The hint "Field hides another field" is indiscriminately applied to both static and instance fields. It arguably makes 
less sense for static fields, though. In contrast to instance fields, static fields are normally referenced by 
explicitly stating the specific class (even if by a static import statement), and therefore, while one static field 
may "shadow" another one, the other one is still accessible by stating the appropriate class. Compare also with static 
methods, where you probably wouldn't add such a warning.

The hint should either be restricted to when the field being hidden is an instance field (because this is the case 
where hiding the field means making it inaccessible), regardless of whether the hiding field is itself an instance 
field or a static field, or the hint should be turned into two hints, one for instance fields being hidden and one for 
static fields being hidden. (If you want to go the whole route, you can even make it four hints, by also discriminating 
on the kind of the hiding field, but I don't quite see the necessity for that.)

The situation where I most often come across this unwanted warning is for classes that have a predefined instance 
stored in a static final field named "DEFAULT" or "INSTANCE" or the like (either because there is an obvious default, 
or because all exact-type instances behave the same) while still being extendable (non-final). For example:

    public class FooStrategy {
        ...
        public static final FooStrategy INSTANCE = new FooStrategy();
    }

    public class SomewhatModifiedFooStrategy extends FooStrategy {
        ...
        public static final SomewhatModifiedFooStrategy INSTANCE
            // don't want a warning hint here
            = new SomewhatModifiedFooStrategy();
    }