Talk:Niihau/Archive 1

Archive 1

Age and geology of Niihau

In this article, Ni'ihau is claimed to be the "oldest of the eight main islands". In the article on Kaua'i, that island is claimed to be the "oldest and fourth largest of the main Hawaiian Islands". Which is true? -- Kimiko 21:01, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It is possible that the writers of the article didn't count Niihau as a "main Hawaiian island" since it is relatively small. As far as I know, the northern islands are older than the southern ones. Alensha 21:45, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NIIHAU AND KAUAI ARE ABOUT THE SAME AGE

1. There is literally "a hole in the bottom of the sea" a bit southeast of Hawaii. This hole is a major place where liquid rock comes out from Earth's mantle. The Hawaiian Islands are located on a large section of Earth's crust, called a tectonic plate, which is slowly moving northwest towards Asia. Each one of the Hawaiian Islands originated at a time in the past when the tectonic plate was further southeast, such that the island location was over the hole. The liquid rock, i.e., magma or lava, does not come out constantly. But when it comes out a lot, and for a long time (million years), it can be enough to build up a volcano which eventually becomes so high that it sticks out of the ocean surface, forming a Hawaiian island. By the time the island/volcano is around 2 or 3 miles high (like Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea now), the tectonic plate has moved far enough away from the hole that the greatest phase of volcanic eruptions for that island is over. The hole becomes less active for awhile. The island can still have some future eruptions from residual pockets of magma in its base, or perhaps from other minor holes in the ocean bottom, but as time goes by, and the plate moves farther and farther away from the major hole, the island gradually becomes less and less active in terms of eruptions. That's how the Hawaiian chain of islands has been formed, and that's why the island chain runs from southeast to northwest. This explains why Hawaii is the youngest or newest island, and each island is relatively older as you move northwest along the chain.

2. The major hole in the ocean bottom is actually a double hole. That's why the main masses of the island chain are in pairs, like Mauna Loa and Mauna Kea. After being "born" at the major double hole, each Hawaiian island gets gradually worn down by erosion from rain, wind, and waves. This explains why Hawaii is the biggest island, Maui is the second biggest, and the islands get gradually smaller and smaller as you go farther northwest along the chain.

3. Now as to whether Niihau or Kauai is older, they are about the same age. When they were born, they were located in the area where Hawaii is now. Niihau was where Mauna Loa is now, and Kauai was where Mauna Kea is now. One hole of the major double hole made Niihau (and Mauna Loa), and the other hole of the major double hole made Kauai (and Mauna Kea). In fact, on a map of the Hawaiian chain, you can draw a line that connects the island masses created by the one hole of the double hole, and a parallel line connecting the island masses created by the other hole of the double hole.

4. The truth of this explanation is verified by studies of iron particles in lava samples from the different Hawaiian islands. When lava is molten, iron particles in the liquid rock align with the pattern of Earth's magnetic field which is specific to a certain latitude and longitude. When the lava has hardened, the location-specific pattern of iron particles is "locked in", and cannot be changed. The pattern of iron particles in Niihau lava does NOT match the current latitude and longitude of Niihau. Rather, it matches the location of the major double hole, a bit southeast of Hawaii. The iron-particle pattern is the same for every island in the Hawaiian chain, proving that every Hawaiian island was born in the same place. Agent X 17:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Check facts

This article needs a number of its facts checked. First of all, I believe her name was Eliza, not Elizabeth Sinclair. The rest of it, without whipping out a bunch of books, sounds like someone something wrote of the top of their head. I only took a few Hawaiian Studies classes, but I lived in the Islands long enough to know that people like to remember these things in convenient ways. For example, someone managed to imply that the ESA was in competition with Native Hawaiian rights. Let's remember this is Wikipedia--you're not talking to a tourist trying to tell them stories to scare them for sport.--Stormj 17:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

FYI...I just started fact checking this article. In the process, I've added three reference books, and plan on adding more. —Viriditas | Talk 02:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information

The article states that Niihau is "generally off-limits", but does not mention that Hawaii law declares all property up to the high water mark as "public property". So does it have a special legal status, or is it legal for private boats to land on the beach, and for passengers to stroll the beach as they can elsewhere in the state?

I believe (but by no means am I speaking with any authority) that there is no special legal status. One could potentially land a boat and legally stroll the beach as long as they stay below the high water mark. But... landing a boat would be difficult and what would you do onec your there? The 'high water' mark is not the whole beach. So legally you can't go that far ashore. I would bet that some people have even done this. Cshobar (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No mention is made of the fact that in almost all cases once a Native Hawaiian volluntarily leaves Niihau, he is not allowed to return. SonsOfNiihau 07:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All good points that should be addressed. Can you help? —Viriditas | Talk 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced claim

Added below. —Viriditas | Talk 00:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been said that Sinclair bought the island in preference to other real estate parcels such as Waikīkī, Pearl Harbor, or the island of Lānaʻi.

Found the original source that this information alludes to: Joesting, Edward J. (1988). Kauai: The Separate Kingdom. I'll add the information back into the article with more accuracy and detail. —Viriditas | Talk 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Population figures

I'm running into some strange population figures over and over again. For example, Whitney reports that in 1896, the population of Niihau was 164. Bird suggests that there were around 350 people living on the island in 1875, while Joesting reports 300 around 1864. Gay writes (according to oral history) that 5,000 people were living on Niihau prior to 1864, but he doesn't specify an exact date. Two decades earlier, Wilkes reports that were around 1,000 people living on the island sometime between 1838-1842, so I'm assuming that Gay is referring to the late 18th, possibly early 19th century. If anyone has any insight on what these figures mean (epidemics, seasonal drought, migration to Kauai, etc.) please chime in with your comments. —Viriditas | Talk 06:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

When Cook arrived one of his men, I think King, estimate 10,000 while Cook estimate a smaller number. I am not sure if Niihau could even accomadate that much people. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Tava & Keale give the following numbers:

1778 - 10000
1800 -  4000
1833 -  1079
1841 -  1000
1864 -  1008
1868 -   300
1900 -   172
1920 -   191
1940 -   182
1960 -   254
1980 -   226
1996 -   230 (Juvik 1998)
2009 -   130 (KHON)

I'm still working on it. I think it is certainly possible that 10,000 people could have lived on Niihau, but the crucial matter of contention is access to fresh water. Since Niihau is in the lee of Kauai, one would imagine that the population could be transient depending on drought. Do you know if Cook's numbers have been questioned in any other case? My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that Cook was meticulous about data collection. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Okina separators

I realize the okina separator is important to Hawaiians (as in "Hawai'i"), but it's a bugger for linking since there's no standard okina and everybody has their own idea of how to do it. Then none of the links work properly. In this one article ʻ,',`, and {[okina]} were all mixed up and nothing linking in to the article would link properly, so I removed them all. It's only a pronunciation aid, so I hope others can live with it in the name of linkability. If anyone wants to put them back for any reason, can you check that the okina you use doesn't break everyone else's links? BomberJoe 04:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This should be generally answered on Hawai'i Manual of Style by now. Chime back if not. --Travis Thurston+ 05:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Forbidden Island"?

It's true that a lot of tourist sites call it that, but per http://hawaii.gov/hidocs/hawaiinames.html it is the "distant island" and Kaho'olawe is the "forbidden island." I think we should lead with the official name, then refer to other names. I'll do it later. Makana Chai (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to step on toes - I notice it's prominently called the Forbidden Island. So before editing I'll ask here - do you have any reference for that? Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The private island of Niʻihau is referred to as "The Forbidden Island" by its owners.[1] Kaho'olawe has been called the "Target Isle" since at least the late 1960's. Ziegler's excellent Hawaiian Natural History, Ecology, and Evolution admits that Kahoʻolawe was "in very recent historic time, occasionally termed the "Forbidden Isle," although this appelation is usually given to Niʻihau." Ziegler also says that Niʻihau "in very recent historic time, [is] frequently termed the "Forbidden Isle." Rauzon's Isles of Refuge also makes the same claim regarding Niʻihau. The authoritative Atlas of Hawaiʻi published by the University of Hawaii at Hilo also refers to Niʻihau as "The Forbidden Isle". But, the Atlas also notes that the nickname of Kahoʻolawe is officially "none". The government website you linked to above cites a 1965 book that claims the 1923 Territorial Government of Hawaii gave it the name, "The Distant Island".[2] But on another government website, a 1966 book calls Niʻihau "The Island of Yesteryear".[3] Interestingly, a 1991 article in the Los Angeles Times claims that "for more than a century, Niihau has been known as the Forbidden Island", which would mean that its nickname precedes the territorial declaration by at least three decades. More research is needed. I'm confident "The Forbidden Isle" should remain, but uncertain if room should also be made for "The Distant Isle" in the infobox (it should certainly be added to the body of the article) as this seems to have been a judgment by the Territory of Hawaii which was dissolved in 1959. The question that needs to be asked is, does the State of Hawaii currently refer to the island of Niʻihau as the "Distant Isle"? Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow thanks, Viriditas. I would definitely go by the Atlas. Let's leave it as is, but yes, we could add some of this to the article. You da best! Makana Chai (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Years ago, I read that Niihau was the "Forbidden Island" and Kahoolawe is the "Forgotten Island". Can't remember the source, but I'll look for it. But I haven't seen "Forgotten" anywhere lately... Polihale (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Expansion and improvements, Spring '09

In the next few weeks or so I am planning to spend some time here working on expanding, sourcing, and general clean up. Does anyone have anything they would like for me to particularly work on? Please add them to this list...

• Geology
• Geography
  • Playa lakes/wetlands
  • Sand dunes
• History expansion
• Community subs
• Images
• Beaches stubs and wikilinks
• General reference and cite work
  • Suggest converting from citation (harvb) to cite
• Economy expansion
• Transportation start
• Education expansion
• Natural history (plants and animals)
  • Bird and plant habitats in the playa

--Travis Thurston+ 05:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's collaborate. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Nice! I'm currently in finals week and will hope to tackle this list over the weekend and next week. Looks like we have some work cut out for us! :) It'll be good. --Travis Thurston+ 18:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it. :) I think I'll start converting the references to prepare before you start. Viriditas (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. I hope to start spending more time on this. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Communities

I looked at yahoo maps (better resolution than google) on Niihau. Some of the communities are marked on yahoo maps, but have zero or one building. Should these really be on the list of communities? Tkdchicka123 (aka Tkdchicka125) (now banned for vandalism and sockpuppetry on Niihau amongst others) seemed convinced that Niihau was uninhabited and deleted the communities list. Later, Tkdchicka125 deleted all but Puʻuwai. Jim1138 (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hafta agree with you there -- most of them are abandoned (if ever inhabited). I changed the wording to "Geographical areas and communities," which in itself is stretching it I think. :) Meanwhile, I see no reason to redlink them either. If someone wants to create stubs on some of them (good luck finding info on many of them), fine, but I dislike seeing a pile of red in the article -- it makes it less readable and also tacky-looking, plus these locales are not notable enough for articles in my opinion. Although if someone creates an/some article(s), they should stay, to retain info about the isle of mystery (or is that Kauai lol)? Softlavender (talk) 09:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the article on Pu'uwai says that it is "an unincorporated community in Kauai County, Hawaii, United States, and the only settlement on the island of Ni'ihau." (emphasis mine) Therefore, does that mean it is the only community on Niihau? If so, we need to remove the word "communities" from the list in the Niihau article. Softlavender (talk) 11:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

These references have further information about the areas, but I'm only providing brief descriptions. I'll try to finish this tomorrow:

Kamalino

Bay in the southwest. On January 29, 1778, Cook went ashore just south of here. (Clark 1990:92) 100 acres of the famous Niihau sweet potatoes used to grow here. (Tava & Keale 1989:26) Former fishing village. Ranch houses abandoned by the 1930s. Site of the old Loran station, WWII radito towers, nicknamed "antennas". (Clark 1990:95) An ancient stone path lies to the south. (Tava & Keale 1989:87) Viriditas (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Keʻelinawili

This appears to be a typo, either on Wikipedia or in the sources above. Google maps lists it as a cape, but Clark has a point around the same area named, Keʻelinawi. They appear to be the same. This location matches Clark's Keʻelinawi on p.79 and 93. So, I am confident that both names refer to the same landform. Now, which spelling is correct? Viriditas (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the reference I tend to use is the Hawaiian Place Names database from the University of Hawaii (based on the book of Pukui et al). lookup of "Keelinawi" returns "place", spelled with two kahakōs as keʻelināwī with source "Tava and Keale", while lookup of "Keelinawili" says "misspelt" on the USGS 1984 map. The Juviks' Atlas of Hawaii spells it keʻelināwī, one kahakō. This is cerrtainly a nit, since it is essentially a "closed" island with so few people. W Nowicki (talk) 23:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, confirmed. The place name is spelled Keʻelinawi, not Keʻelinawili. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kiʻekiʻe

Location of Hale Kawaihoa, the second home of the Sinclairs after they moved from Kaununui in 1864?.(Tava & Keale 1989:48) Status of home unknown.(Viriditas) Guests from passing steamships were entertained here until Aubrey Robinson took over in 1883, and closed the island off to outsiders by 1915.(Clark 1990:89) The area is known for having some of the best weather due to a windy and wet microclimate not found on the rest of the island.(Tava & Keale 1989:48) Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kiʻi

Northeastern winter landing point for the weekly Niihau Ranch Navy LCM boat arriving from Pakala, Kauai. Otherwise, Lehua Landing is used. Hawaiian Monk seals can be seen here and in several other places. A legend about the naming of Kiʻi (see Tiki) explains that the kii (wooden men carved from ohia) were constructed to protect the fisherman from aikanaka (man eaters), hence its name. There are several different place name stories.(Tava & Keale 1989:76-77) Petroglyphs can be found here, and the Niihau elders claim they were made by people from Tahiti.(Tava & Keale 1989:35) A large pineapple plantation (Tahitian variety brought from the Marquesas) once grew hnaturally here on the northeast side.(Tava & Keale 1989:60) Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Lēʻahi

Small hill sitting on a rocky point. Same name as Diamond Head, Oahu, and both are located on the southeastern point of the islands and with similar headlands. On Niihau, the headand is named Kaiwaihoa, which is almost identical to Koko Head on Oahu.(Clark 1995:95-96) Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"Forgotten Island"

This moniker, added to the article in September 2006 by an anonymous user, doesn't hold water. I've searched Google, including News, News Archives, and Books, and can only find two mentions of that phrase in regards to Niihau that aren't direct Wiki quotes (talk about spawning a wiki myth!), and those two are probably derived from Wikipedia as well. Meanwhile, I find at least a dozen mentions of Kahoolawe as "the Forgotten Island"; more than a handful of mentions of Lanai as "the Forgotten Island," and over two dozen mentions of Molokai as "the Forgotten Island." Also: " ... as it is frequently omitted from tourist maps": yet another Wiki myth spawned by the same anonymous editor, I think. I personally don't recall seeing it omitted from many maps, tourist or otherwise. Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Mahalo for all the good work you are doing on this article! Makana Chai (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent expansion

Good work on the recent expansion, however, I want to raise several points:
1. It is unnecessary to refer to the Census Bureau and Census Tract in the lead. Simply noting the general information in the lead, such as the general geography, county, and 2000 census count is sufficient. More can be moved into the body. We should reserve the lead section for summarizing the main points without going into technical detail.

I perhaps agree about the Census Bureau/Tract -- that was already in the article and I didn't want to remove it without permission. I also didn't/don't want the Geography section to be filled with mere mind-numbing statistics. Rather than deleting that info w/o permission, I chose where to place it. NOTE: The articles on Kauai and Lanai both have Census Tract data in the lead. But I think deleting it or moving it to a footnote is fine. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the situation. I monitor all 2626 articles on a daily basis, or at least try to. And the fact is, comparing these articles with each other is fruitless, since they are mostly in sad shape. We tend to treat each article on its own merits and deal with it in that regard. I believe someone went through most of the island articles and added that census data. It is essentially boilerplate until we get to it. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

2. I think the statement "the island is historically notable as the location for the Niihau Incident" is a bit ambiguous. The island is historically notable as one of the last refuges of the Hawaiian people and culture, and for its isolation from the rest of Hawaii. The "Niihau Incident" plays a very small role in that legacy.

The sentence used to say "The island is famous as the location for the Niihau Incident, ..." which I think is worse. I'm happy with deleting the sentence altogether, as the Incident is mentioned in the History section, and the island isn't "famous" for it in my opinion (I'd never heard of it till last month). "The island is historically notable as one of the last refuges of the Hawaiian people and culture, and for its isolation from the rest of Hawaii." Totally agree with that -- let's put that in the lead! The pupu shell leis are notable/famous, and can either stay in the lead or be deleted as a redundancy. If we keep the Incident in the lead, I suggest simply starting the sentence with "In 1941, ..." and omit any qualifiers. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that neither version suits our purposes. I'm not calling for outright deletion, but simply a careful use of words. We want the lead to summarize the most important topics, and that is certainly one of them. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

3. A summary of the geography and the natural history was removed from the lead, however this is notable, and should be added back in, particularly the fact that the playa lakes provide the habitat for three species and the notable designation for the Hawaiian Lobelioid.

I moved it for a few reasons: (A) The lead was cluttered with stuff that in my opinion would make the average reader's eyes glaze over (not to mention the birds were all listed as Latin names, like a zoology textbook). I wanted to keep the lead fresh and grabbing and inviting. (B) Now that there's a Natural Life section, keeping it in the lead creates at least two redundancies (birds + lobelioid) in the already small Natural Life section. (C) None of the other island articles have species info in the lead. (D) I'm personally not sure it meets WP:LEAD, except to a biologist. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

It's important for several reasons, primarily as a summary of the natural history section. Again, comparing the island articles won't work for our purposes as they are all in pretty sad shape. I also notice that Robinson himself is against this information (see [4]). I'm not going to back down on this point, but there is room for improvement. The natural history must be represented in the lead section. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

4. Whenever citations are used, and moved from further reading into the notes or reference section, they should be removed. There is no need to duplicate refs.

I was going to do that, but I saw that the KHON doco was still both a Ref and a citiation, so I left both the doco and the Sommers article in the Refs. I agree that if we are wanting to eliminate duplications, they should get removed from Refs/Reading. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

5. We need to have a standard reference format across the board (mandatory for GAC and FAC) so I intend on removing the Harvard style to make this easier.
6. The natural history section should, for the most part, rely on our best sources (such as Wichman & St. John) not a television documentary, so we need to use this source sparingly here. I'm concerned about the accuracy of some of the claims made in this section, anecdotal claims that are not necessarily supported by scientific evidence.

Could you tell me which 'claims' you disagree with, and I can provide more backup/sources, or copyedit to reduce POV/irrelevancy/andecdote? Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, all of them. For example, who is claiming that there are more Monk seals on Niʻihau than in the NHI? These kind of claims don't really hold up when they are sourced to a television documentary, which for all intents and purposes looks to me like some kind of glorified advertisement. Now, I don't know if that is true, but until I am able to review the transcripts, I am highly skeptical of such claims. The game herd claims, on the other hand, are fine. I'm also skeptical about the claim regarding increased rainfall. That kind of thing worked on Lanai where there is sufficient elevation, but I would like to see further substantiation. As for the claim that "many of Niʻihau's natural plant resources have been preserved and documented by island co-owner Keith Robinson, a noted conservationist", there is obviously some serious tension between Robinson and the ecologists working for the government who have maintained the critical habitat listings[5] so I would disagree with the placement of this in the article. Frankly, I am very skeptical here. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

7. The heavy use of the television documentary as a source is unnecessary, as much of this material can be sourced with what we already have. However, the television documentary is quite good for supporting new and recent updates, but should be used carefully. If we have access to the full transcripts, links should be provided whenever possible. From what I can tell, some of the transcripts are online. Again, this will come up during any future FAC, so it's best to address it now.

Sadly, most all of the references we have for this article are over a decade old and quite outdated, in terms of the island's current status, economy, culture, etc. The only refs up to date on those areas are the KHON doco, the Maui magazine article, and the owners' tourism site. And unfortunately, since the island is deliberately private and off-limits and hence vastly under-documented (that's an understatement), the 30-minute documentary and its accompanying monographs (the link is provided for the collection those) are invaluable. If it helps to source the material to individual sections of the monograph (there are 12 sections of it, with 12 different URLs and 12 different subtitles), I can do that. Just let me know. PS: Right now my intention is to provide as much accurate, up-to-date, relevant information for readers of this article (that includes fellow Hawaiians), who are all understandably curious about it but know next to nothing about it. I have no doubt that the info in the doco is accurate, and I'm less concerned at the moment about featuring the article somewhere than I am about conveying valuable and accurate information about something underdocumented but very notable. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that the references are "outdated" in a general sense; You are actually using the television documentary to source much of the historical information from those references, and third-party print sources written by experts are preferred. We also have good historical, geographical, and ecological information from those sources and more recent ones as well. I agree, however, that newer references like the "documentary" might help us update information in certain areas, but I am not yet convinced it is the gospel truth and I am concerned that there is some bias or POV being promoted in these sources, as Robinson is in control of most of the information rather than third-party sources who collect, anlayze, and review content for accuracy. The more links you provide to the transcripts (put them on the talk page if you can) the easier we can decide what to do. I believe that we should use the television documentary sparingly and carefully. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

8. The use of a see also footer for the music is unnecessary. See also links, whenever possible, should be merged inline.

That was already in the article. I totally agree it looks silly down there. Feel free to remedy the situation. :) Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I did, but you unintentionally reverted my edits by copying and pasting over my changes. That's why I brought it up. Viriditas (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

9. Paragraphs are now too short. An effort should be made to group sentences together. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

10. Weasel words. The word "many" appears six times and the word "most" four times. Please make an effort to quantify or specify whenever possible. Viriditas (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

11. The video/transcript (not identical but close) says "Near its central coast, a village with about 130 people living much the same way for generations." It doesn't say that the total population is 130. Just something to keep in mind. The current article now claims that "Niʻihau has approximately 130 permanent inhabitants" but we don't seem to have that exact information in the sources used. Or do we? I'm also not certain we should be using television documentaries as sources for population data. Viriditas (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

12. "Despite efforts to keep the island mostly untouched, incursions pepper its history, including the day after the attack on pearl harbor, and even a past governor's effort to claim it for state lands." Ah, the government claim needs to be added to the history section. I'll try and get to it tomorrow using the print sources. Of course, anyone is welcome to help. This includes: Governor Burns wanted to buy the island in 1970; Supporters saw the island as valuable real estate while opponents were concerned about how the state would use the island, i.e. for gambling. Robinsons refused to sell. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

13. Does the lead really need "Niʻihau is also referred to as the "Mystery Island," or the "Distant Isle." It might work somewhere in the article, but we don't need it in the lead as the island is rarely referred to it by those names today. Viriditas (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

14. "The installation brings in millions of dollars a year, and gives the island a stable, reliable economic base without impacting it the way mass tourism or industrial development would." Be careful not to state opinions as fact like this. Viriditas (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

15. "Aubrey Robinson, grandfather of current owners Bruce and Keith Robinson" - This should not be introduced in the flora and fauna section, but rather explained in the history or some other section, and then briefly mentioned in the lead. The reader should have the tools from the very beginning to recognize the names. Viriditas (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

16. Free meat? Perhaps this could be worded differently. What kind of meat? Viriditas (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

17. Big game herds, wild boars and feral sheep. I don't think you can talk about this in the flora and fauna section without also talking about the ecological destruction caused to native wildlife. Viriditas (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

18. "When Niʻihau was originally purchased as a private family holding in the 1800s, there were no monk seals present, as the Native Hawaiians had killed them off to preserve their fishing stock." I would like some confirmation on this, as this is the first time I have heard it. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Contact with residents

Currently, the article says that "contact with residents is avoided and no accommodations exist", but the source only goes to the main page of the island and doesn't support the statement. An old report in Travel Weekly (Sept 28, 1992) says that "Recently, in order to finance an emergency medical helicopter the Robinsons have begun to permit limited flights to Niihau. Access is restricted to remote beaches. The big thrill is actually setting foot on the Forbidden Isle. Niihau residents often venture to the landing beach to "talk story" with outsiders and offer their prized Niihau shell leis for sale." Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Politics

In the politics section, I want to add that Gary Hooser represents Niihau for the the 7th Senatorial District in the Hawaii State Legislature. Is this correct? Viriditas (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)