalo.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Honestly I think it's important we stop calling the ʻokina a diacritical mark. It's no more a diacritic than the N in "New York" is.

"Sources are at least clear that use of the diacritics is an ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi pronunciation in this case and is not the English pronunciation and the two differ."

I think we need to not overweight sources with zero familiarity with Hawaiʻi just because they're generally reliable for journalism. The correct orthography is standardly used in official documents in English all the time, with increasing regularity (see the link to the NPS page above). "English: Oahu, Hawaiian: Oʻahu" is not even a vaguely accurate reflection of the situation here with naming, as I'm sure you're aware, and is a whole-cloth invention of Wikipedia in most cases. That most keyboards lack an ʻokina and it's left off for convenience doesn't change the correct spelling, nor does it change that pronouncing the glottal stop in English is pretty common. Warrenmck (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

​The !vote should be at WT:MOSHAWAII or better yet, in the form of a formal move request of Lahaina → Lāhainā. I recommend the latter because using one name for titles and another in the running text of articles is not tenable at Wikipedia. —  AjaxSmack  01:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, use the common English spelling. If somebody wants to write an article in Native Hawaiian for Hawaiin only speakers, then go ahead. But make it a different article. This one is for English speaking countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.149.186.81 (talk) 06:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"I agree, use the common English spelling."

The correct orthography is not the "Hawaiian" spelling, which many people here have pointed out with an abundance of governmental sources. This distinction is an artificial one on Wikipedia and does not reflect reality. Warrenmck (talk) 21:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

There is Hawaiian orthography and English. I don't know what governments say but experts on the language indicate the name is pronounced without kahako or okina markings. The name is pronounced by blending the letters together with no lengthening of vowels and no glottal stop. With the Hai sounding as "high", the la and na are pronounced as "luh" and "nuh". Blended, this is Luh-high-nuh (altogether as Luhighnuh).--Mark Miller (talk) 09:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think it might be okay if we just reach a local consensus to either use or not use Hawaiian spelling and formatting. (Though, I don't understand why we need to move one specific article to determine if we should use Hawaiian spelling throughout the article. It isn't just deciding between Lahaina or Lāhainā in this article.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Maui

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

There was no consensus on the decision of whether to split.

It's not a vote, but depending on exact choices when tallying, the numbers could come down either way. Neither side's arguments were substantially stronger than the other's to shift that balance. The most common reason given in opposition of the split was the expected size of the remaining article.

Among opposition there is a small contingent who support a move to 2023 Maui wildfires, but do not want the article split.

Some folks of varying !votes preferred Lahaina alone as the subject of a split. Several in opposition suggested waiting. More than a month of waiting has occurred, but there was not a noticeable change in consensus during that time, so it is clear that some more waiting is needed before consensus might shift to a split. There was affirmation that a future split is a possibility.

(non-admin closure) —siroχo 08:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

---

I think that the Maui disaster should be a separate article from this overview of all the fires. It certainly is notable in and of itself, and most of the fire has happened there, with the deaths and destruction. Without separating it, it will quickly unbalance an overview article making it a virtual Maui article. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see a balance issue. The balance matches that of our sources, and they discuss all the fires together as a single event. Support Though would prefer the Lahaina fire alone, instead of Maui, be scoped out to its own article. But we can have that discussion after. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 06:52, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose: the user makes a valid observation, but their solution isn’t viable. Yes, most of the coverage is focused on Maui, but there are good reasons for that. I don’t see viable separate articles at this time unless there are more fires on other islands. Viriditas (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  True albeit. Darbymarby (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support: The vast majority of the articles (local and national) are focusing on Maui and Maui only. This is where the former seat of the Hawaiian Kingdom was burned, this is where deaths were, this is the place without power and cell service and water. Even if not yet, this will have enough information and coverage to be its own article, perhaps with a summary/section in a more general one. I think it's pretty clear to anyone in Hawai'i who has been following this situation hourly for over two days that a separation of articles eventually will happen and will be needed. I'm in no rush, though. –Fpmfpm (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Disagree. It's a single phenomenon, with as many as five Big Island fires burning through North and South Kohala due to the same winds from Dora. You can read about it here. Treating it as separate articles is totally unnecessary. Yes, most of this article should be focused on Maui, but that's because the impact was greater. Also, all the islands were warned about this threat in June, so it didn't come out of nowhere and isn't unique to Maui.[15] Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

    "You can read about it here"? I live here. I've been following both local national news and government update almost every hour of every day. It's not a "single phenomenon" and news is 99% right now focusing on Maui for good reason… as it will for the next week, and month, and month after that. This comment comes across as insensitive, dismissive, and is frankly ridiculous. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support: Per data pouring from, e.g., FTA channels. ☆☆☆—Pietadè^Talk 08:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong support: as things are unfortunately unfolding, there will be a massive amount of coverage on this, that will eventually make a split needed. Best to get it out of the way now, before it becomes too integrated into the article. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Really? How do you see that? The fires are allegedly contained, or close to contained. The search and rescue operation is ongoing and will likely end in a few days. More than 2000 people are displaced and seeking shelter, with the rumor that they will be moved to Oahu if they so choose. Reconstruction will take years. How do you see coverage continuing beyond what I've just mentioned? And why would we need a separate article? For what purpose? How do you see this topic expanding? Lahaina is gone. They will rebuild. People died and others lost their jobs. Most concerning, there are people stuck in that area without communication or access to resources like gas, food, or power. Boats have just started launching to bring needed goods to the area since the roads are closed. Climate change mitigation and better fire management and infrastructure are needed, across the islands. How do you see this playing out necessitating a new article beyond the coverage we have now? Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

    Appears to still be ongoing as of September 8th. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Because this one fire is getting significantly more attention than the other fires. That, in and of itself, justifies a split. DarmaniLink (talk) 10:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe I wasn't clear? The fire is all but close to over (but there are sporadic hotspots that keep popping up. A new small fire was reported in Lahaina and another one in Kihei just an hour ago). The media is like 24 hours behind. The issue is now search and rescue, supporting the people who have sheltered in place, supporting the people who are displaced, and rebuilding. I can't imagine why we need a second article at this point. Perhaps in the future, sure, but this split request is premature. Let the event take its course. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Don't confuse me not agreeing with you with me not hearing you. This fire got more media attention than the other fires. That alone, justifies a split.

  It is easier to make a bold split early where we info dump in that one then try to keep due weight for a single fire in this one. We can always merge the other article later, if it isn't due.

  Having a main article doesn't mean there can't be any info about that fire in this article either. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  This article is not only about actively-burning fires but also about ongoing evacuations (Kāʻanapali was just evacuated today!), emergency response, events leading up to the fires, human casualties, property and cultural damage, etc. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose There'd be very little content left about the non-Maui fires, leaving just a stub behind (or duplication of the background). This just isn't long or detailed enough to need a split. Reywas92^Talk 13:02, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose These are early days. Furthermore the fires have yet to be official named by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) or anyone else —typically along the lines of "the Topynym Complex". Let's wait for the bureaucracies to catch up. kencf0618 (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  +1, good comment. I suspect eventually a split will be necessary and the most logical thing to do, but it's not needed right now. I also think waiting for bureaucracy stuff is a good way to gauge this type of thing. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose Article is way too small for a split. There's no need to be hasty about it. Noah^Talk 14:06, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The article states that the wildfires are a series of wildfires, not just one. Darbymarby (talk) 14:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose a split. Even if the article winds up being primarily about Lahaina, because of the destruction and loss of life there, the other fires are part of the same series of events and belong in the same article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:37, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support and suggest the article specifically be about Lahaina, where a vast majority of the loss of life and property damage is. I suggest 2023 Lahaina fire disaster for a title. Jusdafax (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

  Disagree with this, the fires in Kula were/are significant as well. Areas in upcountry Maui were evacuated, multiple new potable water stations got set up there today, etc. The article title should be focused primarily on Maui, but not the state of Hawaiʻi as a whole (too broad) but also not only Lāhainā (too narrow and not accurate). –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose: For a larger state, a page like this would serve as a summary of all fires in a state with links to separate pages (for example, the 2023 California wildfires page.) It would only make sense to split if there was at least two separate wildfire events that could qualify for standalone pages and that currently doesn’t seem to be the case. Sewageboy (talk) 21:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose If there was a separate article for Maui, the article for the rest of the state would only be like 5 lines long. There is not enough happening outside of Maui for there to be 2 separate articles, and the single article should have the name Hawaii rather than Maui to acknowledge the other islands. Maple Doctor (talk) 22:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Not unless if Hawaii is riddled with wildfires (which it isn't...yet), there's no reason to make this page regional. So far, this is the only notable wildfire in Hawaii. If other regions in Hawaii have fires (heavens forbid), then we can use regional titles. Yucalyptus (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  What is "this"? There is more than one wildfire. These are being referred to in the plural. –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support. From what I know the fires are largely concentrated in Maui, and the media almost unanimously using the term "Maui fires" Plumeater2 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• SupportI am normally wary of breaking up articles. But the situation on Maui is an exceptional circumstance, separate from fires in other parts of the state. I believe the situation on Maui deserves it’s own article. Juneau Mike (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - All these wildfires are happening in Hawaii, so I believe it wouldn't make sense to split this article and name it "2023 Maui wildfires" because it is a part of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires. We don't need two articles for the same thing. Waterard ^water?(talk | contribs) 05:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd argue oppose simply because the other fires could easily be seen a small minor story that doesnt meet the criteria for WP:Noteworthy. Makes more sense to rename to "2023 Maui wildfires" and move other fires to a section about related fires. GeekInParadise (talk) 06:03, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  I'd agree here – but I'd call that a "support" (the article should be renamed, which could be classified as a split with then the other article deleted or merged into an "Other islands" subheading here or something… Big Island things are of course noteworthy but any on Oʻahu I don't believe are and were barely covered in the news or known to anybody here.) –Fpmfpm (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support This is a significant wildfire, both historically to Hawaii and to the United States. The loss of life alone sets this fire apart for most wildfires and the only one in modern history that comes close was the one in Paradise California a few years back. The media is refering to this fire as the "Maui wildfires" and not simply lumping them in to other wildfires. For these reasons, I support the creation of a separate article for the current Maui wildfire. *Jurisdicta (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose -They are occurring all across the Hawaiian islands. Information on Maui in the article currently is too small to fork. Wikiwillz (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support The Laihana article is uniquely notable and will receive a deluge of details. This broader article can appropriately link to the article on Maui. This fire is as notable as incidents like the Slave Lake wildfire or the 2018 Camp Fire that got separate articles rather than being mentioned in broader articles about regional fire seasons for that year. That the information leftover in this article would be small after the fork is immaterial to whether to fork or not. Spudst3r (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support – There really should be an article focused exclusively on the Maui fires, given the horrible devastation in Lahaina. Thankfully, the Big Island, which would still be included in the original article, had no reported injuries or homes destroyed. Maui unfortunately took the brunt of the worst of these fires. An article on a site as important as Wikipedia should reflect that. Scanlan (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, these fires are increasingly being referred to as the "Lāhainā fire", or at the very least the "Maui wildfires" or "Maui fires" – in official County announcements, local news, and national news. –Fpmfpm (talk) 03:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - A split does not serve the reader. There is inadequate content to justify it. The wildfire on Maui is the sole notable one, which may arguably justify a re-title, but it is ultimately part of a single event. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - Obviously the devastation in Maui is the main headline, but the article right now is relatively small and very focused on Maui. I fear that if we were to split out the Maui content there would be very little left in this article. There's only one section, comprising only one paragraph, that exclusively covers a fire other than in Maui. There's also no mention of any other fires in the lede, except those on Maui. If we're really concerned, the article should be moved to 2023 Maui wildfires, with a section on the other fires. estar8806 (talk) ★ 18:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – As others have pointed out, the information in the article is mostly about Maui and there isn't enough information about the other fires to exist as a standalone article. I say move to 2023 Maui wildfires per Estar8806. ~ HikingHurricane _(contribs) 20:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The "main event" of this disaster is in Maui, and other fires outside of Maui are just not notable enough to become their own article. I would suggest moving to 2023 Maui wildfires. Hansen Sebastian^Talk 02:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

  I have a discussion of this below – see the "Article title" section. –Fpmfpm (talk) 06:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. A split should produce a good result both for the source and the target article, and as others have pointed out this can not be achieved, so a split should not be done.—Alalch E. 08:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support I have indeed seen many articles treat about "Maui fires" Neo Trixma (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose – It'd be best to move the article as multiple people pointed out, for the same reason. Should be moved without any need for furthermore discussion to 2023 Maui wildfires. Reego41 16:21, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Status quo for now - There are good arguments for all proposals here. It depends which aspect you want to emphasize. Nevertheless, this event is still ongoing and new and it will serve the most readers best to keep it all together, for now. Splitting articles is a necessary evil, keeping it together allows for better context and easier management of duplicate information. -- GreenC 19:15, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• STRONG support - An entire town has been eradicated. Much like the Camp Fire, this specific Maui fire deserves its own article and would inarguably meet notability standards per se. -- Veggies (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I oppose the split and move to 2023 Maui wildfires. The fires on the big island were notable as well. Most news outlets seem to use the term "Hawaii" rather than Maui as well. Perhaps a good idea would be to put "also known as" at the top to address the Maui part. Belichickoverbrady (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
• Yes split Clearly sufficient content for both. Current approach is generalized and not encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - I think that the split article should be specifically for the Lahaina fire, given that that is the deadliest wildfire in over 100 years. I don't think that the other fires on Maui deserve to be split into another article, and should stay in this one. Calicodragon (talk) 16:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Support - For wildfires with such a high death toll, the precedent is to give that specific wildfire its own page. For example, several cities in the upper Midwest, including Holland and Manistee, Port Huron, Chicago, and Peshtigo all had major fires on the same day, all caused by the same winds amidst an ongoing drought, not unlike the 2023 Hawaii wildfires. Yet, the Peshtigo fire (death toll 2,000), the Great Chicago Fire (death toll 300), the Great Michican Fire (death toll 100-200), and the Port Huron Fire of 1871 (death toll at least 50), each get their own Wikipedia pages. This should be obvious. They, like the Lahaina Wildfire, were notable to their loss of life, and worthy of their own pages. Shootr McGavn (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - The fact the fires occurred at around the same time makes the article less deservant to be split Quake1234 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Should we consolidate The Great Chicago Fire, The Peshtigo Fire, and The Port Huron Fire all into the The Great Michigan Fire page? I’m interested to see if you are consistent. Shootr McGavn (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That's a bit of an absurd argument considering that Chicago is in Illinois & Peshtigo is in Wisconsin. The last I checked the islands of Hawaiʻi, Maui, & Oʻahu were all part of Hawaiʻi.

Also, the Great Chicago Fire, the Peshtigo Fire, and the Port Huron Fire all involved major loss of life. Right now, only the Lāhainā wildfire has killed people.

It may be that the other wildfires achieve notability, but right now I think the WP:TOOSOON essay applies. Peaceray (talk) 22:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Support I think a separate article for Maui fires could be made. There is a good amount of information out there. Cwater1 (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

The only thing absurd about this interaction is to it unwillingness to define your stance. Is your argument that for a wildfire to warrant its own article, it needs to take place in a different state, pivoting away from your original statement that if it happened on the same day (from the same winds amidst the same drought), it should be one article? I am trying to understand your stance and I’m hoping for consistency.

Is your argument:

- one state, one set of winds, one drought, one day = one article?

- two states, one set of winds, one drought, one day = two articles?

If so, back to my original question: should we consolidate Great Michigan Fire and Port Huron Fire?

Should we consolidate Quail Fire, Grant Fire, Crews Fire, Soledad Fire, Mineral Fire, Gold Fire, Red Salmon Complex fire, Apple Fire, Lake Fire, Loyalton Fire, River Fire, Dome Fire, CZU Lightning Complex Fires, SCU Lightning Complex Fires, August Complex Fire, etc. (there are many many more). All of those fires took place in California in 2020, with overlapping timeframes, many in the same day as one another.

Again, what this website is built on is consistency. Provide your stance, and advocate for it consistently. Shootr McGavn (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Strong support The media coverage is virtually focused on Maui, especially the destruction of Lahaina. Coverage that keeps growing with each passing day. The Maui fires therefore merit their own article.TH1980 (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support The Lahaina disaster appears to be one of the most significant disasters in United States history and should be considered singular incident, as the toll of the other Hawaii wildfires is almost negligible in comparison. While I agree with some commenters that separating the articles would leave the current one quite diminished, that is pretty much the point – the remaining wildfires aren't worthy of a large article. Moreover, my fear is that this discussion will be closed and then editors will turn back to this as support for future arguments against a split. If anything, this discussion should be kept open for some time while the damage is assessed. Brycehughes (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Strong Support The fires in Maui have caused great impact to Lahaina, it has been covered extensively in the news. It deserves its own article. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - given that the article began titled '...Hawaiʻi...' but the sections 'Hawaiʻi Island' and 'Oʻahu' are now a very small proportion of the article as a whole, it seems sensible to separate the major event into an article of its own... Yadsalohcin (talk) 08:24, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support - The Lahaina wildfire badly needs a separate article on its own, given that it's the deadliest American wildfire in 105 years. 1779Days (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Not enough info about the other fires to support a split. The other fires' page would just be a stub. Zimi789 (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support - There have been wildfires on islands other than Maui, but the ones on Maui have been absolutely devastating for the island. It deserves its own page. PickleG13 (talk)

• Oppose - Sure, Maui has definitely been the main topic for this article, but the issue with many of the support votes has been that they never mention the size of the Hawaii article AFTER the split, assuming they don't have an answer for it. For me, it sounds like it'll end up as a stud, but if it can be long enough to be a lengthy article, then I'll change my vote. In addition, even if the remainder cannot be long enough to be an article and be forgotten, I an not supportive of that ending. It feels like a notable subject is being suppressed because it's too short. Again, I will change my vote IF the Hawaii article can be expanded BEFORE this discussion closes. foobarbaz 03:48, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• I don't see a problem with a state-based stub for a fire season article. We migh evenutally create a 2020s Hawaii wildfires to cover wildfires in a state-by-state basis. Other state articles are usually a list of fires and not indepth coverage of specific fires or regions -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose- There's not enough information for the Maui fires to be its own article. It would end up being a stub at best. Rager7 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the article is about Maui, and, Lahaina on Maui; so a Maui article would clearly not be a stub. -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose if you split out the Maui fires then there would be basically nothing left. No reason to split out when this article is at a fine size with similar content.Yeoutie (talk) 04:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support I agree, this article is getting too large. (and, plus I want to know how many people have died in Lahaina). PlaneCrashKing1264 (talk) 14:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The tragic destruction of Lahaina makes the Hawaii wildfires event notable enough for its own article. The other fires are newsworthy but not notable, apart from their relationship to the Lahaina event. ThreeOfCups (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose - Lahaina, sure. But Maui no. Not much info, the info's nearly all about Lahaina. Nanchang17 (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, you're probably confused with Maui for the Lahaina one.(or something) Nanchang17 (talk) 14:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Support- I was here to evaluate a separate article on Lahaina but I also think there can be a separate page on Maui in general. My support is mainly based on the notability of the topic due the to coverage by the reliable sources. --Mhhossein ^talk 20:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Challenging claim that the federal government has designated the Maui wildfires as the "Hawaii Firestorm"

The only reference given for this is a citation to a NOAA chart. It looks like whomever added that is unfamiliar with how the alphabet soup in Washington works. Sometimes there is a lead agency that takes the lead on incident management (like NTSB for train and plane crashes), but for incidents like this where federal jurisdiction is less clear, no one agency is designated as the lead agency. Agencies tend to designate things willy-nilly, with every agency coming up with its own incident name. For example, FEMA refers to the wildfires as the Hawaii Wildfires. As far as I am aware, NOAA has not been designated as the lead agency on this incident. (If anyone is aware of a specific presidential proclamation to that effect, please enlighten me.) Any objections before I remove that claim from the lead paragraph? Coolcaesar (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

No objection here. A Google search for "Hawaii Firestorm" restricted to .gov domains only turns up two hits, both of them from NOAA and neither of them sufficient to back up that claim. The term is probably just cribbed from news reports describing the disaster as such. Penitentes (talk) 13:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Removal seems to be the best option. My suggestion for the first sentence would be something like, "The 2023 Hawaii wildfires were a series of wildfires in early August 2023 that broke out in/across the U.S. state of Hawaii, predominantly on the island of Maui." --Super Goku V (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. --Coolcaesar (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

@Coolcaesar: Just wanted to apologize as I didn't know about MOS:BOLDLEAD and WP:BENOTBOLD until just a few days ago. I have updated the first sentence to comply with those. Sorry for my problematic suggestion earlier. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

2023 in the United States collage submission

This article was proposed as a potential choice for the 2023 in the United States collage. You are free to participate in the collage choice discussion here: Talk:2023 in the United States#Collage submissions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 07:50, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting the hurricane discussion

On September 5, Tomas Mejia, a Lahaina resident, uploaded a video documenting highly localized, hurricane force winds at 1:50 pm on August 8, just before the fire consumed Lahaina. The video also documents small-scale destruction to Lahaina by wind before the fire ever arrived. Our current article on this topic tries to downplay the role of the winds calling it "gusty conditions". I would invite everyone to see the video for themselves. These are not gusts, these are highly localized, hurricane force sustained winds. Hawaii, Maui in particular, is famous for microclimatic conditions due to the mountains and valleys, and I think these unusual conditions are not reflected by our best sources. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Viriditas: Has the video you are mentioning been used by a source? If so, I am willing to view it, but I am not sure we can use anything outside of what the source says. If not, I don't know if we can do anything to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:16, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I wasn’t clear. My subject heading refers to the previous discussion on this topic, with multiple editors downplaying the role of a hurricane in relation to the fire event. This new video shows, what appears to me, to be a hurricane rolling through Lahaina, tearing roofs off of commercial buildings, and causing small scale damage before the fire arrived. This gives more weight to revisiting the wind issue and going back to the source material. My understanding is that previous editors have downplayed it because they claim it wasn’t as much of an issue. Viriditas (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

There are at least two reliable sources currently in the article that indicate that wind gusts reached or exceeded hurricane-force in Lahaina.[16][17] I also haven't seen sources that report hurricane-force sustained winds. Also, as I've dug deeper into this, though, I've noticed that sources aren't consistent on how strong the strongest winds were. The National Weather Service reported hurricane-force gusts[18] on Oahu and the Big Island, though not on Maui. Reuters had a good piece on how wind accelerates coming down Maui's valleys; however, that article reported gusts up to about 67 miles per hour.

I'm not sure how to best weigh these sources. However, I do agree the adjective "gusty" is not sufficient to describe just how windy it was.

Maybe the last sentence of the lead can be amended to say something like, The proliferation of the wildfires was attributed to dry conditions and high, at times hurricane-force winds created by a strong high-pressure area north of Hawaii and Hurricane Dora to the south. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

There's an article in today's Star-Advertiser that discusses Dora's impact on the wildfires in-depth (in-depth for a newspaper anyway, it's definitely not a scholarly publication). The story is behind a paywall, but I've quoted some of the relevant passage here:

The key was the vast area of deep low pressure created by [Hurricane Dora] and a strong area of high pressure north of the state. When these phenomena clashed, conditions led to the winds whipping down the mountainsides with gusts of 60 mph or more.

Alison Nugent, associate professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, said the same atmospheric conditions that guided Dora, as well as the enhanced pressure gradient from the storm, likely strengthened the winds and worsened the fire impacts.

Dora’s role also likely led to strengthening the tradewind inversion, thereby priming the environment for a downslope windstorm, she said.

Thanks, Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Great stuff, and it matches exactly what Mejia's video documents. I hope it makes its way into the article. Viriditas (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)