Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Odd unreferenced section

The entire focus on "Native Hawaiian" cuisine seemed a bit out of place, especially when they used a japanese word for octopus...I've deleted it, maybe someone can explain what was intended, and we can work it back in. --JereKrischel 05:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding deleted section below:

The first Polynesians began arriving from the Marquesas in about 600 or 700 AD; then from the Society Islands came another migration in about 1100 AD. With them they brought many ingredients not indigenous to the Hawaiian islands, such as breadfruit. As an Island culture, the Hawaiians are dependent on the sea for much of their diet as evident by their love of Poke (Po-kay) or Ahi (Ah-hee) which is similar to a Ceviche, Mahi mahi (Mah-hee Mah-hee) and Tako (Tah-ko). Among the Hawaiian people, it is customary to celebrate auspicious occasions with a lu'au (lu-ah-ow) or great feast. Once called the aha'aina, the feast had spiritual significance; it was thought that they were sharing a meal with the gods. Native cuisine until the arrival of European settlers in the 1800s was, like most Polynesian cuisine, extremely low fat. With the arrival of other animals on the island and later Spam (during WWI?) this would change the typical native's diet, sometimes gravely. There is some momentum to return to a more traditional diet as natives are suffering from heretofore unknown epidemics of diabetes, strokes and heart attacks much like Native American cuisine whose pre-conquest diet has been replaced with things like untraditional Indian fry bread.

—Viriditas | Talk 03:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Lists Lists Lists

Much of this article is simply lists! If someone with knowledge could make it more encyclopedic, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.15.115.165 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the lists are handy since I found what I was looking for in the article. However, the items in the lists seem to crossover (ingredients - dishes)Jay71 23:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific rim cuisine

Is Pacific rim cuisine synonymous with with article? I live in Hawaii and was brought up to refer to the fad of mixing the different Pacific cultures using this term. Also when you Google this term, you find that everyone's using it - from the Hawaii newspapers and magazines, to Emeril Lagasse! And people like Sam Choy and Alan Wong use this term as well. Maybe someone with knowledge of Pacific rim cuisine should either create a section in this article, or create an entirely new article. Groink 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently a redirect to this article, but new content will be added that explains the term. Good catch. —Viriditas | Talk 23:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Pineapples

How are these not mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.74.235.163 (talk) 16:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ahi poke hawaiian-style.jpg

While I appreciate the time and effort made to upload this image to Wikipedia, it is unfortunately completely unrepresentative of Hawaiian poke, and appears to be a non-Hawaiian version of the dish. I am very familiar with poke and its varieties, and I'm afraid that this version cannot be considered "Hawaiian" by any stretch of the imagination. As such, I am removing the image from this article and replacing it with an image from Poke (cuisine). —Viriditas | Talk 11:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay then, I replaced the image with one from Poke (cuisine), as you suggested. Thanks for your correction. --BorgQueen 11:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It looks authentic.  :) —Viriditas | Talk 11:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed "usually served with onions and chili peppers" as pre-contact Hawaiians did not have access to onions or chili peppers. This can, of course, be fixed. —Viriditas | Talk 11:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. —Viriditas | Talk 12:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New content

Moved to Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii/Temp. —Viriditas | Talk 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Drinks

The "so called" hawaiian drinks comments clearly have nothing to do with current drinks, such as the venerable Mai Tai. The fact that they were "invented" for tourists is a historical fact, but what about stating what drinks people in Hawaii drink? Kava should be here as well. Also the Kona and other breweries. Plus Hana Bay Rum used to be made in Hana, from what I understand. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 10:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Those are good points, but we need to avoid generalizations. If you can make specific claims (popular Maui drinks) that would help. Be careful though, as I seem to recall a troublesome editor who worked for one of those companies was caught spamming external links to many articles. If you're interested, it would help if you could group the drinks by type (beer, wine, etc.) as that would be informative. We aleady have an article on Hawaii wine that we can use as well. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Beer

Source: Adams, Wanda A. (November 28, 2007). "Cheers to cooking with beer" The Honolulu Advertiser. Taste. p. 3E

• First recorded brewing of beer was on Feb. 2, 1812, in the diary of Don Francisco de Paula Marin
• Primo was a popular Hawaiian beer, established in Feb. 13, 1901, with production ending in 1998.
• Due to a state law that prohibited brewpubs from off-property sales, craft beer adoption was slow. Growlers only became available in 2003. One popular craft beer is Big Aloha beer, available at Sam Choy's Breakfast, Lunch & Crab.
• Hawaii's largest local brew pub is the award-winning Kona Brewing Co. Their beers are available in the mainland United States and in Japan.

Dog meat section

User:Viriditas, who has been a great helper in improving this article, made his objections on my talk page regarding the section on dog. And I see User:Jeffmcneill has reverted his edit. I think it is best to discuss here if something is inappropriate in the section or its sources, to understand each other's viewpoint. I personally have no objections to Viriditas, since he seems to be familiar with the subject, but another editor has been involved in this, so I will have to listen to him as well. --BorgQueen (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am waiting for Jeff to jump in and explain his reversion. My explanation can be found here —Viriditas | Talk 10:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

As for Schwabe's primary sources, his claims seem to be based on his own personal observations, as he writes in page 168: "we went to live in Hawaii after the war, we learned that not only was dog traditionally relished by the Hawaiians... (snip) ...who prized it above both pork and chicken..." More info about the author Dr. Calvin W. Schwabe can be found here. However, we have no reliable evidence showing that the dog is a part of diet in modern Hawaii, I suppose this info should be moved to the history section, as with the additional sentence "it is claimed by Dr. Schwabe". --BorgQueen (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting! I've done some research on WWII-era (are we talking about WWII?) culinary habits, and I've never run into this before. So Schwabe is a primary source, how odd. Can you find out any specific details that I can track down in the bibliography? It would help greatly if you can find out (probably by inference) which island Schwabe was living on at the time. Does he mention the name of any towns or cities? The sources I have state that dog was eaten rarely, but they don't place as great an importance on it as Schwabe. Thanks for your hard work. The link you gave shows that Schwabe should be considered a credible source, so perhaps its just a matter of getting the right material in the article, and dispensing with what doesn't work, such as the claim about "native dogs". Perhaps we can qualify it to state that the Hawaiian dogs were brought to the islands (like almost everything else) so they were not endemic. I would support merging some of the dog material into the ancient history section, particularly anything we can confirm with another good source. I'm a little surprised that Schwabe doesn't use references, but I suspect he considered himself the ultimate expert! :) But that's not very good scholarship now, is it? Correction: BorgQueen has located the reference in a discussion below. —Viriditas | Talk 11:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

However un-PC this may be considered, killing and eating dogs and cats is legal in Hawaii. However, killing someone else's dog or cat and eating them or selling the meat is cruelty to animals. These are state laws. This is multi-ethnic Hawaii, and dog is an authentic (though underground) part of the cuisine of Hawaii. More news resources on the latest story http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=7516297 and the 2005 bill that did not pass the Hawaii legislature http://seattlepi.com/national/213036_pets22.html --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, please read both of those links. There's no evidence for any of those claims. Please, let's stick to facts. You can find these types of sensational news items in the local media outlets of every major American city. This has nothing to do with Hawaiian cuisine. If you think it does, then please provide a good reliable secondary source that says just that. It would help if you can name specific perpetrators, illegal food outlets and distribution systems. This has Asian-hate crime written all over it. Killing and eating dogs and cats is legal in Hawaii? So is killing and eating just about every animal in Hawaii. Must be a really slow news day on Oahu. —Viriditas | Talk 11:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have read these links. I disagree with "Asian-hate crime". What would constitute a good reliable secondary source? Do you live in Hawaii? Come on over and I am sure I could scare up a little doggie meal if you were interested. I disagree with censorship of this issue, however the information could be presented in a "it is reported" frame of reference which will hopefully pass muster. Let's keep the NPOV going. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmcneill (talk • contribs) 11:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, put up or shut up. You write, "Dog is an authentic (though underground) part of the cuisine of Hawaii". Ok, prove it. —Viriditas | Talk 11:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, are you trying to hint at Asocena? I think you are. You are trying to say that eating dog is is an authentic part of Filipino cuisine. Fillipino cuisine is not Hawaiian cuisine, however it is true that some Fillipino cuisine has crossed over into Hawaiian cuisine, but according to Corum (2000) "Filipino foods have not been as popular as Japanese, Chinese, or Korean foods" in Hawaii, even though Fillipinos are one of the largest ethnicities in the Islands. Now, I can provide several different sources devoted to the cuisine of Hawaii that discuss the influence and history of Fillipino cuisine in Hawaii. None of them mention dog. (Note: since I last wrote that, BorgQueen has proven me wrong and has quoted Schwabe (1979) who refers to Hawaiians and Fillipinos eating dog after WWII, but attributes it to a rumor. I'm not yet convinced this rises to the level of evidence that dog is an authentic, underground part of "Hawaiian cuisine".) Dog is only mentioned in terms of Ancient Hawaiian cuisine. Interestingly, Corum makes a point of stating that in the 1960s and 1970s, a massive Fillipino diaspora occurred throughout the United States. So, this has nothing to do with Hawaii. —Viriditas | Talk 12:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not hinting at anything. Cuisine of Hawaii is not the same thing as Hawaiian Cuisine, and there seems to be a constant confusion of these terms. Cuisine of Hawaii would be that food which is prepared and eaten in Hawaii the geographical location, both historically and currently.

* Pre-contact dog consumption

**James Serpell. (1995). From paragon to pariah: some reflections on human attitudes to dogs. In The Domestic Dog: Its Evolution, Behavior, and Interactions with People. James Serpell, Ed.pp. 245-256.

**Yellow: Race in America Beyond Black and White, By Frank H. Wu, p.217, Dog stew

* Modern dog consumption and related issues

**"Family Dog Slaughtered For Food - Video - KITV Honolulu" http://www.kitv.com/video/14878087/index.html?taf=hon

**"Animal Cruelty Law Suggested - Video - KITV Honolulu" http://www.kitv.com/video/14911139/index.html?taf=hon

**Eat Not This Flesh: Food Avoidances from Prehistory to the Present, Frederick J. Simoons, University of Wisconsin Press;2 Rev Enl edition

**http://www.khnl.com/Global/story.asp?S=7516297

**http://starbulletin.com/2007/12/19/news/story02.html 2007

**http://starbulletin.com/2004/08/20/news/story2.html Star-Bulletin, 2004

**http://www.kitv.com/video/3668305/index.html KITV video, 2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmcneill (talk • contribs) 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no confusion on my end, Jeff. Hawaiian cuisine is split into five epochs: Hawaiian food (Polynesian, pre-contact diet before 1778), Kamaaiana food (European, Missionary, Whalers, etc.), Ethnic food (Plantation immmigrants), Local food (Blending of East-West Pacific food), and Hawaii Regional Cuisine (Culinary fusion of all four, but relying on local, Hawaiian ingredients). Dog is considered part of the pre-contact diet. It is not classified in any of the other four. Can you show that it is? —Viriditas | Talk 01:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, above you claim that Simoons (1961) states that dog is eaten in Hawaii today. Can you cite the page and quote in question, and if possible find the source for that statement? Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Calvin, W Schwabe

I couldn't find the detail you asked in his book, but the web page above says "He met his wife of 55 years, the former Gwendolyn Joyce Thompson, while attending the University of Hawaii in 1950", which fits his claim that he went there after the war. He does give "selected bibliography" at the end of the book, but he doesn't specify which source is used for each chapter. A seemingly relevant source included there is "Titcombe, M. 1969, Dog and man in the ancient Pacific, with special attention to Hawaii. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publ. 59, Honolulu.". But I guess we'll never know what is exactly written in it. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jackpot. I am familiar with someone who works there and we can also find the paper. Great work. I have no objection to temporarily moving a brief description (minus the claim about local culture) to the history section, but I want to approach the other claims cautiously. There is a lot of racism connected to this issue and we must be careful. Two guys are currently accused of eating a dog, and suddenly every Korean Filipino is a suspect. —Viriditas | Talk 11:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Amazon's got it:[1] —Viriditas | Talk 12:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

BorgQueen, can you explain a little more about Schwabe 1979, p. 168? What exactly does it say? —Viriditas | Talk 12:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The last paragraph of page 168: "It may come as something of a surprise, too, that dogmeat is also eaten today in parts of Hawaii and American Samoa, although almost everyone there also officially denies it. When we went to live in Hawaii after the war, we learned that not only was dog traditionally relished by the Hawaiians and other Polynesians, who prized it above both pork and chicken, but that", continues in page 169: "it is still being eaten by some Hawaiians and Filipino-Americans." --BorgQueen (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I think he is referring to asocena, but this is not considered part of Hawaiian cuisine, and interestingly, that passage was written at the height of the last Filipino diaspora throughout the U.S. which fits the timeline very nicely. I don't think this has anything to do with Hawaii, but with Filipino cuisine which can be found throughout the country. I don't like the second-hand nature of the "we learned" part, as Schwabe is indicating that he heard a rumor and is repeating it for the reader. We need hard facts backed up by supporting evidence like the Titcombe reference which meets the requirement for relevance and reliability, although I am still going to check it out. The question is now how much of that material do we include in the article?—Viriditas | Talk 12:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

That's great if you can check it out. I look forward to you telling me what the book says. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Although we don't know for sure, I think it is safe to assume that Schwabe 1979, p. 171. refers to Titcombe (1969) and could be safely added back into the article, but merged into the pre-contact section with the rest of the imu material. The reason I say this is because Corum (2000) supports the general idea, and as long as we always have two independent sources we are least proceeding on the right path (assuming that the primary sources are accurate, which I think is a safe bet). —Viriditas | Talk 13:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Merged. Please check if it done properly. --BorgQueen (talk) 15:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

More dog references

Both of these earlier references (Titcomb, 1969; Ellis, 1839) are cited in Kirch P. and O'Day S.J. (2003). New archaeological insights into food and status: a case study from pre-contact Hawaii. World Archaeology, Volume 34, Number 3, 3 February 2003 , pp. 484-497(14), which makes the case that high status had access to dogs and pigs and other fauna:

Large limpets and cowries, cones, large fish and sharks, birds, pigs and dogs (empahsis added) all fell into the category of particularly desirable luxury foods, and these are more prevalent at the elite residence sites. In contrast, commoner residences have higher overall quantities of shellfish,but of smaller or 'inferior' species. p.495

The Hawaiian ethnohistoric sources speak to a rich and complex set of symbolic associations between various kinds of flesh food, the pantheon of deities (akua), ancestral spirits ('aumakua), social status and gender. Pigs, for example, were one of the most important sacrificial offerings presented at major war and agricultural temple rituals (Valeri 1985) and at annual tribute collections (Beckwith 1932: 148–51). Pork was thus the chiefly luxury food par excellence, and was forbidden (kapu) to women. Dogs, on the other hand, were raised in pens by the hundreds for food, and were the prized flesh food of chiefly women (Titcomb 1969: 6–8). The missionary Ellis described the husbandry of dogs as follows: 'Numbers of dogs, of rather a small size, and something like a terrier, are raised every year as an article of food. They are mostly fed on vegetables; and we have sometimes seen them kept in yards, with small houses to sleep in' (1839, 4: 260–1). p. 487

• Titcomb, M. 1969. Dog and Man in the Ancient Pacific, Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication 59. Honolulu: Bishop Museum Press.
• Ellis, W. 1839. Polynesian Researches, 4 vols. London: Fisher, Jackson.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmcneill (talk • contribs) 5:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, please take some time to catch up. The pre-contact use of dogs in the early Hawaiian diet has never been in question. If you can find a date placing the Ellis material in chronological context (when did Ellis observe dog husbandry) then we should mention that the practice continued until the missionaries arrived, however there is no evidence that the practice continues to this day. Isolated incidents of dog eating in modern times, if they can even be proved, have occurred in the context of crime committed by a few individuals, not in terms of cuisine. Dogs are not a part of modern Hawaiian cuisine nor on the menu of any ethnic community in Hawaii. —Viriditas | Talk 06:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on you to explain the Simoons material. —Viriditas | Talk 06:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is helpful to try and turn this into an original piece of research, which is where this seems to be going. In addition, kindly modify the tone used to address other editors. Recall this is a joint volunteer effort. The imperious and rather demanding tone that some editors use simply discourage others from contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmcneill (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Jeff, but there appears to be a problem communicating with you. For example, I left a very nice, "please sign your comments" template on your talk page, which you promptly removed, but you continue leaving unsigned comments which are then signed by a bot. If you are concerned about "discouraging others from contributing", I would suggest discussing edits rather than reverting them as you have done. —Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Viriditas, please look me up next time you are in the Islands and we can have a friendly chat about all kinds of Hawaii items. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffmcneill (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, I live in Hawaii. If you want to chat, e-mail me. —Viriditas | Talk 09:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Kava

Kava is a traditional beverage of Oceania, not Hawaii. It is thought to have originated in the archipelago of Vanuatu and was brought to Hawaii at some point. This is an important distinction, as it is not unique to Hawaii. If you can find out how far back Kava use goes in Hawaii (some say to 18th century, others say farther) that would be a welcome addition to the article, but generalizations are not informative. —Viriditas | Talk 10:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an article about the Cuisine of Hawaii and Kava is a part of that cuisine. I don't understand the objection to including this in the article. --Jeffmcneill ^{talk contribs} 11:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no objection to including Kava in this article, and it should be included. I'm about to make an edit that will clear up any confusion. —Viriditas | Talk 11:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Kiple et al. (2000) Kava use in Hawaii disappeared in the 19th century, presumably as a result of the arrival of the missionaries, but the source isn't specific. There's an interesting story here. Obviously, Kava use returned much later. —Viriditas | Talk 13:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Split tags

I wanted to address the split tags on the article. As the article stands it is no wheres near big enough to necessitate splitting off the article into separate sections. These sections are not concise enough as is to make a full summary of them either. Taking a look at two GA cuisine articles, French cuisine and Italian cuisine would illustrate the importance of keeping those sections in tact. Perhaps it would be more prudent to split off the list of dishes in the same manner as many of the other cuisine articles with a List of Hawaiian dishes article, similar to List of Japanese dishes, List of Italian dishes, List of French dishes, List of United States dishes, etc., as these sections (dishes, drinks, ingredients etc.) are possibly infinite in size and links could be place in the sections for regional cuisines to give a direct correlation to the regional dish sections in the list article.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 07:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'm glad we are talking about this now rather than later. Cuisine of Hawaii is currently 31 kilobytes in length, which does not justify splitting off article sections due to size, but that is not the only rationale for division, and in this case, the problem is one of focus, primarily on historical foods, and finally on the more contemporary regional style. For an example of the historical approach, see the list of articles under {{CuisineHistory}}, which I know you are familiar with as you recently added the Thirteen colonies article. I don't see why History of Ancient Hawaiian cuisine wouldn't be a part of this series. I also know that you support splitting out regional cuisine articles judging by your comments on Talk:Italian cuisine in the GA-review section. As for your examples, the French cuisine article is at 57 kB, which is generally a good recommended size to divide articles due to readability issues. Most interestingly, Italian cuisine is at 47 kB, but its history section comprises split subtopics summary style, which is exactly what I'm talking about, so that example supports my aim. Ancient Hawaiian cuisine is an interesting topic that deserves its own article, as a part of the history of Cuisine series, and with its very own lists incorporated into the article. I think it is entirely possible to create a good, summary style section at this moment, and I would argue the same for the Hawaii regional cuisine article. Sadly, there is very little about contemporary Hawaiian cuisine in the current article, and I would hope that this discussion sparks further expansion and discussion. Splitting History of Hawaiian cuisine (or whatever you want to call it) and Hawaii Regional Cuisine off of the article now, allows editors to focus exclusively on those topics while keeping this article focused on the food itself, not its history or its style. I see that you have taken a different approach with the cuisine articles you have developed, preferring to direct readers to a main list of dishes, using sectional redirects as needed. That may work for nations that have a large number of regional dishes (which is how you use it), but will it work for a small island chain that doesn't? While it is true that each island has regional agriculture, (Kauai watermelon, Maui onions, Big Island papaya, etc.) I don't think this requires a separate list, but it could be argued that it does. An article like Greek cuisine seems to work, and the reader comes away from it informed, even if most of the article is a list. It's important to read articles not just as an editor, but as a reader. French cuisine splits out dishes, but leaves large lists of ingredients and dining staff. Does it work? Perhaps, but the article is still too large, and I would say that most readers give up at some point, hence the necessity of summary style. In conclusion, there is no right answer, but I'm fairly certain this article isn't about the early Hawaiians or the newly created HRC, nor is this article about history or restaurant fare. This article is about folk cuisine: soups like saimin, pupus like lomilomi, manapupa, and poke; pork adobo, Portuguese sausage, Korean barbecue, shoyu chicken, etc. The ethnic dishes of plantation workers became the culinary pidgin of the islands, uniting the people as only food can do. The crack seed, and the halo halo, and the shave ice have become community gatherings where people join together for a welcome respite from the heat. That is the heart and soul of this article, the rest is filler. —Viriditas | Talk 10:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, your perspective here is an interesting one, and there's a lot of merit to taking a bottom-up perspective for this topic. Hawaiian cuisine is certainly not in need of quite the same treatment as more internationally renowned cuisnes like that of China, Italy or France. To some extent, Christopher's background as a professional chef has also probably influenced his choice of content. However, claiming that a cuisine article can somehow focus on "the food itself" is not quite realistic. A cuisine is by definition a style of activity defined by culture and tradition at least as much as, say, environment or even human biology. Without a context of human culture individual foods are merely random ingredients that might as well be covered in articles on individual plants and animals. A less refined and abstract cuisine like that of Hawaii differs from that in Japan only in complexity. There are folk cuisines everywhere, but some have happened to have also supported a superstructure of upper-class cuisine that has often dictated progress, but both levels have often influenced one another directly or indirectly over time.

Btw, I'm the one who created the template for historical cuisines. I think Ancient Hawaiian cuisine (my prefered title) would make a wonderful addition, but it could just as well be in the form of a link to a sub-section to this article. (Considering this article has a lot of good information, I'm going to add such a link right now!) I also started a template for cuisine articles that could be used as a guideline for these types of discussions. If you're up for it, Viriditas, you're most welcome to help out in expanding, nuancing and just generally improving that template.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hawaiian culture was basically destroyed after first contact - a massive depopulation occurred due to disease. It was this tragedy which inevitably led to the importation of foreign labor to work the empty fields, and with it came the food of other nations, each ingredient of which tells a story - a private story unique to each culture. What is so interesting is that these private foods eventually became public, and when we talk about modern Hawaiian cuisine, we are really talking about "local food"; The plate lunch, the most popular symbol of local food, originated from the contributions of different ethnic groups who have each added a portion of their culture to the meal. Local food is the core of the article, and this is radically different than what is known as "Hawaiian food", even what is supposedly called "traditional Hawaiian". To quote Wanda A. Adams, "If a precontact Hawaiian were beamed down to a commercial lu'au today, he wouldn't recognize much of the menu." —Viriditas | Talk 13:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, lots to read here. I hope I didn't mean to state that cuisine is relagated to cuisine itself. Besides my "profession" as a chef I am also a food historian that studies cuisine. My sociological perspective takes a four-fold approach of "creation" which is relagated to the cook or professional chef; which leads to "diffusion" which is cookbooks, codified recipes, cooking events; the third portion is the kitchen, which is technique and ingredients and finally the diner and reader who is the person who consumes or reads about the cuisine, this portion is presented in amateur cooking and amateur cooking organizations.

On a second note, saying that the "cuisine" was destroyed by western influence is sort of inappropriate, that is placing a "presentism" approach to the study, this needs to be unbiased and when writing history as you stated should ideally probably be written pre-western contact and then with sections of post-western contact. What needs to be left out though is bias, in the realm of "history" there is no right or wrong, the perspective should be "it just is."--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The culture was destroyed, and that's a matter of historical record of the period, not "presentism", the benefit of hindsight, or even bias. Part of this destruction occurred internally as well, as documented by the 'Ai Noa and other incidents. I'm not sure why or where you are reading "right" or "wrong" into the term, "destruction". Local food is considered the dominant cuisine in Hawaii per any food historian, and became dominant due to the depopulation of Native Hawaiians. —Viriditas | Talk 08:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, whether the old cuisine was destroyed or not, there's still a cuisine associated specifically with Hawaii, and that deserves as much description as the old cuisine. The reaction of a pre-contact Hawaiian to modern cuisine would probably not be all that different from that of a 15th century European having just about any modern restaurant dish presented to them. They would be pretty darned puzzled by New World ingredients, strangely subtle seasoning, odd choice of cutlery, an alarming paucity of bread, style of serving, etc. Most cuisines in modernized countries are bound to go through massive changes over a few centuries, which includes influence by other cultures, but that doesn't mean that the old is somehow "truer" than the new.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't deserve as much description because this isn't the place for it. The timeline of Hawaiian cuisine goes something like this: Ancient Hawaiian food (300/900 AD - 1778); Contact/Merchant food (1778 - 1820); Missionary food (1820 - ?) ; Ethnic foods (1850? - 1930); Local foods (1930? - present); Hawaii Regional Cuisine (1992 - present). Ancient Hawaiian food deserves only about 20 to 30 percent focus, and can be expanded upon as a separate article with a focus on historical cuisine. —Viriditas | Talk 01:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

20-30% would be quite a lot either way. I don't think I have any objections to this type of modus operandi.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether I agree with it or not, I am finding it difficult to oppose working with the lists of Hawaiian food per Chef Christopher Allen Tanner's suggestion. Regardless of whether it will work for this article or not, I'm going to try setting up a basic list, and hopefully the good Chef and perhaps others will step in to correct it. —Viriditas | Talk 08:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

History section

Thank you all for the good work you are doing. I don't understand the "history" section. Depending on what historical period you are discussing, it is wrong (e.g. "women did the cooking"). Either this section should be eliminated, and we just start with pre-contact, or it should be an overview of all of history. Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reading critically; we need more of that. The detail regarding women is sourced to Jennifer Brennan, who is talking about "traditional, everyday village meals in most of Oceania" in general, not Hawaiian cuisine in particular, and I agree with its removal. She writes: "The women of the village usually perform the daily cooking." She goes on to conclude, "these patterns of culinary life and culture remained intact throughout Oceania prior to its discovery by the West. With the exception of the above-mentioned cannibalism, they still exist, virtually unchanged, in the remote tribal villages. The basic dishes and cooking styles continue to be featured in the traditional feasts of the islanders as well as in their meals at home." It would be interesting to take another look at Tabrah's Ni'ihau, the last Hawaiian island (1987) and Tava's Niihau, the traditions of a Hawaiian island (1998) to see what they say. I recall that Tava did discuss this topic. —Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, and for removing. I am hesitant to do what I want to do, which is just take out all of the first paragraph of the history section and start with Pre-History. I just don't want to jump into something that you are shepherding. Also in pre-history, poi should be mentioned! I did add Don Francisco Paula y Marin to the post-contact. Mahalo Makana Chai (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be hesitant; jump right in and make the changes that you think are best. Your instincts are based on years of experience, and we need them here. If anyone disagrees with your edits, they will need to use the talk page. I am not shepherding anything; this article is a collaboration between the Hawaii and Food and drink projects. I was attempting to create a poi section, and you are welcome to help. I will try to add some new content to Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii/Temp later tonight. Makana Chai, your edits are welcome here, and I encourage you to contribute. —Viriditas | Talk 09:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo, I jumped in! Not complete yet, still needs work and I have to go check some of these references. I'm not sure about "orgiastic" feasting, for example. Makana Chai (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Viriditas, is all of Brennan's work in reference to Oceania and not Hawaii in particular? If so, I would take out anything sourced to her. Just now I am reading Kirch's book, On the Roads of the Winds, and one thing that is clear is that Oceania customs are extremely diverse, with Hawaii being perhaps the most so. Makana Chai (talk) 19:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, a lot of it is directly referenced to Hawaii. The intro was the only part that wasn't. See Talk:Cuisine of Hawaii/Temp for specific, Hawaii-related material. Brennan is a good source for Hawaii-related cuisine. The orgiastic feasting is accurate, however the wording could be changed. I'm willing to answer any questions you might have. I just took another look at Brennan regarding orgiastic feasting. She writes:

The ancient Polynesians also raised pigs for religious sacrifice. When a new stone marae (temple) was dedicated at a ceremony for the faithful, the priests first invoked the gods to take up temporary residence. Prior taboos upon the people were recalled and slaughtered pigs were offered to the deities in return for the pardon of previous transgressions.[...] Some of the offerings remained at the high altar in the marae to be consumed later by the priests; the majority of the hog meat was indulged at a great feast - a virtual orgy of pork followed by singing, dancing, and coupling. Christian missionaries finally all but obliterated the old relgions and their traditions. Today, the ancient stone temples of pagan times lie in crumbled ruins, chained in vines.

Perhaps this particular part wasn't as specific to Hawaiians as I thought, however, the sexual orgies of the Hawaiians has been documented in other places, such as Valeri (1985). Furnas (2007), Leonard (2004) and Malo (1903) also discuss the sexual freedom of the Hawaiians. However Deering (1898) implies that the impression of luau's as orgies may have been a European misinterpretation. Do you think the wording should be removed until more corroborating sources for sexual orgies are found? —Viriditas | Talk 22:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the word "orgiastic". Do you think more needs to be removed? —Viriditas | Talk 22:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think orgiastic doesn't have a lot to do with food - sex should be in a separate article. (I would love to see someone write it! I am not that brave yet.)

More questions I have about the content are: (1) "The Marquesans, the first settlers from Polynesia, brought breadfruit and the Tahitians later introduced the baking banana. These settlers from Polynesia also brought coconuts and sugarcane." - Latest research calls into question whether Marquesans were the first, and they are not "from" Polynesia as Hawaii is "in" Polynesia. Similarly, Tahitian migration is not totally accepted. "These settlers" - Marquesans? Tahitians? I would prefer to see a list of the food stuffs we know came in the canoes.

(2) "Pigs were raised for religious sacrifice, and the meat was offered at altars, some of which was consumed by priests and the rest eaten in a mass celebration." - I think pigs were not just raised for religious sacrifice, and the "mass celebration" may have been limited to kahuna and ali'i, not for maka'ainana. Makana Chai (talk) 00:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points on both counts. I don't see any disagreement. Can you edit the material as a hedge, or do we need more citations? I have a list of the foodstuffs that came in the canoes. You can see it here. —Viriditas | Talk 03:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Pineapple and coffee were brought to Hawaii in 1813 from South America by Don Francisco de Paula y Marin

Hmmm...the sources I'm looking at say that Marin cultivated pineapple (not sure about coffee just yet) but that the pineapple had been brought to Hawaii before Marin arrived sometime around 1793-94. I think we need to change the text. —Viriditas | Talk 06:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, added refs for both claims, but changed the wording to reflect cultivation only, not introduction due to various competing claims. —Viriditas | Talk 08:24, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

After Cook, the next visitor to Hawaii was Vancouver in 1793-94. I have not seen any indication he brought pineapple. Do you have a cite on that? Thanks. Will make the edits requested above re canoe plants later. Makana Chai (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"Before Marin arrived sometime around 1793-94" refers to Marin's arrival in Hawaii, not Vancouver. Rob Pacheco writes that "...potato, pineapple, and oranges were already noted by botanists before Marin's arrival. Quite a few were brought by James Macrae aboard the H.M.S. Blonde and given as gifts to Kalanimoku, who then gave them to Marin to cultivate." [2] I haven't yet looked into this, but most sources credit Marin with cultivation, not with bringing the plants to Hawaii. —Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm curious as to which botanists noted the pineapple because it looks like the Blonde visited Hawaii from 1824-1826 [3][4]. Luckily, Valeri provides two sources for further research: the diaries of John Boit and Frederick W. Howay. However, the full list of expeditions prior to Marin's arrival, can be found here. I'm assuming graduate students have already combed through these logs looking for the answer, as Pacheco seems to have found it, but doesn't explicitly mention it. —Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Notes and notes

Is it really necessary to use the rather wiki-unique system of separating notes with comments from notes with page references? It just strikes me as a somewhat idiosynchratic and confusing format, what with all the mixing of letters and numbers for footnotes. The meta-referencing of commenting notes with reference notes seems like a particularly way of over-complicating things.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You can find the same format here. I don't think it is particularly complicated or unusual, and the article certainly passed FAC. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Having said that, if I am violating some MOS guideline, let me know. --BorgQueen (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I know it's used in some FAs, but I just don't understand the point. It doesn't appear to be used outside of Wikipedia, and there are plenty of good arguments for not trying to invent new and original standards of notation. If anything, the attempt to warp the meaning of "references" to mean "footnotes specifying a source within the context of some Wikipedia articles" is somewhat disconcerting.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Then it is best to discuss your view at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources, since you are talking about the reference format of Wikipedia articles in general, not this article in particular. --BorgQueen (talk) 08:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be many different ways of citing notes, and if Peter has a better way I would love to hear it. BorgQueen's judgment in these matters is consistently sound, so I defer to her opinion. —Viriditas | Talk 10:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You can cite them the way they're cited in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles and the way they've always been cited in print; you write a comment in the footnote followed by the page reference. See for example Swedish emigration to the United States.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The vast majority of Wikipedia articles are probably not very good, so that argument is poor. There was an informal analysis of footnote style conventions discussed on Wikipedia talk:Footnotes/Archive 7, but good luck finding it. IIRC, the results suggested that there is no uniform standard in practice until the article reaches FA-Class, which suggests you should look at those only. I know from experience that User:Saravask chose to use the separate notes style in question on Chaco Culture National Historical Park. On the other hand, I used the complex notes style (which is what you are suggesting) in the B-Class article, Hippie. The general rule in most style guides (Turabian, etc.) is that in author-note bibliography style systems, notes can be separated to emphasize their importance, but only when there are a select few, which is why you find them as part of the source notes in Hippie - there are too many. So if for some reason the comments begin to grow larger and more numerous, then one would merge them into the reference section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Farmers' Markets in Hawaii

Hilo Farmers Market

Kapiolani Community College Farmers Market

This might go best in a section on Hawaii regional cuisine, but the farmers' market on Hilo is notable enough to mention.[5] —Viriditas | Talk 05:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"One of the pioneering farmers market in Hawaii..dozens of local farmers, mostly Filipino immigrants, sell the gamut of island produce...(traditional yellow) and sunrise (strawberry pink) papayas, tart-flavored apple bananas, sweet Ka'u oranges, and lychee and mango in season." (Bendure, Hawaii, Lonely Planet, 2005, ISBN 1740598717 p.254) —Viriditas | Talk 05:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Hilo Farmers Market...has grown into the state's best farmers market...more than 120 vendors...bring their flowers, produce, and baked goods to...Hilo every Wednesday and Saturday from sunrise to 4pm...fresh, homegrown oyster mushrooms from Kona...Indonesian fruit called mangosteen; warm breads, from focaccia to walnut...fresh aquacultured seaweed; corn from Pahoa; Waimea strawberries; taro and taro products; foot-long, miso-falvored, and traditional Hawaiian laulau...tamales...ethnic vegetables..." (Foster, 2003, Frommer's Portable Big Island of Hawaii, p.170, ISBN 0764557289) —Viriditas | Talk 05:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

From Kapiolani Community College:

Kapiʻolani Community College is currently in the process of establishing the Culinary Institute of the Pacific, already challenging other notable culinary schools in the world to provide quality talent. Among the alumni of this program are Alan Wong, Sam Choy, and Wayne Hirabayashi, cofounders of Hawaii Regional Cuisine. Other notable alumni are Alan Tsuchiyama of Sheraton Waikīkī. The school is working on expanding the curriculum to include such classes as culinology and perhaps a Bachelor's in Applied Sciences.

Naming conventions

Cuisine of Hawaii and Hawaiian cuisine are not the same thing. I've reverted the page move. Naming conventions exist to standardize titles for readability and navigation. When they come into conflict with the subject, exceptions are allowed and encouraged. In December, this article was moved without discussion from cuisine of Hawaii to Hawaiian cuisine. "Hawaiian" in this context, refers to a native person of Hawaiian descent. Cuisine of Hawaii, refers to many different cultures and cuisines that are currently popular in Hawaii, mostly known as "local food'. Hawaii Regional Cuisine is another beast altogether, and was a movement that was started by restaurant chefs, not the average person bringing their food to the table. So there are more than three different topics under discussion here, and the naming convention that forces us to use "Hawaiian cuisine" isn't accurate. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide factual evidence for your claims? Also, please look at the policy for which the original move was conducted. If you seek to return this the original name, you should have started a RfC. Jeremy (blah blah) 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the move should have been proposed first. This is an issue that keeps coming up whenever someone tries to force Hawaii-related articles to fit into a narrow naming convention. I have actually followed the policy on naming conventions by restoring the title. Please take a moment to read it. I believe my rationale above is based only on evidence, so I don't understand your request. This article is about the cuisine of Hawaii, not just Hawaiian food. Naming convention policy dictates using unambiguous article names. Viriditas (talk) 01:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You need to read the policy again, specifically the caveats section:

* It is important to be able to differentiate when a topic is actually country-specific. Often what may look like a country adjective is really describing a set of people or a language. Notice that "Polish (Hawaiian)" may mean "From or related to Poland (Hawaii)" or "referring to the Polish (Hawaiian) people or language." For example Polish language(Hawaiian language), Polish people (Hawaiian people), even Polish literature (There isn't one) (since these articles most often deal with the literature of the set of people, not the country necessarily). By contrast, Culture of Poland, Politics of Poland and Economy of Poland are all describing the country itself.

Since Hawaiian cuisine could and is found not just in the archipelago but elsewhere in the world, as stated in the Native Hawaiians article, the subject should be using the former not the latter structure in the section mentioned in the policy. To say otherwise is to say the native Hawaiians living on the continent do not eat Hawaiian cuisine or do not speak the Hawaiian language. Jeremy (blah blah) 03:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to read the policy again, because I know it. "Hawaiian cuisine" does not refer to one thing. It refers to multiple cuisines. To avoid ambiguity, we use the most specific article name, which in this case is cuisine of Hawaii, which includes Hawaiian food, missionary food, local Hawaiian food, Hawaii Regional Cuisine and all the other variations. All of these are separate topics. "Hawaiian food" does not mean one thing. "Cuisine of Hawaii", on the other hand, accurately describes this topic and provides topical disambiguation. Even the terms "Hawaii" and "Hawaiian" have multiple meanings (island, state, nation, people, ethnicity, language, airline company, resident) and on Wikipedia, we use the most accurate title per naming conventions. You are not the first (nor the last) person to make this mistake. Viriditas (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)