Where did Hawaii Territory Go?
I was just matching a ship immigration list for 1924 arriving in Honolulu to someone in the Family Tree. The only place suggested was "Honolulu, Oaho, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States" with a start date in in the 1800s. Honolulu used to show as a city for either Hawaii, United States or Hawaii Territory since Hawaii wasn't a state until 1959. Has someone scrambled up the Places database for Hawaii?
Answers
-
Also - Hawai`i isn't even listed as "not yet available" on the 1950 census project -- and the provided map doesn't show Hawai`i as an option. I get that not all states and territories are indexed and available yet for 1950, but it looks as if Hawai`i was overlooked completely, even though it is in previous censuses and as a Territory, was definitely included in the 1950 census. What's up??
0 -
@WDan5, yes, in answer to your question about the Places database for Hawaii, it does appear that the information for Hawaii is wrong; as it shows Hawaii as being a state, "1898 - Today."
The Places database can be found at:
When you add the "Hawaii" to the Search Places box, you will see the incorrect information. Clicking on the first instance of Hawaii provides additional information and, at the far right, the option to "Improve This Place."
We encourage you to use this option to provide feedback and suggestions for improving the location and related information.
For additional information on correcting or editing a place's information, you may find the following article helpful.
0 -
This is not an error, just a change. See: https://www.familysearch.org/en/help/helpcenter/article/when-did-familysearch-combine-us-states-and-their-historic-territories-in-familysearch-places
0 -
'fraid you're wrong there. It's much, much, much worse than a "change" or an "error".
It is deliberate, organisationally-sanctioned and decided vandalism. They have taken correct, meaningful, accurate, useful information and chosen to distort it. Look at some quotes from what you link to:
"The distinction was accurate, but some users struggled to understand which place to select when documenting an ancestor's life." Aka some of our users are too lazy and/or too stupid to actually learn about the basic history of an area (a prerequisite for proper genealogical research) so we're going to degrade everyone's experience to pander to those users.
"The purpose of the change is to make it easier to correctly select a place for your ancestor or family member's life event." A outright lie there. It does NOT make it easier to "correctly" find the place. It makes it impossible to do so.
They claim to base the change on "three principles".
"Meaningful. Does the name represent what most users know and understand?
"Useful. Will most users recognize the name and be able to distinguish it from other options?
"Accurate. Does the name represent any important historical changes that occurred?"
So what is the most important of those three? Accuracy. Does saying Utah was a state from 1848 (a lie) "represent any important historical changes that occurred"? No. It misses out one of the most important events in the whole history of the area: statehood.
Now in some cases state and territory are coterminus. Alaska and Hawaii are examples of that. In others they certainly are not. Missouri is an example of that. The page says Missouri was a state from 1812 (another lie). Here's the catch: Missouri Territory was VASTLY larger than Missouri is today.
With this vandalism of the places database Familysearch are claiming that Missouri the state is the same as Missouri the territory. They are thus claiming that Missouri the state encompasses the whole of Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, most of Kansas, Wyoming and Montana with parts of Colorado, Minnesota and New Mexico.
Is that "Meaningful"? No.
Is that "Useful"? No.
Is that "Accurate"? No.
So why was it done? Pandering to users who cannot be bothered to do basic historical research.
"We are most interested in small differences between place names when the differences are integral to the place's identity and researchers need them to find and share local records. On the other hand, we try to filter out large or trivial administrative differences that would only make the data more difficult or cumbersome to use."
So apparently Missouri Territory's enormous change of size is not "integral to the place's identity". Really? Apparently telling people that events taking place in the Black Hills of Dakota in 1817 (assuming anyone around there actually knew how to write at that point) were in the state of Missouri is going to be helpful and allow researchers to "find and share local records". Really?
Why then are there now thousands of entries for individual buildings in the places database? How does that not make the data "more cumbersome and difficult to use"? Why then do entirely fictional jurisdictions such as "British Colonial America" appear? How does that help researchers "find and share local records"? How is that "meaningful", "useful" or "accurate"?
The individuals who decided on this change are not fit to have any responsibility for the places database. They have produced a mealy-mouthed "justification" for this vandalism which does not justify it at all. Their priorities are utterly wrong and as a result we all suffer from their handiwork.
5 -
I do hope you are not tacitly agreeing with this action, Gordon. (Otherwise, I don't want to shoot the messenger!) If that is the reasoning behind the change it is totally flawed, as David explains.
Users requests are being met for all kinds of additional standard locations, places even being added within a single town(ship) - especially cemeteries - so how can that be justified when this type of action is being taken?
Now, if the "United Kingdom" suffix were to be removed as the standard for its constituent countries (from 1801) I'd be quite happy, as - say - England was, and is, the same place before and after 1801. But changing the facts, primarily to stop inexperienced users getting confused, is an awful action that needs to be reversed immediately.
This might not be "an error", but it is a big mistake.
3 -
Nope. Just passing along the Help Center article. I'll leave the debating to others.
I will take the opportunity to point out that no matter what one thinks of the change, it was nice that they did post their reasoning for the change. That doesn't happen too often. @davidnewton2, you might want to post your concerns under the Places group. The right people are more likely to see it there.
I'll also take the chance to point out again, that as far as entering correct data in Family Tree, this change has minimal effect because we can still use Territory in the Territory name without any difficulty at all. Just type it in, put in a reason statement as to why it is needed, and link the place name to the standard that now covers both the territory and the state. That's what I'll be doing.
1 -
I have now posted an item at https://community.familysearch.org/en/discussion/123608/please-reverse-the-recent-action-that-means-there-is-no-separation-of-u-s-states-and-territories/p1?new=1, in line with Gordon's suggestion that the "Places" group is the best section within Community in which to highlight this issue.
0
