This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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.

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)

Why is this article using the Hawaiian language name? Marshman pointed me to talk, but the earlier discussion does not explain this. On the contrary, Marshman himself said: "The fact is, that place names ARE in English up to a point for countries, states, large cities; but after that, local names prevail. That seems like the only reasonable and intelligent treatment for English Wikipedia. I'm not interested in having Hawai'i treated any differently." Is Hawaii not a state then? Gzornenplatz 16:52, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Hawai‘ is a very unique state, but you must have missed most of the discussion (easy to do, the page is getting rather long) - actually, looking up above, I see you did read it all ! - Marshman 20:18, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have given this some thought, and I have a compromise. The truth of the matter, both "Hawaii" and "Hawai‘i" are official names of the political entity, since one is supposedly English and the other is supposedly Hawaiian. As a political name in English it is Hawaii. In every other case, unless specifically otherwise, it is Hawai‘i. Even English-language Honolulu newspapers prefer the ‘okina in the spelling at all times. It is also a common pronunciation used even in English for the entire region, homestead, way of life, etc. in general. As such, it is not anachronistic nor is it Hawaiian-only. As a political entity in English only, it is Hawaii. It is also U.S.S. Hawaii and Hawaii Five-O, and other similar situations where the spelling is a brand. But in all other cases, Hawai‘i is preferred, even while speaking English. This has been my experience in all my days spent in Hawai‘i, having been born there and visited approximately one hundred times (and not for tourism, mind you). And to be truthful, I don't have a whole lot of respect for outsiders trying to enforce a haole Washington, D.C. political standard on the name in all English language situations. - Gilgamesh 22:28, 15 July 2004 (UTC)

You have stated the situation correctly, and I do see you have compromised from your previously stated position. Thank you. I would point out, that there is the potential problem that many, many place names in Hawai‘i have the ‘okina in them (O‘ahu the next, after Hawai‘i, in terms of mainland vs "local" practice). In all cases of place names, I think the same arguments (from both sides) apply. These are NOT just Hawaiian words, which should properly be put (in Wikipedia certainly) in italics with their correct spelling. But at some point, Jerzy's argument has to come down to this: it is the rule in Wikipedia to use only English words (no matter how old or anachronistic) throughout (British vs American variants excepted). If Hawai‘i is not the correct place name, then no local name is really correct. Languages change; word usage changes. To sudenly come out of somewhere east of the Rockies and say: "You Hawaiians do not know proper English," is an insulting position to my mind. - Marshman 22:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In terms of this language debate on Wikipedia of a so-called American-British English-only rule, Hawai‘i State Supreme Court Chief Justice William S. Richardson said it best, "The western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawai'i." Just something to think about. -- Gerald Farinas 00:26, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now there are anonymous users picking through all the Hawaii State Judiciary and related articles, removing all uses of 'okina and kahako when the Hawaii State Judiciary itself uses the 'okina in its official name and all its documents. [1] -- Gerald Farinas 01:16, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Now THAT was an example of a Troll; or maybe a "WikiShark" would be more appropriate! This project attracts ALL kinds, some, unfortunately, just looking for trouble. Probably exactly how they go through life. - Marshman 02:42, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Instead of constantly changing the introductory paragraph endlessly, maybe it might be a good idea to propose introductory paragraphs here in the talk page so it could be discussed and explicated? Doing so might make it easier to strike a compromise and finally hammer out something we can all agree with. That's just my little suggestion if it means anything. Jerry

I also think someone else was onto something when he or she began the introductory paragraph, "Hawaii, also formally spelled by Hawaiian-language classicists as Hawai‘i with an ‘okina." Maybe we can refine that version and the one we have now by Marshman into something everyone can agree with? Jerry

I'm always for discussion on the talk page. Please make a suggestion. I put mine in the article with the note that others should inspect it and tweak toward "NPOV". I disagree with the one about "classicists" which is why I changed it—"formally" is reversed in that sentence (s/b "was formerly Hawaii, is now widely rendered as Hawai‘i"; just depends on what your reference time period is ) Maybe "was formerly Hawai‘i in Hawaiian, then was formerly and still US government regulations officially, Hawaii, but is now Hawai‘i within the State of Hawaii). I certainly do see a need to separate correctly who uses what form - Marshman 23:49, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why does the introduction now mention "official British government spelling"? I don't think the British government has an official spelling for Hawaii. Gzornenplatz 17:34, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

If you know that, then remove. There seems to be some sort of argument here that all names must be in "official English" and that being what the governments of the US and Britain currently use (or codify). IMHO, it is BS, but I'm trying to get to exactly what argument(s) regarding "Hawaii" make real sense; I think there are some, but not included is: "most people think it is Hawaii not Hawai‘i" - Marshman 21:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Do not agree your change is "better". Also, I think there was a suggestion here that changes be proposed here, not on the article page - Marshman 21:43, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Hawaii (in Hawaiian language spelled Hawai‘i, with an ‘okina) [Proposed by Gzornenplatz

Correct, but falls short. Since "Hawai‘i" is also used in the English language, this statement is an oversimplification. - Marshman; suggested change to:

• Hawaii—in Hawaiian language and increasingly used in that place, spelled Hawai‘i with an ‘okina—

I'm not 100% with this one, but indicates sense needed, as we are now starting with simpler version - Marshman

It's not used exclusively in that place. Maybe we can say that it is "increasingly" used there? Gzornenplatz 22:19, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thats even better. Maybe later linkng to a discussion that sumnmarizes the use, etc. I put it in our example and changed the punctuation - Marshman

To pardon the rarely used (by me) and thoughtfully-applied expletive, this is just bullshit. How is the English as spoken in Hawai‘i considered "wrong" because it doesn't match the English of Chicago or Oxford? It has some differences of convention. And if Hawai‘'s local English-speaking population and local state government all prefer "Hawai‘i" with an ‘okina, then who are we to argue with them? This is an area of nuance that should and must be respected. "Hawaii" is a political entity. "Hawai‘i" is a place, and the preferred spelling among the local English-speaking population as well as government institutions. You should notice that I even changed some references of "Hawai‘i" to "Hawaii" when it applied specifically to the state entity as a subdivision of the United States, and to official names of publications that specifically lack the ‘okina. However, I used "Hawai‘i" when applied not only to the place and culture in general, but also to the specific use of the ‘okina when mandated in official names of publications, as well as its preferential use in the state government as applied to the state's internal government and affairs. Language is an organic thing; it doesn't exist as a single monolithic international bloc. Regional languages evolve, they adopt their own conventions, and they even dialectualize, and this is perfectly normal, and well-cherished thing in Hawai‘i. As just another of the U.S. states, it is "Hawaii". But as its own animal, it is "Hawai‘i", and it matters that Hawaiians themselves prefer it that way. It doesn't matter what the norm is in the U.S. Midwest or in southern England. Hawai‘i is an exception to these rules, and it well deserves its exception. - Gilgamesh 06:45, 21 July 2004 (UTC)

I do think the wording of the intro line we arrived at previously (see above) is generally better, because I do not know what "official" means, and your language arguement above says we should not be too concerned about what official means. Use of Hawaii (Hawai‘i) is made necessary because this site is regularly vandalized by uniformed troublemakers that want it all one way, no matter how incorrect. - Marshman 07:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Interesting, I haven't seen any uniformed troublemakers vandalizing this page. I think using "Hawaii (Hawai‘i)" all the time is no good style. I don't know of any other article where an alternative name is repeated like that. Gzornenplatz 07:21, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the official form is unimportant. I'm saying that, in terms of local Hawaiian convention (on both state and general public levels), it is irrelevant. I have never known anyone living in Hawai‘i to intentionally use "Hawaii" except when intentionally reflecting the official name, or when tourism and advertising are involved. Even for the publications that use "Hawaii" in the title, "Hawai‘i" is used in the article texts. Using "Hawaii" for the U.S. political entity and certain names, and using "Hawai‘i" for general reference and other certain names, is perfectly NPOV. It is actually quite POV to impose entirely one form or entirely the other form on every mention. I recommend you spend at least a month in Hawai‘i, and not in Waikīkī, or at a nipply tourist resort, or on the golf course. Actually be there, and not just go there. Then the truth becomes evident. In fact...maybe there should be a section of this article addressing "Hawaii" and "Hawai‘i" naming conventions and their distinctions, as well as some of the passionate political issues involved. Then, following that, we can respectfully retain "Hawaii" for certain specific uses, and "Hawai‘i" for others. - Gilgamesh 07:33, 21 July 2004 (UTC)

But local Hawaiian convention is not really relevant here. This is not the Hawaiian but the English Wikipedia, where the common English usage matters. And the U.S. political entity is exactly what this article is about ("general reference" in this article accordingly is to the state). That's why the title is Hawaii and (with Marshman's agreement) the intro begins with Hawaii, with the other version is parentheses. It only follows then that Hawaii should also be generally used in the rest of the article, with a few possible exceptions. It is particularly inconsistent to have articles like Constitution of Hawaii, and then create pipe links. If the ‘okina were correct here, the article itself should be moved to Constitution of Hawai'i; but as it isn't correct (the constitution plainly speaks of the "State of Hawaii"), the Hawaii article should not speak of the "Constitution of Hawai‘i" either. Gzornenplatz 08:08, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

And Hawai‘i is English. It is the name of the place, and increasingly the official name as well. When you say "this is an English Wikipedia" all you are saying to me is that this is a mainland haole encyclopedia. And mainland haoles don't use Hawai‘i. Well I don't use "colour" and I don't use "groyne" and lots of other "bad" spellings that turn out to be - gosh, English also! Well look at that, there is more than one "English". I do prefer the settled upon first line, but for the article there is no way to come up with a consistent approach to spelling something that is, in truth, spelled two ways so widely. - Marshman 08:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This reminds me so much of the arguments against split infinitives, final prepositions, and the word " ain't", even though such features have been in English for centuries. The blanket imposition of "Hawaii" is an artificial linguistic constrait against a practice that has existed for as long as English has been spoken in Hawai‘i, and continues to exist in all levels of society. Marshman is quite correct; there is British English, American English, Canadian English, Australian English, Hawaiian English, as well as perfectly valid subpolitical divisions like Scottish English, Bostonian English, and yes, even Hawaiian English. They are all the same language, but are entitled to their local differences, none of which are "wrong" simply for being different from one of several documented standards that exist for the English language. Even in the most American of dictionaries, you can still find words like "colour", "manoeuvre" and "kerb" listed as valid alternates, sometimes labeled with comments like "chiefly British", etc. But "chiefly" does not mean "only", and Wikipedia has no rules against "colour", nor the mixing of "color" and "colour" in the same articles. - Gilgamesh 09:05, 21 July 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it has. The Wikipedia:Manual of Style says: "Each article should have uniform spelling and not a haphazard mix of different spellings (it can be jarring to the reader)." Gzornenplatz 15:30, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Not a practical rule; nor jarring to anyone of average or better intelligence. Not practical and not "jarring" because an "article" is not a fixed unit around here. This is a hypertext document, a fact that I'm afraid many "developers" simply do not understand. Articles are not read as units, then the page turned. That "rule" is outdated (and has been for about 20 years). - Marshman 16:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would rather hope that the developers here understand that this is a hypertext document. Regardless of that, an article here is still very much a unit, and it should be readable even with all hyperlinks removed. There is a print version in planning, after all. And no print enyclopaedia would have a haphazard mix of different spellings within the same article. So why should it be any different here? Gzornenplatz 19:52, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

Because "color" and "colour" is not a very charged political issue. "Hawaii" and "Hawai‘i" is. There should be a balance between the two, as they are now essentially different words for how they are used. If I absolutely had to choose between one entity or the other, I would choose "Hawai‘i", because "Hawaii" is rarely ever used in Hawai‘i. This is a serious political issue; please show some sensitivity and adhere to the naming conventions agreed both in Hawai‘i and in its government. Consider the same distinctions used today between terms like "Israel" and "Palestine", and between "America" and "the United States of America", and between "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom". It's the same distinction. And so long as the distinction in this situation is laid to waste, there will always be someone disputing the page, and the dispute will never go away. Do you honestly want this article to go to print with such a dispute still in place? This simply will not go away, because it represents a huge social gap that we must acknowledge, not ignore. It would be in extremely poor taste to be insensitive to it. Balancing the different viewpoints to find a middle path is the essence of NPOV. - Gilgamesh 00:53, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

The naming conventions of the government is that the official name is Hawaii, even if they use the other version informally. If they want to see it used in encyclopaedias, they should officially change the name (and the state seal etc.). The reason that I want to use Hawaii here (and why all other major encyclopaedias do so) is not a lack of sensitivity, but a desire for accuracy. This is, indeed, similar to your example of "America" - which is a very informal and unencyclopaedic term for the United States of America, one you will not find used much in that sense in any encyclopaedia. The proper short form is United States, or U.S. And "Great Britain" is quite distinct from the "United Kingdom": the former is an island and the latter is the country comprising that island plus Northern Ireland. Israel and Palestine are different things too. There is no such distinction between Hawaii and Hawai‘i. The state is Hawaii, and if you want to make a distinction between the political and geographic entity, then the latter would be properly called Hawaiian Islands. Gzornenplatz 02:41, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I'd say Gzornenplatz is one of the "editors" (better term than my "developer") having trouble grasping what a hypertext document really means, as evidenced by bringing up something (IMHO) as irrelevant as "a printed version". Is he saying now we have to consider all the ramifications of Wikipedia as a "printed version"? Heaven help us. Why even bother with an online version if we are to be constrained by all the things that constrain a "printed version". Maybe we should just edit by sending emails to some typist. Or maybe we could mail those in. I have to say, after reviewing all the arguments being brought up against Hawai‘i, that it is hard not to conclude he is just screwing with us. I'm waiting for the "Gotch-ya!" ;^) - Marshman 02:10, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The print version was just a side note. Quite regardless of that, an article should be readable without the reader having to follow any link, and I'm sure many people do just that - they read articles from top to bottom, as they would do in a print encyclopaedia (which also may have cross-references, it's just easier to follow the links in a hypertext document, but not fundamentally different). Given that, the argument remains that the spelling should not be a haphazard mix within an article. I don't know what the significance of your whole point about the hypertext is. Gzornenplatz 02:41, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Then I propose yet another compromise - "Hawai‘i" remain, but "Hawaii" be changed to "State of Hawaii" in every case except where it is part of a proper title to begin with. - Gilgamesh 02:59, 23 July 2004 (UTC)

Why "State of Hawaii"? That would be like repeating the full form "United States of America" in the United States article. Gzornenplatz 03:14, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Because "State of Hawaii" would reflect the U.S. congressional spelling that is rarely ever used in Hawai‘i as a place. It would emphasize that "Hawaii" and "Hawai‘i" are separate words. - Gilgamesh 03:19, 23 July 2004 (UTC)

What exactly is "Hawai‘i as a place"? A place is either a political or geographical entity. The article is about the first - the state - and in the second sense Hawai‘i wouldn't be correct either. It is only appropriate in historic contexts or as part of the proper names of certain institutions. Gzornenplatz 03:36, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

In this case it is both a political and a geosocial entity. The second name is perfectly appropriate for how it is applied. Changing every reference to "Hawaii" would then become an misstatement, and a deep offense and laying waste to a lasting political issue. Is "Hawaii" only as the name of the state and as used in the names of certain (largely haole) publications, whether they be newspapers, magazines, television shows or movies. In Hawai‘i, it is extremely improper (not mention offensive) to intentionally eliminate the ‘okina. I should remind you that even the state government uses "Hawai‘i" in all its internal politics. These very political distinctions must be respected; they are not "confusing", they are apt, and they must stay or the page will become a misstatement and NPOV challenge and remain so. - Gilgamesh 03:49, 23 July 2004 (UTC)

You know that you are accusing all major encyclopaedias and tons of other publications of publishing misstatements and being POV in that matter then. I don't see it that way, but I realize that I will not convince you. Maybe we should list the matter on Wikipedia:Requests for comment? Gzornenplatz 04:26, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps requests for comment will help. And I do think most encyclopaedias are wrong because they are closed haole corporate committees with unaccountable decision making processes, usually with a political or national agenda. Wikipedia is different; it's open to comment. - Gilgamesh 04:34, 23 July 2004 (UTC)

From the image on the Hawaii State Supreme Court and Hawaii State Judiciary articles, the official government seal actually has the words State of Hawai'i (with the okina) emblazoned prominently. -- Keevan Daley 15:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's just the judiciary seal. The actual state seal (see image on Hawaii) does not have the ‘okina. Gzornenplatz 15:37, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

You still cannot ignore it. - Gilgamesh 23:25, 23 July 2004 (UTC)

Out of fairness to everyone who can contribute to make the Wikipedia Hawaii article right, please do not erase the contribution of another person. I thought this was a site where people could edit and contribute, and not a place where one person could monopolize an article, putting only what he wants in. I took time to put in the demographics of many of Hawaii's ethnic groups. I happened to work with the State of Hawaii DBEDT on the 2000 Census. How unfair and unjust for someone to erase all the other ethnic groups and mainly focus on Japan and the Japanese. It is Hawaii after all and the Native Hawaiians at least deserve to have their percentage separated from a lump sum percentage of Pacific Islanders. The Chinese happened to come next after the Europeans, and became a significant part of the Native Hawaiian population. Also, how fitting to totally exclude "Caucasians" as if they are not really a part of Hawaii and its history. Do not act like a racist by denying the right of all ethnic groups to be represented equally. Anyone looking at the Hawaii Article site would get the false impression that Hawaii is not Hawaiian but Asian and that Caucasians are not a part of Hawaiian history. I am angered that this is still happening. To give a false impression of what Hawaii really is. I live in Hawaii. I know the history and the many peoples that make it so special. Do not deny others the chance to contribute the facts. It does not state that the Hawaii Article site belongs to Gerald Farinas. After I thank you for all of your hard work and effort, you go and erase all of my contribution. This is Hawaii, where many ethnicities and cultures have lived and contributed. Please stop with the denial of all peoples. Ilikea

Hehe. (Sorry for the chuckle.) Of all the people on Wikipedia to call racist... Gerald? I've known him on Wikipedia for the past couple months or so and he's never come across as anything other than nice. Must be a misunderstanding of sorts going on here. You're probably talking about the List of Famous People from Hawaii. If you check out the archived talk pages that was just created, there's a reason why specific people were moved from the list of names on the main page: lesser known notables, links to names without articles, others. However, there is a prominent link on the main page to a complete list of famous people from Hawaii. -- Keevan Daley 23:52, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Looking at the list, I don't see the racial centricity I thought you had alluded to—there's a good mix from all the major backgrounds represented in Hawaii on the front. I'm very sure that the movements that were made did not reflect some sort of racist conspiracy on anyone's part. I remember moving a few names from the list too because some people just weren't notable enough or didn't have articles on them yet—for neatness mostly. All in all, I do think a clarification should be made to new Wikipedians about whatever concensus was made on the list of famous islanders. - Jamie

By the way Ilikea, an article exists at Victoria Kaiulani but none exists at the link you made to Victoria Ka‘iulani Cleghorn. If you click on the link you made, notice there's no article there. Its best to link to the titles that have been made for actual articles in existence. (Another question -- Did the deletion of the 'okina and Cleghorn from the link that you made make you think racism was involved in the edit?) - Jamie