Talk:Ford Island

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured articleFord Island is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 7, 2014, and on December 7, 2023.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 23, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
October 28, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
November 27, 2014Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 1, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Ford Island was used by ancient Hawaiians for a ceremony to swap sex partners, was bought by the US Army in 1917, and was the center of the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941?
Current status: Featured article

Trivia

  • Ford Island was host to an annual "Hydrofest" where hydroplanes raced around the harbor.
  • Hollywood actor William Joseph Hill grew up on Ford Island with his family. His father William Joseph Hill Sr. was a Captain in the U.S. Navy.
  • Damage to structures on Ford Island during the Pearl Harbor attack was surprisingly minimal. A bomb landed (probably by mistake) in the courtyard of the medical building, and windows in some buildings were shattered by the force of explosions on ships.
  • Amelia Earhart crashed on takeoff from Luke Field during her first attempt at flying around the world.

This was removed from the article. Viriditas (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand the word "trivia" is not encyclopedic, actually some of those facts are quite applicable to Ford Island. I lived there in 1991 and I remember the magnitude of those Hydrofoil races being held in the bay. They were a really big deal drawing national networks and thousands of visitors -- at the time at least, the island was completely closed to civilians, except on those days. The other facts are also interesting. Ford Island conjures up a sense of history -- should we lose it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.77 (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible wrong info about USS Missouri

The article states that the Missouri was called back into service due to the Gulf War (I). I had a chance to serve on the Missouri when making duty station choices in March 1990, six months before the Gulf War and a lot more than that if you consider that the Missouri was already in service when I was choosing orders. I don't believe the Missouri was called up because of Gulf I. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.74.195.77 (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Increased size?

In the section "Army Air Service", there appears the following sentence:

During the 1930s, the island's size was increased from 334 acres (135 ha) to 331 acres (134 ha) by using landfill from the dredging of Pearl Harbor.

Now I'll admit that it's been a few decades since my Elementary School arithmetic classes, but I believe 334 is larger than 331. Are the numbers reversed? Was the area of Ford island actually decreased? Or maybe the second number should be larger than either 331 or 334. (Sorry, I don't have any books on either Ford Island or Pearl harbor, so I can't fix this problem myself.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I had it right in the infobox, but yeah, that was a typo.--v/r - TP 16:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Sources for later: [1][2][3].--v/r - TP 21:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need this later: http://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/cdnc?a=d&d=SFC19011226.2.32# http://books.google.com/books?id=enlQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=Oahu+Sugar+Company+%22Ii+Estate%22&source=bl&ots=WqzYrIT2JA&sig=IfaJABnJ7tWjjcmhxFmhQayuUDw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dhCNU_zyGozaoAT-qIKYDg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Oahu%20Sugar%20Company%20%22Ii%20Estate%22&f=false --v/r - TP 00:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing?

With the wide availability of scholarly literature about the attack on Pearl Harbor, why are we citing web pages from the Naval History & Heritage Command? (cf

[majestic titan] 09:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

I'll hit up the library this weekend and improve the sourcing for that section.--v/r - TP 17:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD

@Ktr101:, @TParis: - While this page is TFA, I ask that you place extra emphasis on the Discuss aspect of BRD now. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note:To be clear, I was not suggesting that BRD was being violated-just an ask to ensure that discussion is taking place now, thank you both! — xaosflux Talk 23:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're well within BRD at the moment. Ktr191 was bold, I reverted, and I left a (rather rude, but reasonable) message on their talk page for discussion.--v/r - TP 21:44, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I split off the material because I didn't see a reason why it couldn't be two separate articles. One issue I had was that the history was in multiple sections and interspersed with multiple topics. Granted, the timing might not have been perfect, but I figured it wouldn't be a bad idea to do it when I was thinking about it, as I was ready to spend time into making sure that everything flowed perfectly and the disruption would have been minor to anyone reading the page. I'm not going to revert it now since I don't want to make tensions higher at the moment, but I do think there is a valid case for keeping an island article and one about a naval air facility that had a significant history separate, instead of on one page, as the facility article has great potential for expansion.
TParis, no harm done with the message, as I understand where you were coming from there and I am willing to work with you to see this through, whatever consensus may turn out to be.
talk) 21:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't mind what happens to the article after it comes off the main page. If you want to split it, that's fine. I really don't think that's a great idea because there really is nothing differentiating that article from this one - only what the operations were umbrella-ed under at the time. The timeline would be missing a large chunk unless you wrote a summary for that part. Either way, if you at least wait until tomorrow then you won't get as many objections from me.--v/r - TP 21:53, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the separate Naval history. That history extends from 1939 to present - not just the time it was a NALF. It was called different things, but you'd be taking out the chunk of time when the least happened on the island. Most of the active components had moved off the island by that time and remaining activity was dwindling. There wouldn't but much to write.--v/r - TP 22:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. I'll wait a few days until it comes off of the links, and I'll split it after that, and then see if I can find any information that fills in some of the missing parts.
talk) 23:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
Fair enough, thanks. On another note, Fort Kamehameha is going to be my next project if you are looking for something to do.--v/r - TP 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Verify source" for VP-8

Resolved

In "Army Air Service" section, VP-8 was arrived in island in 1933. However, VP-8 was established in 1942. and "History of Naval Air Station, Navy Number 128" P.4 was wrote "In 1933, the first PB2Y2's were flown here by VP-10", but at that time PB2Y2 was not rounded out. Would you verify this sentence? --Otenkiya (talk) 01:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this source, page 11, "In 1933 VP-8 had also joined the other patrol squadrons based on this station in operational duties." This source was written in 1945 and is as close to the event as we're probably going to get. If VP-8 was created in 1942, don't you think this 1945 document would have been aware of that?--v/r - TP 20:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source, the "Second VP-8" was commissioned as VP-201 in 1942 and became VP-8 in 1948 - 3 years after the above document was published. Clearly, the 1945 document is referring to a squadron that doesn't follow this lineage. Googling more...--v/r - TP 20:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to this source, page 64, the 1942 squadron was "Redesignated Patrol Squadron EIGHT (VP-8) on 1 September 1948, the second squadron to be assigned the VP-8 designation."--v/r - TP 20:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@おてんきや: Found the First VP-8. Page 113 (or document page 10): [4]. The First VP-8 was established in 1929 and became the Third VP-20. But in 1933, it was VP-8F, and became VP-8 in 1937. Could you please remove the maintenance tag now that this is resolved?--v/r - TP 20:59, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved OK. I have understood the problem of VP-8 completely. Verification will be removed in appreciation of your cooperation and correction of the link. Thanks everybady. --Otenkiya (talk) 03:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ford Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford Island. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it Eurocentric to title this article Ford Island as opposed to the native Mokuʻumeʻume?

I'm not sure if it's just me, but the Hawaiian people are respected very little— they used to have a monarchy, a language, and islands to themselves, but now they're just a the US's exotic beaches... On the other hand, Moku'ume'ume is more linguistically informative as to where the location is, so why not use it? LeonhardEuler27 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On a personal level, I would support this. However, Wikipedia's guidelines on naming articles puts a lot of weight on using the article subject's
most commonly recognized name. In this case, the use of the name "Ford Island" is overwhelmingly dominant, so I think this would be a hard bar to overcome. There's a growing movement within Hawaiʻi to encourage the use of indigenous place names, so perhaps this will change one day in the future. Aoi (青い) (talk) 03:58, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh thanks! I'm new so I'm happy to learn the policy! I totally agree with you then. LeonhardEuler27 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I was researching this article, I spoke to the Bishop Museum, and specifically their oral history ...eh...department? Anyway, they had informed me that Moke'ume'ume carried negative connotations and they preferred it not be mentioned at all. Their concern was that "white people" (or Christian missionaries) already had a habit of judging and misrepresenting what happened on the island as a sex ritual. They would've preferred it all not be mentioned at all. I did my best to represent it not as some demonic sex ritual but as a event that built families. So, I'm not sure we'd be doing native Hawaiians any favors by renaming it.--v/r - TP 09:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ford_Island&oldid=1207264489"