Talk: Hawaii
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
Due to the aggressive growth of activity on this talk page and for the sake of efficiency of loading this page onto your computer, discussion threads considered "inactive" for a considerable amount of time have been moved to an archive page. If you would like to revive any of those inactive dicussions, please feel free start a new discussion thread on this active talk page. Also, before making any major changes to the Hawaii article, it is recommended that editors browse through the archives to accommodate specific concerns.
| Contents |
Manual of Style for Hawaii-related articles
Is there enough of a debate over the naming conventions to have to hunker down and compile a comprehensive Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Hawaii-related articles. I think it would be helpful if we can codify some type of fixed outline of how all Hawaii-related articles should be treated in terms of naming conventions, proper use of 'okina and kahako and what not. Anyone agree? Disagree? -Jamie
- I would agree. If Japanese transliteration conventions are allowed to have their way, then Hawaiian transliteration conventions should too. Especially, the nuances of difference between the use of "Hawaii" and "Hawai‘i" should be clearly stated. Though they have the same etymology, in Hawai‘i convention they are separate words for the contexts they are used. - Gilgamesh 00:54, 29 July 2004 (UTC)
Kanaka maoli -- Huna
I'm seeing a number of edits, coming from IPs without any username, that introduce the term 'kanaka maoli' and refer to 'Huna' as the Hawaiian religion. Not to mention clumsy attempts at valorizing Hawaiian oral tradition over written sources.
Kanaka maoli means 'true human' and is an inflammatory usage. It seems to be associated mainly with Hawaiian separatist movements. The Hawaiian studies program at UH Hilo, which is much less politically polarized than the UH Manoa program, uses kanaka 'oiwi or po'e 'oiwi by preference. A political agenda (native sources over foreign) also explains the references to oral tradition.
However, I don't understand the attempts to put Huna into the Hawai'i article. I've never even met any Hawaiian activists who would regard it as anything but a New Age scam preying on gullible hippies. Someone also put Huna into the Polynesian mythology article, from whence I uprooted it. I have written a Huna article which some of you may want to visit and perhaps edit, since I think my language may be a bit intemperate.
When I edited out a few incendiary references in the recent Hawaiian history section, I did add links to as-yet-nonexistent articles on Native Hawaiian political organizations and separatist movements. Anyone who feels VERY strongly about these issues may want to write the articles, and we can conduct internicine warfare in those talk pages :)
Zora 03:53, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I applaud your efforts. Every political subject has its radical wing, and those who live in Hawai`i are well aware of the "debate" and polarizations about which you speak. While these people express a point of view that should certainly be heard, it is a minority view among residents and Hawaiians. Indeed, the fact that the majority of those who hold these views are not pure Hawaiian (many have no Hawaiian blood) should be a tip-off. The majority of part Hawaiians (few pure Hawaiians exist) as a group hold views every bit as diverse as those held by all other racial groups in Hawai`i. There are Hawaiians who think hunting of introduced game takes precedence over preserving native ecosystems; there are Hawaiians involved in every economic and political stratum of our society; there are Hawaiians who want land, and there are Hawaiians that have land. Hawaiians have become a minority in their own land, and there certainly is a sadness in that fact, but of all the Pacific peoples, none is as well off as are the Hawaiians. But power is what it is always about, and everyone should simply be aware of that fact. - Marshman 05:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
More on Hawai‘iloa
I need to edit the Hawai‘iloa article -- when I get a round tuit -- because it inaccurately elevates one of the many myths about Hawaiian origins to canonical status. I've pulled Malo, Kamakau, I‘i and Beckwith off my shelves and I'm trying to get my bearings. I think Malo (the earliest source) says it best when he says:
"It is very surprising to hear how contradictory are the accounts given by the ancients of the origin of the land here in Hawaii."
and earlier:
"The ancients left no records of the lands of their birth, of what people drove them out, who were their guides and leaders, of the canoes that transported them, what lands they visited in their wanderings, and what gods they worshipped."
If Malo doesn't know, who does?
Anyway, I toned down references to Hawai‘loa in the Ancient Hawai‘i section of the main article. Also a bunch of minor edits, mostly style.
I should add that I like what Gerald Farinas did with the oh-so-controversial Hawaiian history section, tiptoeing gently through the minefields.
Zora 20:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Bias against sovereignty position
I cannot imagine that information on the illegal overthrow of the independent nation of Hawai`i does not appear prominently on the Hawaii page. This appears to be the effect of biased editing. Response please.
--Larry
- The response is that if you feel the article is biased, add to it. Of course, you need to follow Wikipedia:NPOV, our neutrality policy. Why not discuss specific changes you wish to make on the talk page (since it seems like a controversial topic) rather than blanket accusations? Good luck and best wishes, Meelar (talk) 19:13, 2004 Aug 6 (UTC)
- Details are lacking in the Hawaiian history section on the main Hawaii page because it is meant to showcase only a general overview of Hawaiian history. The same amounts of information given for the overthrow is given to the other major historical events.
- We do mention of the overthrow, "The dynasty of King Kalakaua reigned until the overthrow of the kingdom in 1893, a coup d'état orchestrated by American plantation owners with the help of an armed militia and the United States Marine Corps." And we continue, "Prevalent in post-statehood Hawai‘i was an increase in combative attitudes by some native Hawaiians towards the federal government, seen by some as an occupying power. Regrets over the demise of the Hawaiian monarchy produced several political organizations that are collectively known as the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. The movement's most prominent success was the passage of the Apology Resolution of 1993 that made redress for American actions leading to the overthrow of the kingdom. The resolution was passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton."
- Just as teaser summaries are used to entice readers into more detailed sections of a newspaper or magazine, the Hawaii history section in the Hawaii article acts as a teaser for other Wikipedia articles that offer further specifics. Such articles can be found by clicking on the prominent links provided that funnels you to articles that get into the details of the overthrow: Bayonet Constitution, Republic of Hawaii, Hawaiian sovereignty movement, etc.
- Why, if the overthrow is a prominent event in the history of Hawaii, should it be relegated to a mere few lines on the Hawaii page? The answer to that is that there are other significant issues that have to be mentioned and dealt with on the Hawaii page. Just as the overthrow is dealt with in a few lines, we dealt with Governor Lingle's mention for example to a single line. We expect readers to link to Governor Lingle's article because we cannot devote all the details of her administration on the main Hawaii page. We dealt with the various islands of Hawaii in a short section. We expect readers to link to the separate articles for Niihau, Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Molokai, Lanai, Kahoolawe and the Big Island for details. --Gerald Farinas 19:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I did add a link to a page with much information, and perhaps I did not do it in the correct wiki way, but anyway it was quickly deleted. The overthrow is certainly a prominent event in the lives of the native Hawaiians whose country was taken away, and who now suffer some of the very poorest health statistics in the entire country. It is a very privileged position to question whether the overthrow of one's country, the prohibition of one's language and the suppression of one's culture is a "prominent event". I am not a native Hawaiian but I see how this has affected so very many of them. Lingle is but a blip in history compared to the cataclysmic and some say genocidal event of the overthrow. --Larry
Use of ‘okina in other articles
I've been watching the debate over the ‘okina and kahako for a while now. I noticed that in the main Hawaii article, spelling switches quite frequently back and forth between "Hawaii" and "Hawai‘i".
I was wondering, when I write articles for Wikipedia, which spelling should I use? I see articles all the time written both with and without the ‘okina and am confused as to what I should do myself. Also, how should I name my articles? Should I include the ‘okina in my article titles? Should I make redirect pages using the ‘okinas to non-‘okina titled articles? Or vice versa?
I am concerned right now mainly with consistency. With different articles using different spellings, shouldn't we select a spelling and stick with it? This is just my opinion, I haven't been on Wikipedia for very long (I've only been reading articles since about January and I've only been editing them since about May) so if I'm violating some kind of Wikipedia norm here, I appologize. -Aoi
- Some debate. Conservatives vs. learners. Anyway, I'd say edit according to what you are comfortable with; but don't plan on defending your preferences to the end. Try and learn from the changes that get made to your contributions. Consistency is an illusion with no meaning beyond this week. To "select" a spelling and stick with it is not possible or desirable. Should we select American English and stick with it? What about all the other contributors that feel their English is at least as important as American? To even strive for consistency assumes that your POV (or someone else's) is what we should follow. Given that Wikipedia is a free and open project, consistency should not even be a consideration (following good grammer should be, but even grammer usually offers more than one option for every rule). There is nothing consistent within a language or a culture, so why elect to support a format that is simply one point of view among many. Most readers and editors seem to accept that finding differences between American and British English constitutes a learning value provided by Wikipedia, not a battleground for consistency freaks. The same goes for this debate. If you are from Hawai`i, you will understand the arguments; if you are not, try opening your mind to the fact that everything can be viewed a little differently from another vantage point and THAT should be your take home. Contribute something, anything; do it how YOU like. Gain a lesson or simply broaden your mind by what others do with it. Try and protect your contribution as the "best" way, and you will only gain bitterness and align with the cadre of intellectually challenged - Marshman 04:54, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hawaiian dispute template dispute
See Template talk:Hawaiian. - Gilgamesh 22:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Changes to Hawaiian language section
I hadn't been watching carefully, I guess, and some errors crept into the Hawaiian language section.
It's misleading to say Congregationalist and Presbyterian missionaries, as that can be read as two separate efforts. They were ABCFM missionaries. THe ABCFM was ostensibly a non-denominational effort, an outgrowth of the Evangelical Revival. However, Congregationalists were the predominant force in the ABCFM and the Hawaiian church is basically, Congregationalist.
I think I need to write an article on the missionaries ...
It's also just WRONG to say that the missionaries used the kahak[=o] and the 'okina (excuse the shortcuts here, I'm tired). Those weren't added to Hawaiian orthography until the middle of the 20th century, I think. Which leaves a whole huge literature in Native Hawaiian, in the Hawaiian newspapers, which is printed in the old orthography and has to be UPDATED for modern readers, who often aren't native speakers. A native speaker can guess what word is meant (jst s y cn rd ths sntnc wtht vwls) but a neophyte is lost. I speak with feeling on this subject because I've just copyedited a whole #$%#$!@ book in the old orthography. (No, I don't really speak or read Hawaiian, but I was the closest Distributed Proofreaders had to an expert. My Hawaiian dictionary got a workout. DP's first Hawaiian book close to release!)
The section as it stood also suffered from a confusion of spelling and pronunciation. Understandable when Hawaiian is being revived from near-death by people who are learning from books and not immersion.
There are some sharp editors here, so if my sleep-deprived wording is confusing, I'm sure it will be fixed. Zora 22:14, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Nation of Hawai'i in links?
I just noticed that someone has added a link to Bumpy Kanahele's website to the external links section. Given that the other links are bland Chamber of Commerce style links, I don't think that a link to a tiny political group makes any sense. Make sure it's on the Hawaiian sovereignty page, yes; add to the main page, no. Otherwise, for fairness sake, we're going to have add links to every other political group in the islands!
(I just did a link pruning on the Islam article, which had accumulated a page of links to various and sundry sects, imams, etc. etc. Use of Wikipedia as a tool for proselytizing is a worry.)
I'll hold off deleting the link for a day or so, so that everyone has a chance to comment. Zora 21:07, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I suppose a link would be in order on an article about that subject, but I agree with Zora, the Hawai‘i main article is NOT the place. It amounts to advertising a cause. - Marshman 02:14, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Map
Can anyone find a map that illustrates Hawaii's position in the Pacific? Right now all that the map conveys is that Hawaii is located in a box off the coast of Mexico, right next to Alaska. Fishal 23:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
