Talk:Hawaii/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Due to the aggressive growth of activity on the talk page for the Wikipedia article on Hawaii and for the sake of efficiency of loading the page onto your computer, discussion threads considered "inactive" for a considerable amount of time have been moved to this archive page. If you would like to revive any of these inactive dicussions, please feel free start a new discussion thread on the 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.

Go to Active Talk Page for Hawaii

Initial text

I live in Hawaii. Happy to work on it. Marshman 17:48 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Map

The "state locator" map really does not tell us anything useful about the location of the state, since it is squirrelled off in a little box. Would it be helpful to prepare a non-standard state locator map, with Hawaii in its actual location relative to the mainland? - Montréalais 06:33, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

So I went ahead and did it. - Montréalais 05:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I like that better! Thanks! - Marshman 17:35, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Valuable map, but IMO one locating it relative to at least Polynesia and preferrably to the whole N Pacific rim would be nearly as, and more, important, respectively. I doubt any detail on the US Pacific coast matters, as long as borders are shown, as currently. One such map may suffice, but if not, WP is not paper, and IMO we can afford the bandwidth for both "HI as a neighbor of the 48" and "HI's own nbrhood, if that's what it takes. --Jerzy 20:52, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

Settler Revolution

I have put in the second paragraph a brief mention of how Hawaii was established as a State. This was in the history section but i thought it was important to put it at the front. We should not whitewash history -- the US forcibly annexed Hawaii, and that should be told.

Sadly or fortunately, history whitewashes itself; while there's a lot to your concern, it's a very, very small part of what Hawai'i is about in 2004. I'll check to see if there's anything new in your edit, after reverting to the previous version, but your resentment is not the top story, and 'graph 2 is not the place for it. Thanks for your contribution; our collaborative editing process should be able to figure out how to use it. --Jerzy 05:24, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

I agree with Jerzy and I live in Hawai'i and work on Hawaiian issues. But putting the history/politics of the annexation at the top of the page has nothing to do with whitewashing anything - it is just being POV, implying this is some kind of over-riding issue in Hawai'i. It is not. Important, serious, yes, but not at all appropriate in the "introduction" to the state -- Marshman 19:31, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Marquesan Settlement

Hawaii now has

The Hawaiian islands were first populated by Polynesians some 2500 years ago.

It used to have (until last month) what History of Hawaii does,

The islands were first settled by Polynesians, probably from the Marquesas, sometime between 200 and 600 AD.

(Is this a reflection of the new DNA-analysis research? If so, IMO noting the refinement and the old number would be valuable.)

Unless someone acknowledges one as their typo or clerical error, IMO we need at least one supporting reference in both of the two talk pages, and of course at least one edit to harmonize or admit uncertainty. --Jerzy 20:38, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

The dates are based on archeological reasearch and dating of settlement sites. 2500 ybp is probably pushing things back a bit and not necessarily woidely accepted. Perhaps 2000 is a better number. I'll get some references to back up, or change to best accepted value. - Marshman 06:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hawaii history

Marshman and folks, I've added the controversial part of Hawaii's history up front in graf two, and it is unusual. However, given the rest of the top of the page, which talks about US statehood, state flag, US census, etc., it is not unreasonable to at least highlight the anomalous way it became part of the United States. Congress apologized for the illegal overthrow of the government, so this is not a fringe separatist statement. Fuzheado 01:23, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Read History of Hawaii (Facts from elsewhere are noted as they appear.):

• The apology was for
  • The unauthorized actions of two agents of US government, both of whom were punished. (One at least lost his post living at gov't expense in an tropical island paradise, and presumably had the rest of his career blighted by the fact; the other had his career abruptly terminated.) And for
  • The actions of private citizens living abroad. Embarassing, yes, but what is the meaning of apologizing about it? "Mr. Heado, my third cousin shouldn't have busted your nose, and stomped you when you hit the ground, breaking a third of your ribs and bruising internal organs! Please accept my sincerest apology."
  • (Not in that article, but in WP:) "What's that kind of apology mean?" Glad you asked: There is roughly one US Senator for every 3 million people in the US. There is one US Senator from HI for every 600,000 HIans. When a bunch of HIans are nurturing an ancient resentment, as a rule of thumb, it's 20 times more effective, in terms of influence in the Senate, to kiss their a_es until they're soda-cracker white, than to expend the same effort on the same number of Californians. Especially when it doesn't cost anything.
• There was already an apology at the time, by the commission and by the Pres., for that. Cleveland said the damage should be repaired. Well, all the king's horses can't repair things like that, and it's naive to assume that McKinley's imperialistic outlook necessarily made any difference. I'd prefer if Cleveland had gotten a chance to try, but it could easily have had to be a futile exercise of going thru the motions. (Unless you think US should have invaded to remove Dole?)
• No one has apologized for US govt taking control of HI 5 years later. (Rest of this graph not from article.) It may already have been, by the time the US started taking action on HI, a moral necessity for the US to take responsibility, by whatever means were politically feasible, for the fate of HI in a very dangerous world. (A world, e.g., in which the cuddly-helmeted German Empire was the colonial power in Micronesia. Of course the US could have let the Kaiser provide HI another monarch, instead of forcing a territorial legislature and delegates in the US House of Reps on them.) Now, i absolutely agree with what i expect you think but haven't bothered mentioning, that there'd be lots of satisfaction and a certain amount of justice in expropriating from the Dole family and their pineapple-company stockholders, but there was no way for that to take place, so it didn't.
• (This graph not from article.) You speak of the "anomalous way it became part of the United States." I don't know if you are ignorant, or just intellectually dishonest for the sake of your pet resentment. I haven't looked at all at the article Filibuster (settler), but if it's a decent article, you'll see that HI is more a typical history than it is an exception. Read about the Republic of Texas, the success story of a filibuster revolution fought to prevent the emancipation of slaves. (Again, Americans, not US government.) I can't be sure whether it's the private citizens or gov't action that you resent, but in most other states you'll find plenty of political sins, and a lot more sins of genocide than in HI, committed by private citizens and gov't officials. Not to mention treatment of countries to the south, even tho they, like HI & TX, had internationally recognized gov'ts. What you propose for HI logically requires every US state article have a second 'graph, before its history, of breast-beating. And something else: i'm looking forward to repeating this process (of laying the counterpoint that will have to go into your 'graph to achieve NPoV) for the Norman Conquest, the genocide against the Neanderthals, the consolidation of China, the expansion and contraction of the Ottoman Empire, the sack of Carthage....what fun!

--Jerzy 03:51, 2004 Feb 14 (UTC)

I agree with Jerzy and object to what seems to be a pet peave of Fuzheado: Why would you (Fuzheado) have such an interest in putting this one aspect of history — hardly unique in the world — as some kind of badge for the Hawai'i State site to wear? It is part of our history, and it is not being denied; but it is not a lesson, just a reality. Every State in the Union, every province in Canada, every state in Mexico, every state in every country of Central and South America, has a similar story to be told. To start each article with that story is childish. I do not see that kind of effort being made on the Hong Kong page where the history is in the history section. If the behaviour of the Chinese, Brits, and Hong Kong chinese in the politics of that colony is so exemplary, then put THAT lesson right up there in the Hong Kong introduction. Blow your own horn. Here, you are just pushing a POV that you really know little about. - Marshman 06:31, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

In my work today on the history section, my concern was to fix the three new links, which by virtue of redirects pointed to only one other page. An important element of my solution was adding subsections to the history section, so that the reader has a clear pointer to History of Hawai'i, where the dynasties are documented in detail.

As to the Sandwich Islands link, it is hard to imagine that topic ever deserving a page separate from the three names (currently two pages) linked by the new dab Hawai'i. If i simply lack imagination, there's no harm and some benefit in waiting until someone proves me wrong by turning that redir into an article.

I agree, there need not be such a link. I think it was just bolded, last time I looked? Anyway, no explain is needed for dropping links that really do not go anywhere. When they actual;ly do go somewhere, they can be reinstated. I frequently edit out mopst red links in arrticles that I copy edit. - Marshman 05:09, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I made an entry here, tho, mainly not to make minor changes, that the summary allowed to little space to comment on, without making comment that others might see as needed. I reverted some 'okinas in "Hawai'i'", according to the following, which i find consistent with previous discussion that i can't at the moment locate:

1. Hawaii is the name of the state, and pending demonstration to the contrary should IMO be assumed to have been the official name applied by the US government ever since it took charge.
2. Hawai'i is the Hawaiian name of the islands, and was thus the name applied by its rulers during independence. It does not interfere with understanding, and has found advocates among monolingual English speakers (who are so numerous compared to HIan speakers that the ignorance typical among them does not permit ignoring them), so even tho it's not typical English, Hawai'i is a pretty good name for the Kingdom, and the islands of that and earlier periods.
3. The islands as a place or region, not as a unit of government, could arguably fit under either spelling. I ensured the article had "Hawaii" rather than "Hawai'i" in the few cases where i thought geography was the subject, reasoning that even tho each has its justification, "Hawai'i" is far from standard English still, and the present looms much larger in people's minds than the period when "Hawai'i" case was at its strongest.

This is obviously a tough one. While I agree, Hawaii/Hawai'i in the name of any private entity is to be rendered however that entity really does it, I do not agree that Hawai'i is the old name and Hawaii is the modern name as you seem to be suggesting. Hawai'i is the way it is spelled in Hawai'i, including by the State government. It is interesting to note in this regard that USGS maps, since the mid-1990's, use local spellings for place names, including O'ahu; but not yet Hawai'i for the state. USGS web sites are starting to use Hawai'i for the place. I think it is clear from here (mainland ignorance aside) that "Hawai'i" is becoming the "English" spelling of both the place and the state. The fact that Hawai'i is a U.S. state and not a nation state seems beside the point (the respect of using the correct name seems less problematical to Wikipedians for nation states - check out Kiribati which is Gilberts in "English"). If Detroit officially decided it wanted to be called "Motown" in all official and non-official dealings with the rest of the U.S., it might take an act of Congress for the feds to accomplish the changeover, but the rest of us should probably go with the language as used by the people who live there and make the decisions and not the "official" federal government position (Wikipedia is fortunately independent of the U.S. government). To do otherwise is really simply to be conservative in the semse of "being behind the times". Your Point #3 seems particularly in error. Hawai'i is certainly the geographic place (not Hawaii), if not the official U.S. government spelling. My own position is to use Hawai'i simply 1) for consistency, 2) respect of the people of that place, and 3) as advancing cultural education. There may be cases where "Hawaii" is more appropriate (was it Republic of Hawaii or Republic of Hawai'i?) and these can be decided as persons with the historical knowledge weigh in. - Marshman 05:46, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My newspapers (Honolulu Star Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser) are English language papers (100%)—they use Hawai‘i. This is not a Hawaiian language vs English issue. Hawai‘i is the official spelling of the State according to state law. Also followed by the Counties. The USGS is converting its maps over to use Hawaiian spellings of place names, and federal websites are presently a mix of both spellings. Clearly the trend within the US is to use "Hawai‘i" and not "Hawaii". You can be ignorant of this issue and change things back to Hawaii for all kinds of reasons. We have kept the article name Hawaii to help out the search engines, but quite frankly I'm thinking now it is probably time to change that to Hawai'i, which would work just fine. In one, or two, or ten years, "Hawaii" will be just plain wrong. I suppose the Wikipedia trolls will, by then, just move on to other hassles - Marshman 17:02, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Who are you calling a "Wikipedia troll" here? "Hawaii" will be just plain wrong the moment the name is officially changed, which as of yet it hasn't been. The informal use of Hawai‘i notwithstanding, the constitution still speaks of the "State of Hawaii", and I don't see an ‘okina on the state seal either. Gzornenplatz 17:43, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Not you, You've not been a "problem" long enough to earn that vaulted status. 8^) Like I've said, you will find both spellings in all sorts of places. There are lots of reasons for that. Given that fact, it is difficult to declare either way as the "wrong" way. I'm trying to make the point that Wikipedia is not a place where we wait for this or that government agency to declare something "official"; we look at the facts and try to be progressive and act accordingly. Does the US constitution include British spellings for words? If not, does that make "colour" and "groyne" wrong? The idea that there is one way to say or spell something that is "Wikipedia correct" is an argument that both has no merit and is dragged out by persons who really know little about a subject they are involved with. For example, there is no "rule" that spelling on a page must match the article spelling. Hawai‘i is accepted by the "authorities" I listed above (and many more). The trend in English is to utilize local spellings of place names (check out Tabuaeran—in English, Fanning Island—which is not an "ancient" Gilbertese (now Kiribati) word for the place; the E Kiribati knew nothing of the place before the 20th Century). I am saying Hawai‘i is the name of that place tourists, mainlanders, and others that have never really been there think of as "Hawaii". Why should not Wikipedia be a place of learning instead of a place that steadfastly promotes old ideas? Using Hawai‘i is not some radical idea that departs from the norm. It is the norm (well almost) or certainly will become the norm at some point in the not too distant future. - Marshman 20:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, we try to be neutral, not progressive - we don't predict what may be in 10 years, we reflect the facts as they are at present and make changes as they occur in the real world. In this case, this would have to be an official act of changing the name of the state, just as, for example, "Porto Rico" was renamed "Puerto Rico" exactly on May 17, 1932. Even if "Puerto Rico" was used informally before, it was not the official name until that date, and the same goes for "Hawai‘i". Of course, regardless of the legal status, it would also be acceptable for us to use Hawai‘i if most English speakers would use it, but that is not (yet) the case. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with the U.S. constitution, but "colour" is OK here because this is the English Wikipedia, not a U.S. Wikipedia, so both British and American English are acceptable. And if there's no explicit rule that article spelling should match the title, then that's because it's self-evident. The only exception to this rule is if the proper spelling involves special characters that cannot be used in the title for technical reasons. That's true for the ‘okina, but it could still be approximated by an apostrophe. If we were to use Hawai‘i consistently within the article, we should move the article itself to Hawai'i (on my screen the two characters look exactly the same anyway at the standard font size). Gzornenplatz 21:27, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

On that latter point, I would agree and Hawai'i does work as an article name. I just do not see a requirement that the article name and the subsequent usage of the word match, as long as there is an explanation up front. I'm unsure what the neutral position is here. Clearly, it is one requiring mention of both forms. The problem, as I see it, is that although Hawaii is the most common (if numbers are being counted) form used by English speakers, commoness should not be a criterion for place names (indeed, is not, as many examples show). British and English are accomodated despite the fact that only American is correct if number of speakers is the basis for a determination. Those Wikipedians living in or familiar with Hawai‘i, will continue to see Hawaii as just plain incorrect, although there are many instances where "Hawaii" is, even as a place name, just as correct as Hawai‘i. If Jerzy is going to raise this to a POV issue, then the only neutral position seems to be this: "Hawaii (Hawai‘i) - Marshman 21:50, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

‘Okina

I have changed all the simple apostrophies in the article to ‘okina, formatted as ‘. It is the correct formatting of the letter adhering to the Hawaiian language standard, and is thus NPOV. - Gilgamesh 21:14, 23 June 2004 (UTC)

History Section Label

I labelled the last history subsection " U. S. possession " and then "Incorporation into U. S." but i would rejoice to see someone replace it with a better choice, or perhaps subdivide more finely.
--Jerzy(t) 02:21, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)

About that flag

(1) Hawaii entry says "The state flag combines elements of the Union Jack, French tricolor, and United States flag in recognition of the great powers in the Pacific at the time of the consolidation of the Hawaiian monarchy."

(2) Flag of Hawaii entry says "Unlike the U.S. flag, the stripes on the Hawaiian flag are red, white and blue, and there are eight stripes for the eight major inhabitable islands of Hawaii: Hawaii, Maui, Oahu, Kauai, Molokai, Lanai, Niihau, and Kahoolawe".

(3) History of Hawaii entry says "Hawaii ........ adopted a flag similar to its present flag, with the Union Jack in the canton (top quarter next to the flagpole) and eight horizontal stripes (alternating white, red and blue from the top), representing the eight islands of Hawaii, which it has since retained"

What to do?. Moriori 03:03, Feb 16, 2004 (UTC)

I do not see that much conflict, really. The flag does (very strongly) combine the elements as in (1). (2) therefore may also be correct (unlike the US in color in honor of the french flag), eight stripe for each of the major islands. (3) is already the same as (2). I see no conflicts - Marshman 00:24, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I fear we are perpetuating or even embellishing urban legend here. I contacted the state library of Hawaii and was directed to two official state sites. Neither mentioned French or US influence on the design of the flag. "Hawaii's state flag resembles the Union Jack of Great Britain because many of King Kamehameha's advisors were British and the islands were once placed under England's protection. The flag consists of eight horizontal stripes, representing the eight major islands, and the British Union Jack. It has served as the flag of the kingdom, republic, territory, and the state of Hawaii". That's from http://www.state.hi.us/about/symbolsandmonuments.htm. Moriori 01:41, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Who knows. I certainly would NOT rely on a State website as an authoratative source of information on this subject. They (websites) are put together by the newest hires, who may or may not be knowledgeable about anything. The library must have wanted to get rid of you to refer to such a source as meaningful. Surely they have better resoiurces in the stacks. The flag "includes the Union Jack because...", it does not "resemble" the Union Jack in any meaningful way (first dumb statement ~ not yours ;^). It also very much "resembles" the U.S. flag (how many other flags have that design of a quarter field in the upper left and stripes elsewhere?), and has the three colors in the stripes for some reason. I see no problem with any of the descriptions on Wikipedia in the present absence of any authoratiative source. Hardly an "urban legend" by any definition. The only thing I might question is the part about the colors. Were the French really even special to the Hawaiian Kingdom when the flag was designed? They certainly were in the South Pacific. Would the Hawaiians have considered them a power to appease? Why not the Russians or the Germans? Obviously, the article "embellishments" as you call them need to be attributed; beyond that where do you think there exists a problem? - Marshman 04:39, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The very real and patently obvious problem exists that no-one has been able to provide EVIDENCE that the flag design recognises France or US influences. I would rely on an official state recommended website over NO evidence any day . I would hope wikipedia would do the same. If you cannot provide evidence for the claims that the flag incorporates elements of the "French tricolor, and United States flag" then you wouldn't object to me amending the entry. Would you?. Moriori 06:20, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Not at all. The need to document is always important, and restoration of text as appropriate could follow upon documentation. I did not make up any of those stories about "influences" and do not know if someone else did or there is documentation available but just not stated here. I have read the one about British influence many places. I think the one about the US flag is fairly obvious by appearance (but I presently have no source), and the French influence on colors much less so - Marshman 17:52, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Non-continental?

What continent is Alaska in? In what way is it "non-continental"? I am perhaps unfamilar with common US-usage but it would be better were Alaska and Hawaii described as non-contiguous. Paul Beardsell 22:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you are reading, but of course, both states are what U.S.ers call non-contiguous. Non-continental (made up term?) could refer to Hawaii, but certainly not Alaska - Marshman 00:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Famous Island People list: Guidelines?

Aloha all,

I was looking at the list of Famous People and was doing some research on Google so I could at least write stubs for each of the people on the list. I'm finding a couple of things: (1) that there's a dearth of information on some of the people listed (Kawaipuna Prejean, for instance; I'm having trouble finding his exact dates), and (2) for a few, it's not really clear to me that they're really "from Hawaii" (looking up Claus Spreckels, for instance, it's clear that he made his fortune from Hawaii sugar, but it's not clear to me that he ever intended to reside in Hawaii permanently; he seems to be better known in California than here).

So I was wondering whether there was any consensus as to what should qualify someone to be listed on the Famous People from Hawaii list. I'm thinking that, at minimum, they should have resided in Hawaii on at least a semi-permanent basis, if they weren't born or raised here. Also, how well-known should they be to be included? I'd never heard of Jean Erdman, Kawaipuna Prejean, George Lathrop, or Merlin Tuttle before Wikipedia, let alone know that they were from (or lived in) Hawaii.

Any thoughts? Mahalo, KeithH 07:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying Keith. I've not heard of some of the people either, and it seems that the first requesite of entry should be life-long (or at least adult life) residency in Hawai'i. To me the only point of such a list (beyond some chest beating) is to say "look how Hawaii influenced the lives of these people that (may) have influenced you". Having said that, it does become difficult to decise who stays and who goes. Of the list you are having trouble with, maybe Claus is better off the list. The other 4 — I've heard of 2: Prejean and Tuttle. Do not kow who Prejean is and (although I am a biologist in Hawaii) did not know Tuttle was "famous" - Marshman 17:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Tuttle could be dropped too, as he lived in the islands only until he was about 5. (His specialty was bats.) I'm not sure if I'd require "life-long" residency in Hawaii, though. I recognize that a lot of folks had to leave the Islands to become famous (Benny Agbayani, for instance, or Tia Carrere). That's why I qualified my statement with "...if they weren't born or raised here." On the other hand, a lot of folks became well known here after coming here from somewhere else. So as far as residency goes, it should be for a substantial part of one's childhood, adolescence, or adult life, long enough to develop a tie. But I guess in the end, the best test would be whether Kimo Q. Islander would claim that person as being theirs, and whether James Q. Mainlander would even be interested. What do you think? KeithH 02:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I was thinking more of people NOT born here. Yes, someone that was born in Hawaii and grew up here, even though they moved away and became famous - hey, they're from Hawaii! People that moved here as a child and stayed long enough to become famous here - they're from Hawaii! A person born elsewhere, that really spent little of their adult life here, well they would probably be claimed by their native place anyway - off the list! Born elsewhere (like me), lived most all of my adult life in Hawaii, my native state Colorado has no real reason to claim me as a product of it's anything (left at 6 mos age). I'm most comfortable being a famous (infamous) or not famous Hawaiian. - Marshman 03:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The list seems to be getting really long. I think we should list only the most notable Hawaii residents and link to a longer list which may include those less major celebrities like Jean Erdman, Jasmine Trias and what not. --Gerald Farinas 23:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. I think Hawaii is justifiably proud of Jasmine, but there might be a test of time criterion for the "front page" list - Marshman 00:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Important Urbanized Areas

I always hate to delete material that someone has added in good faith, but the section titled "Important Urbanized Areas" recently added was redundant in that all of the discussion and list are given better elsewhere in the article (town listings are given under each county). Improving these existing parts of the text would be preferred, unless the new approach was somehow superior. It was not. Indeed, it listed Kailua on Oahu as having a population >100,000 (it is closer to 35,000) and did not list many larger towns on Oahu in the greater >10,000 column, while including many small towns that are pretty insignificant by comparison. The tabel added was:

Population > 100,000 Honolulu Kailua (Oahu)

Population > 10,000 Hilo Kahului Pukalani Kihei Kailua (big island) Lahaina Kapaa Pupukea Kalaheo Lihue Laie

Sorry. Not trying to be overbearing here. Just saw lots of work to try and fix something that is already included in the articles on Hawai'i - Marshman 17:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Extensive revision of Hawaiian history section

The Hawaiian history section struck me as too short and rather biased towards Hawaiian sovereignty issues. I spent some time this morning redoing it. I think it's still less-than-neutral on some issues and may go back to it to tone it down. If anyone else can do so in a graceful way, it would be appreciated.

I wrote it in a white heat without checking any references. Exact dates of missionary arrival, French annexation, Lord Paulet's visit, etc. to be inserted later. Possibly also something re the Great Mahele and a list of Hawaiian monarchs.

-- Zora

Your additions look good. But do not miss the link to History of Hawaii. The subsection here should just reflect the basic course of history. There aree several "deeper" articles for the details. - Marshman 16:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Marshman here. Perhaps some of the additions here can be off-loaded to History of Hawaii...right now the History subsection is longer than the "main article" itself, or so it seems.  :) - KeithH 00:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've looked at it briefly. What needs to be done is to move it whole hog to the various sub articles, but leave behind just a summary—more than an outline, but not much more that that. Details should go in the History of Hawaii article or appropriate sub-articles under History of Hawaii - Marshman 00:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK guys. It hurts less when I perform major surgery on myself, so I did. The history section on the main Hawaii page is now amputated. I'll put the missing limbs in the various Hawaiian history articles. Sigh. Zora 04:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And looks like a good job. Now we can smooth out the History section here (which is a proper length), and details can be expanded in the other articles. Thanks Zora - Marshman 16:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Doing Well"

I cut out this:

It is often said of the American missionaries that "they came to do good and they stayed to do well". While this may not be completely true of the original missionaries, it is certainly true of their children.

It doesn't impress me as being more than glib; the same is said of Quakers in America (even tho there were a lot of rich British Quakers). --Jerzy(t) 03:25, 2004 Jun 3 (UTC)

Agitated

Re restoration of word "agitated":
I don't claim to know what kind of political activity took place, but the opinion (however humbly expressed) that "agitated" implies "violent protest" is not only an opinion (PoV) but also utter nonsense, while the accepted meaning is a fact. To lobby is to visit a politician and say "you should adopt this policy because it would have good results" or "... because your doing so would win you votes, bribes, influence, or other selfish benefits." To agitate, in the two most relevant senses of my Third International, means

• "to stir up public discussion of [...]"
• "to attempt to arouse public feeling [e.g.] <agitated for better schools>"

which is not inherantly violent, and far from being necessarily an incitement to violence, and quite different from lobbying.

"Agitated" may not capture everything worth saying about this political activity, but that bad understanding of the word "agitated" is untenable as a reason for changing it.
--Jerzy(t) 13:52, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)

Keith. I think Jerzy is right. "Agitated" (in my understanding) means or implies "to lobby or stir things up in a public way", NOT a violent way - Marshman 16:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, I accept those arguments. It's probably just the picture I have in my mind of the word "agitate" (to be honest, the first impression I have of "agitate" is the water in my washing machine...LOL). I'm pretty sure that the activity was not that much different from the political process today...both meeting with politicians and gathering public support. I'm willing to let "agitated" stand, but I still feel that there's a better word out there. I'd offer, "They launched a grass-roots effort..." but perhaps that's too idiomatic... Anyone got a copy of Roget's sitting around? KeithH 05:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

No doubt there is another word, perhaps several; but that does not mean there are "better" words. I think it is just the context you are used to vs. what others may be used to. Thus, this term conjurs up a different image for you. But anyone actively promoting an idea through a political process is agitating for that idea. Really no violence implied. - Marshman 17:18, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why I Added the Business Subsection

Many businesses got their start in Hawaii or had a longtime presence here (e.g., the Long's drugstore chain). It certainly wasn't my intention to promote Hawaiian Sun but there was no entry for that company so when I started the business subsection I mentioned Hawaiian Sun, and I intended to list other major businesses, such as C. Brewer (which, as far as I know, has no Wikipedia page). I hope this clears things up. BKH2007, Mon. July 12, 2004

It was not I who deleted your entry. I saw it, and thought it was close to the "line", mainly because it did seem to be heading toward a Hawaiian Sun promotional article; but I left it alone because the intent was not entirely clear. However, for now, I would say use the link I put in there to develop such articles on businesses in Hawaii. You are right, there is a need to expand on the Big Five discussion and articles, but companies like Longs are not unique to Hawaii and did not start in Hawaii (Longs started in California, I believe). Others, like Hawaiian Sun, may have started here, but that list would be endless. However, "list endlessness" is no reason to avoid doing articles on these subjects. I think the text, at that level, just needs to be somewhere other than on the Hawaii page; and it is in that respect that I agreed with User:Zora. - Marshman 19:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for Adding the Category: Hawaii Business

Note: I was BKH2007 but I lost my password so I signed in as BKHal2007.

--BKHal2007 19:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)BKHal2007

Spelling and pronouncing Hawaiian words

Just an afterthought to the whole Hawaii/Hawai'i thing. I find it utterly charming the way most local folks pronounce Hawaiian place and street names correctly, even if they're only familiar with kahako and 'okina-less spellings. They say Kai-mu-KII, with the emphasis on the long vowel at the end, instead of Kai-MU-ki.

You chose a bad example there. That is one of those almost mangled place names: it is Ka-imu-Kī – the oven (of) stone, but mispronounced by just about everyone, except emphasis is still on last syllable. - Marshman 23:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They put 'okinas in Kapi'olani and Ke'eaumoku. I usually don't notice it unless I'm dealing with a malihini -- someone stumbling over Kalanianaole makes me realize how it trips off the tongue for others.

I've always heard locals SAY Hawai'i. With the glottal stop.

Of course a few words are commonly mangled. Muumuu for one. People will often pronounce that as if it had two kahakos, instead of two 'okinas. (Mu'umu'u.)

And then there's that pesky 'okole word. Since I found out that it really means "asshole" in Hawaiian I can't use it for "bottom" any longer. Loss of a useful pidgin word, but I don't want to offend real Hawaiian speakers. Zora 23:17, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes if you call someone an 'okole, it could well mean that or "butthole" or similar, but it is still a perfectly good word for the buttocks or the bottom of some things: "Ehh Brah, I broke my 'okole fo get fo you." - Marshman 23:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)