Talk:Hawaii/Archive 7

message: Given the strongly negative results of the proposal to move this article from Hawaii to Hawaii , I harmonized the mentions of "Hawaii" in the article with the now confirmed title by removing okinas. Erudy 21:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawaii rather than Hawai{{okina}}i

message: Okay, I have respectfully requested the previous blanking be undone, and another set of paragraphs seems to have just been blanked in response.  We need to discuss here first before such severe changes are made.  Please restore the text and discuss rationale here.  Thank you for your thoughtfulness in this regard.  Badagnani 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What set of paragraphs are you referring to?  The POV push in the Republic of Hawaii section? Note that that section was a near verbatim quote of PL103-150, even including parenthetical text such as "(hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "Committee")".  The POV push there was clearly missed in previous reverts, and I simply restored the text that had been vandalized.  --JereKrischel 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to further blanking 

message: Nearly every U.S. state page contains an etymology explaining the literal meaning of the state name (i.e. "Colorado" = "colored" in Spanish; "Ohio" = "great river" in Shawnee).  The blanking of the recently added, sourced text explaining the state name meaning for "Hawai'i," complete with insulting edit summary, has thus been reversed.  If there is a problem with the etymology and you have expertise in the Hawaiian language, please discuss here, and provide a more accurate etymology for the word.  Thank you.  Badagnani 09:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking of state name etymology 

message: You asked for the opinion of someone with a knowledge of Hawaiian. Here it is. I have deleted the section on the so-called derivations of the words Hawaii and aloha. The suggestions were fanciful but not supportable linguistically. For one thing they do not take into account the cognates of those words in other Polynesian languages or the reconstructions of those words in earlier stages of Polynesian. For instance, the syllable ha- in Hawaii is short, and is therefore unlikely to have derived from hā, the word for breath or spirit, which has a long vowel, and its own separate history in Polynesian, deriving from Eastern Polynesian *saa. Hawaii as an entire word derives from Nuclear Polynesian *sawaiki. Kahuroa 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:Verifiability is our policy and the sources cited come from Hawaiian speakers.  Would you please provide your source for your particular view of the etymology?  Why did you, for example, not first evaluate the sources given, present in "discussion" why you believe them to not be factual, and substitute your own sourced etymology, but instead simply blank the text?  What is your opinion on why so many Hawaiians believe the etymology presented in the links?  Badagnani 09:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Further, what is the etymological origin of sawaiki, the word from which you believe "Hawaii" descends?  And is there any relation with the word "Hawaiki," which was mentioned as an ancestral homeland of Maori in the Whale Rider film?  Thank you for your expertise.  Badagnani 09:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If it can be verifiably proven that the "breath of life/water of life/I" etymology is absolutely incorrect, this information should then be included as a footnote, as it is a widely promulgated etymology in Hawaii.  I'm sure that a core of traditionalist native Hawaiians know the etymological origin of their own nation name.  Then again, Hawaiian is not the same language as Marquesan or Central Polynesian and word definitions can change, even incorporating folk etymology that becomes accepted as a new definition.  That even happens in English.  When that is the case and we can prove it, we should explain this.  Badagnani 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've just found the Hawaiki and the explanation there seems to make a lot of sense. So it's unclear exactly what Hawaiki means, but it seems that the "S" turned into an "H" in Hawaii and the "k" was replaced with a glottal stop.  So you believe the "breath of life/water of life/I" etymology to be in fact a folk etymology?  Just want to get this exactly right.  Badagnani 09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Finally, do you believe the word "Aloha" to be related etymologically in any way to "Hawaii"?  If not, it can be removed from the Hawaii article entirely, as the article is longer than desired.  Thank you again.  Badagnani 10:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, thank you, there we have it then.  Aloha should be removed from the etymology section but could be included in the Aloha article.  You've provided a source for the Savaii reference, have you?  I believe I should add the folk etymology in a footnote.  You're familiar with the haole controversy ("without the breath of life") that seems also to have been debunked?  What are your thoughts about that one?  Badagnani 10:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you, that is kind of you to point that out, but I've known about that article for some time.  I was simply asking for another opinion from an editor whom I've just learned has knowledge and sources related to a number of Polynesian languages, who might be able to shed even more light on this subject.  Badagnani 11:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the asterisk on *sawaiki - that is a linguistic convention denoting that the form is a reconstructed one. Please also don't delete the word 'cognate' as that is the proper description of the related words - they are not just similar, they derive from the same original word. As for haole, there is a cognate in Marquesan, hao'e, meaning 'stranger' - that would seem to mean that it is a word that the Hawaiians carried with them when they settled Hawaii, and therefore before they saw white people. (Marquesan and Hawaiian are very closely related). Deriving it from hā + 'ole (breath + none) looks exactly like a folk etymology to me. Unfortunate if people are using such a derivation. Kahuroa 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  If the form is "reconstructed," does this mean that the existence of the word is only speculative?  Also, I am not aware that I deleted the word "cognate."  Badagnani 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not speculative. Folk-etymology is speculative. Comparative linguistics is a specialised branch of Historical linguistics which reconstructs words according to carefully-worked out linguistic principles of the Comparative method, subject to the checks and balances of peer review. Kahuroa 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, if not speculative, then "hypothetical," as for example the various reconstructed words of the Proto-Indo-European language.  If it isn't provable that such a word existed in exactly that form, that should be made clear to our readers with a wikilink to the word "reconstructed." Badagnani 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: Is mention of the Hawaii earthquake really necessary in the main Hawaii article? No one was hurt, damage was nothing compared to the likes of Hurricane Iniki, and on most islands the biggest impact was the loss of electricity. Would anyone object if I moved the earthquake subsection to the Hawaiian Islands article, as a subset of the geology section? 青い(Aoi) 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this move. —Viriditas | Talk 10:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine by me :) Zora 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaii Earthquake 

message: The attack on Pearl is not mentioned here. While it is covered sufficiently in other articles, I would think it would be mentioned along with Hawaii's other history along with a pointer to the main article.Student7 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Aloha. As a newcomer here I apologise if the point I raise has already been discussed and resolved. I would like to ask whether it is not better for the introduction to say "Hawaiian: Hawai'i" (or "Hawaiian language: Hawai'i" if that is clearer) rather than "'Ōlelo Hawai'i: Hawai'i". 
The reason: the language of the Hawaiian Islands in the language of the Hawaiian Islands is of course 'Ōlelo Hawai'i, but the name of this language in English is Hawaiian, and this page is in English.
I am very interested in Hawaiian issues and in the Hawaiian language in particular, and I am not raising this in a polemical spirit but purely in terms of coherence, consistency and also, it so happens, intelligibility. In any case, when you click on the 'Ōlelo Hawai'i link in the text of the introduction it takes you to the "Hawaiian language" page. What I am suggesting is the same criterion I would apply generally to any nation and its language. When writing in Hawaiian about the English language, I would say "i ka 'Ōlelo Pelekane" or whatever, not "i ka english", wouldn't I? --A R King 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. But to keep everyone happy, how about making it Hawaiian language and then putting 'Ōlelo Hawai'i in parentheses afterwards? Zora 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Ōlelo Hawai'i or Hawaiian (language)? 

message: I really think there needs to be more about animals of Hawaii. I cant find any information on animals, except for the humpback whale. It would be very useful information to put on here.
75.8.90.210 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals 

message: (www.foto-julius.at/ha_hawaii_pictures.html) I think this is a commercial site. It is a photographer's website and if you click the 'Please click here' link at the bottom of the page, it offers his pix for sale, pretty expensive too! I deleted the link, but Julius07, the photographer, has reverted it. Any thoughts, anybody? Kahuroa 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely linkspam.  Deleted. --JereKrischel 09:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He has done this on lots of the language Wikipedias too - as here, first he adds a gallery of his photos, then he adds the link to his site. Kahuroa 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hawaii-Photos link

message: Just floating some ideas here. Given that this page is  very long, maybe we could think about getting rid of some of the multiple photo galleries? Or merge some? How many galleries does an article need - if it needs more than one that might be a sign it is trying to cover too much ground. The photos in the last gallery that was added are all by one photographer and its inclusion was probably aimed at bringing traffic to his website rather than at making the article better. So that was perhaps done for a dubious reason, tho the photos themselves are nice enough. I think there is a lot of other material here that could go onto subsidiary articles, quite a lot of detail about the Hawaiian language, for instance, and lots of other stuff. Kahuroa 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 6 Galleries! (if I'm counting right) 

message: The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing).  Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Hawaii.  Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ''Sports'' section added to updated [[Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states]] format  

message: I believe this article is false on it's odd slant towards the absolution of those responsible for destroying paradise and the depiction of Hawaiians as a bunch of stupid "brownies" that the white man civilized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Satsubatsu347 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you would list some specifics of text or omissions to which you object.  Badagnani 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair and Unbiased? 

message: One of the introductory paragraphs states "British explorer James Cook chanced upon the Hawaiian archipelago in 1778 in what is commonly assumed to be the first European contact with Hawaiians,  however, substantial evidence (Stokes 1932 for example) exists of earlier Spaniard visits to Hawaii."  Is an agenda being pushed here?  If the evidence is substantial, shouldn't more sources, and certainly more recent sources than a 1932 one be cited?  And what is the nature of the evidence? Wouldn't it be useful to include it? 86.134.115.239 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: European discovery

message: Someone had mangled this section badly, so that it was no longer coherent. I don't know how long it was that way. I was copyediting the ethnicity section and I noticed the problem in the antiquity section. I rewrote extensively. References are needed badly there. I wrote from what I know, which is a fair bit, thanks to graduate school and recent work copyediting Hawaiian history books. Having rewritten several major articles yesterday and today, I badly need to attend to real life, so did not stop to look up references. Someone please help!
It would be good to have breakout articles on the settlement date and Pa'ao disputes. Working on these articles would be a good class project for a class in Hawaiian history. Zora 08:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaiian antiquity section 

message: I would like to merge Folklore in Hawaii into this article, before I merge, I want to be sure there are no objections.  So I open the floor to discussion regarding this merge. Any thoughts? Navou talk 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please don't merge. This article is already much too long. The folklore article could use some work, but it's a notable separate subject. BTW, I think it's too heavily influenced by Glen Grant and his imitators. People are learning their folklore from books rather than tūtū. Zora 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So I gather that the article is too large for its inclusion, I might possibly be in agreement, perhaps I link from the main article then... But I do not understand the second part, what do you mean, the folklore is to heavily influenced? Navou talk 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would propose merge / Request for Discussion 

message: what gives? Openlander 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rows on demographics table do not add up to 100% 

message: The pronunciation section completely ignores the Ha-Vai-I pronunciation which is heard extremely often while on one of the  islands. It makes sense given that the Hawaiian language was latinized by people speaking Germanic languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.229.221.138 (talk) 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: V and W freely vary in Hawaiian, as do T and K. According to my kumu, the W pronunciation is more often heard on the Big Island, the V elsewhere. T is heard in Kaua'i, K elsewhere. The missionaries standardized Hawaiian on the basis of the Big Island dialect -- which makes sense, as it was the dialect of the ruling chiefs, who were their patrons. Anon, your guess that the language was "Latinized" is wrong. Whether we choose V or W, T or K, we're going to upset some Hawaiians. Zora 05:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ha-Vai-'I 

message: 200px 
This was also brought up at Talk:Alaska, but maybe it would be better to show a locator map which showed Hawaii's location in the Pacific, rather than an inset --Astrokey44 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locator Map 

message: I'm not 100% sure about this since the level of support isn't clear to me from what I've read but shouldn't greater mention be made of the sovereignty and independence movements? The article doesn't currently appear to address this at all other then brief mention of the apology bill... Perhaps brief mention of the various goals and demands and level of support and links to appropriate articles like Hawaiian sovereignty movement Nil Einne 12:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just stumbled across this article, and I'm totally astounded that there's not a single mention of the sovereignty movement in the article (apart from one of the references). This is an egregious oversight. There ought to at least be that link you put in above somewhere in the article. This is tantamount to writing an article about the American South and "forgetting" to mention slavery ... +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, there definitely needs to be a section about this. ArchonMeld (talk) 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereignty and independence 

message: Before his death in 1819, Kamehameha had succeeded in consolidating (through military force, or in the case of Kauaʻi and Niʻihau, by political means) all of the major Hawaiian islands, including Key Biscayne, a feat never before accomplished in the history of the islands.
Key Biscayne is in Florida. I'm removing the highlighted section. Chegitz guevara 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key Biscayne??? 

message: Looks like the lead section has two really heavy paragraphs that seem to rehash the History section.  Maybe the content could be folded into the History section or the relevant sub-articles?  KeithH 07:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section too heavy? 

message: The following non-verified text has lacked a citation for a long time, much longer than the date of the current tag. It was previously tagged long before as unsupported. It should not be returned to the article without being verified by a citation to a reference work listed in the article's references.
However, many state and municipal entities and officials have recognized "Hawaii" to be the correct state name .
HOW DID THE VOLCANO DIAMOND HEAD GOT ITS NAME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.8.205 (talk) 
:Try reading the article, bro.  Cheers, KeithH 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed non-verified text 

message: Folks,
Just finished thoroughly expanding the Hawaii page in Persian language. Short, but relatively complete. Check it out: . (It's really hard there when youre the only editor making articles for the entire 50 states of the United States. Montana didnt even have an article!). Peace.--Zereshk 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congrats on your accomplishment.  Montanan's motto, Oro y Plata, is Spanish for Gold and Silver.  Cheers Geologyguy 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just FYI: finially finished

message: The article states that Hawaii is one of three US states that was an independent nation prior to becoming a state along with California and Texas, why is Vermont not included in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollard666 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My surmise is that the Vermont's "nationhood" is a matter of semantics. All the former colonies were "nation-states" under the Articles of Confederacy, but basically the same entity once separated from England as they later were in U.S. statehood. California and Texas each went from Spanish colony to Mexican province to independent nation to U.S. territory to U.S. state.--Buckboard 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know a lot about US history but wasn't West Florida a republic? It may be important to add that. Lautarocos 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Nation 

message: Why is a very easily verifiable fact like the height of said isle from base to summit considered weasel words and why weasels?
Is there some kind of race hang up about hawaii?
If so could we have a superscript bit of text saying [race hang up] instead of these weasal words?
80.7.195.184 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Who are the weasals?

message: Who in this day and age uses Fahrenheit?  Only backward stupid people that's who, please quote temperatures in Celsius from now on and forget the scale that suggest 30 is cold
80.7.195.184 23:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Learn not the way of the SheVan

message: According to the current revision there are no non-religious people living in Hawaii, even though previous versions of this article have the percentage at 18%. Which version is correct? AntiuserX 11:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See . —Viriditas | Talk 13:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Over 50% seems a bit unusual, but my edit at least was valid. Thanks for posting a source. AntiuserX 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That page claims that 772,843 Hawaii residents (nearly 70%) are unaffiliated with the Christian religion. .  According to that site, the number refers to "unclaimed" populations: "those that are not adherents of any of the 188 groups included in the Church & Church Membership Data. This number should not be used as an indicator of irreligion or atheism, as it also includes adherents of many groups not included in the data."  According to the same site, 0.5% of the total American population is atheist. —Viriditas | Talk 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to 9.3% non-religious, whatever distinction they think they're making between the two. Awien 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion section

message: I don't live in Hawaii myself (I don't live anywhere in the USA either), but I thought Hawaii was the only State in the USA with no straight lines on its borders? Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means.
~~Neo 2.3 Hylan 10:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could say that... since it has no borders... but why include it?--Patrick 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State Border uniqueness?

message: Can I add Israel Kamakawiwo'ole and Jack Johnson (musician) to the  famous persons gallery? Just to fill it out as a 2x4... Any objections? --travisthurston 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous persons gallery

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
* Support — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: We need the English version of the Hawaiian motto, "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness" put on there.  It needs to be with the Hawaiian motto in the table. Complex-Algorithm 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Version 

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native Hawaiians. Badagnani 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion discussion

message: What's the point of mentioning the stuff about the UN?  How is this relevant?  --M a s 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statehood

message: There are two rows in the table under the heading "Ancestry Group".  They are identical, except the percentages are significantly different.  Perhaps someone who knows the correct percentages can remove the incorrect row? (and perhaps verify the entire table).
        Esb 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate line in "Ancestry Group" table 

message: :Image:Don-ho.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Don-ho.jpg

message: What's up with this sentence: "Politically, Hawaii is considered to be a part of the North American continent."? I would like at least to see a reference where this subject is further developed... What about Alaska, was it politically considered an Asiatic territory before it turn into an USA state? What about the North Pole, is it considered to be politically part of which continent?
What I mean is, this is a pointless observation. Who is it to decide which are the "political" continents??... What about Turkey, is Wikipedia going to enter the dispute about whether it is "politically" a part of Europe or not? What about the Philippines, was it politically part of Europe, and then North America (as Hawaii), and then Asia? I bet there is a large number of USA citizens who don't consider Mexico, or perhaps Cuba, to be "politically"  part of the North America...
I think it's no good to put such a statement in an article, specially in the beginning. If there is a geological justification to say that Hawaii is part of the North American continent, then let's say it is, and end of question. I don't see any good-hearted reason to talk about some region of the planet to be or not "politically"  part of some continent. -- NIC1138 (talk) 00:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical politics and political geography 

message: yo 24.148.25.3 if you made an acount and are still watching this page then listen up! i've got a bone to pick with you about some "distasteful" comments. ANOMALY-117 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you move this discussion to User_talk:24.148.25.3, please? —Viriditas | Talk 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  come out of the dark! 

message: A possibly WP:FRINGE article that isn't even linked from this article. In my opinion, it warrants deletion and since it isn't linked (avoiding attention from Wikipedians perhaps) I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those who know more about Hawaii. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Legal status of Hawaii]] 

message: Why is there no satellite photo of Maui in the island gallery? ArchonMeld (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Maui Photo

message: The article says Hawaii became a state in 1951 - WRONG - it was 1959.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.75.230.2 (talk) 06:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did some research and this seems to be true (Places I looked: http://www.netstate.com/states/intro/hi_intro.htm and also here: http://www.askforkids.com/web?q=When+did+Hawaii+become+a+state%3F&qsrc=1&o=0 ). If it has not yet been done I will edit this. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaii became a state in 1959! 

message: The article says Hawaii was formed by a hotspot and the hotspot is remaining stationary. However, according to one source, Hawaii sits atop the East Rift Zone in the Pacific.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.80.15 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hawaii has nothing to do with the East Pacific Rise (Rift); nor is the hot spot stationary relative to the Pacific Plate, which is passing over it. The East Rift Zone mentioned in the article is a small feature within the massif of Kilauea, nothing to do with the geometry or origin of the island chain as a whole. Cheers Geologyguy (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it may have to do with the East Rift zone however Hawaii was formed by a volcano, a hotspot.--Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hotspot vs. Pacific East Rift Zone