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.

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)

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)

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, [[User:Meelar| 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

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)

See Template talk:Hawaiian. - Gilgamesh 22:22, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Zora, why are you saying that the use of kanaka maoli is inflammatory? On top of that, your translation of it being "True Human" is the first I've ever seen. To me, a Kanaka Maoli is the same as the term I prefer, 'Oiwi. I noticed that you mentioned UH Hilo and the terms that they've used. Although Kanaka Maoli may seem to be used more for those pro-sovereignty, please do not feel that kanaka maoli is inflammatory because you are literally translating it as a true human. My ancestors have always called themselves "kanaka" just as other Polynesians have and still do today. Would you also then find that "Maori" being used by the Maoris of Aotearoa is equally inflammatory since it means "true" and of course are referring to the first people of that island nation?

My reaction to the term "kanaka maoli" is based not only on the translation, but on the way that it's used, and the overtones that it has acquired. If we're going to use it, we should give the other term, kanaka 'oiwi or po'e 'oiwi, as well. That's all. Zora 23:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Now as for the Hawaiiloa story, please do not trivialize the stories that have been handed down by my ancestors! To you it is nothing but a myth and you may find oral tradition unreliable, yet ironically considering it was oral and has been passed down for more than 80 generations, why is it that the stories also share nearly identical similarities with other Polynesians, including estimated years of when these people were born, lived and died?

I'm not saying that all oral tradition is wrong; I'm just saying that it has to be weighed carefully. Just like written documents, or archaeological evidence. In the case of the Hawaiiloa story, it is not cited in the early works, Malo and Kamakau, when one would expect it to be cited, and it only appears late. That suggests to me that it could be a back-formation -- someone having heard about Polynesian migrations in the course of formal education, and making up a story that fit the anthropological theory, then passing it on as an OLD story. Can you prove that it didn't happen that way? Zora 23:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd say that is pretty accurate. And honestly, haven't we always heard it from non-Hawaiians anyway? Why not include oral traditions? Look at all these "proven" things they've been discovering with Polynesians in general. We all laugh at these scientists because here we have been saying exactly where our ancestors were from, what they were about, what they have done, yet no one didn't want to believe us because it seemed illogical that these "primitive" people would grasp this type of knowledge. Only to have them now prove what we've been saying for centuries is actually true? And quoting Malo in this particular sense doesn't validate that it is inaccurate either simply on the basis that he was not only Hawaiian but a scholar educated at Lahainaluna but knew well about Hawaiian society.

You're not making sense here. Malo was precisely the person who would have known about such stories, as he studied Hawaiian lore before he converted to Christianity. The fact that he doesn't mention it is suspicious. If he were the only one, maybe this wouldn't be important, but there ARE no other early mentions. Only Fornander, who is late, a proponent of Polynesian migration theories. If we even had the stories in their original form, as collected by his assistants ... but no, all that's lost. Zora 23:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Recently this past summer I got to meet relatives on my paternal grandfather's side in his home country of which he purposely broke ties off back in 1919. It was amazing to hear stories, what little they knew of my grandfather in relation to his voyage to the Hawaiian islands. It was not exactly the same story I heard from my father and his siblings about their father's journey to the islands. It was similar, yet it had differences because it was nothing more than views of one person's perspective. When I got their story it all came together like a puzzle.

Malo found it contradictary because of one side, one version of the story. Just as certain island chiefs clung to different branches of genealogy all leading back up to the same progenitors, Wakea and Papa. It doesn't mean that the story of Hawaiiloa is inaccurate, but merely it is one person's version of the peopling of the islands. I'm sure you are aware of the not one but the 2 different migrational waves of Polynesians to the Hawaiian islands in different centuries. Who is to say that perhaps the Hawaiiloa belong to specifically only one of those groups versus both? Mamoahina 22:12, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But there is absolutely NO evidence for the two wave theory. There should be some archaeological evidence, no? It seems to me that the story is a myth validating social stratification, the denial of any kinship between the chiefs and the maka'ainana. There's a similar myth in Tonga, also with zero archaeological validation.

I get the strong impression that you believe that Native Hawaiians "own" their history, and resent "scientists" debunking comfortable, familiar beliefs. Well, it isn't just directed at you! Social scientists will turn a nitpicking eye on ANY history, social mythology, what have you. If they're honest, that is. It's easy enough to be skeptical of other people's stories while stepping gingerly around one's own sacred cows. Such failures, however, do not discredit the enterprise. It makes it just that much more important to turn an unflinching eye on one's own beliefs. Zora 23:56, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to use it, we should give the other term, kanaka 'oiwi or po'e 'oiwi, as well.

I agree. Listing all terms would be better and pointing out that it is a recent term as well as a more political term.

In the case of the Hawaiiloa story, it is not cited in the early works, Malo and Kamakau, when one would expect it to be cited, and it only appears late.

"Legend of Hawaii-loa" appears in Abraham Fornander's book called "Fornander Collection of Hawaiian Antiquities and Folk-lore - Memories of Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum - Volume VI Part I, II, III". On page 266 he writes "Compiled and Condesned in English from Kepelino and S. M. Kamakau" and writes about the genealogy direct from Kane and explains the creation of man beginning from Kumu Honua and his wife Lalo Honua of which I believe Kamakau also mentions. In this section is the complex genealogy going down to Hawaii Loa and he writes that he (Hawaii Loa) was an ancestor of the Hawaiian family.

So it is not a "late" addition one would think that it was made up.

Fornander is comparatively late. He gathered his materials in 1870-1871, and published in 1878-1880. The introduction to my copy of Malo says that the manuscript Emerson used dates from approximately 1840. The essays republished in Kamakau's Ka Po'e Kahiko were published between 1866 and 1871. There are several generations between Malo and Fornander. Less time between Fornander and Kamakau.

There is so much in Fornander and Kepelino that is clearly missionary influenced that none of it can be completely trusted to be representative of pre-contact Hawai'i. However, if you change your perspective, they are good sources for what Hawaiians of that era thought. Which has clearly evolved in the 100 years since Cook's first visit.

That suggests to me that it could be a back-formation -- someone having heard about Polynesian migrations in the course of formal education, and making up a story that fit the anthropological theory, then passing it on as an OLD story. Can you prove that it didn't happen that way?

I initially thought it resembled the biblical story back in the mid to late 90s when I saw details of the story. That was until a few Maoris shared their genealogy of the same creation naming the same people (but not specifically to Hawaiiloa, which would make sense because it was not their own ancestor) that I realized the story was not influenced by missionaries, etc.

But there are many resemblances between all the Polynesian creation myths. Plus the same missionary influences acting on all of them. Zora 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Malo was precisely the person who would have known about such stories, as he studied Hawaiian lore before he converted to Christianity. The fact that he doesn't mention it is suspicious.

I'm going to assume you're referring to Malo's "English" version, not the original version. There were other things he did not mention in certain chiefly aspects of which John Papa I'i mentioned. So are we to say that this was suspicious? Point is, these men had their strong points.

If he were the only one, maybe this wouldn't be important, but there ARE no other early mentions. Only Fornander, who is late, a proponent of Polynesian migration theories. If we even had the stories in their original form, as collected by his assistants ... but no, all that's lost.

There are no early mentions of certain genealogies that were passed down to my own family as well as other families who have openly shared their genealogies with mine. But that doesn't mean they hold no water Zora.

You keep turning this into black-and-white, oral tradition is perfect or it is worthless ... it's neither. It's something to be weighed carefully. It's entirely possible, for instance, for a genealogy to be mythical for some generations and then shade into something that's as much history as anything written down. Zora 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you have such an issue with oral traditions, I think it would be best to leave out Hawaiiloa since he is the one that most Hawaiians trace their genealogies to, but rather Wakea and Papa who is are the ones credited. That way, we could alleviate all conjecture. I am uncomfortable about those not skilled in Hawaiian traditions especially one that did not grow up with the culture to freely write things of our culture in such a place as this. My sentiments are widely shared by others but that's not the point. Point is, if you have a strong distaste for certain parts of my culture, let's just leave Hawaiiloa out of the page. Wakea and Papa would be preferred and is more well known.

But there is absolutely NO evidence for the two wave theory. There should be some archaeological evidence, no? It seems to me that the story is a myth validating social stratification, the denial of any kinship between the chiefs and the maka'ainana. There's a similar myth in Tonga, also with zero archaeological validation.

I guess you missed my point about scientists now proving things that we already know. I use the term scientist Zora because we all know that your "theories" were from a collective validation from those in the linguistic field as well as archeological field. Linguistics have classified the Hawaiian language as an east central Marquesic language.

As for the archeological findings, we already know that the cyclonic fishponds mostly on the Windward islands resemble those of non-Tahitic origin, just as the earliest archeological findings in Halawa (Molokai) points to previous migrations coming from the Southern Marquesas area. I am not aware of archeological evidence of the latter Tahitic group, however cultural ties, the class system and gods are similar to those of the Society Islands.

But that is no proof of the second wave theory, necessarily. It could well be independent evolution. Zora 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I get the strong impression that you believe that Native Hawaiians "own" their history, and resent "scientists" debunking comfortable, familiar beliefs.

Zora, please drop the arrogant attitude. Your thinking is that nothing is "owned", which is what many indigenous people constantly experience. As in your statement about how no one owns information under the "Hapa" section. In this case however, I hate to tell you this, but you are wrong. And another thing, what "debunking" are we talking about really? Scientists have not debunked anything of the Hawaiian culture that I know of, but rather have validated our oral traditions as in the case of seafaring. Archeological findings (Halawa) have also validated the genealogical reckoning leading up to the Hawaiian people's progenitors Wakea and Papa who lived 80 generations before me. When I calculate from my year of birth back to Wakea and Papa, it coincides pretty much to the dates archeologists dated artifacts from Halawa Valley. Could you give me actual examples of your "debunking" theories?

Well, for one thing, the antiquity of the Hawaiiloa story. Or the two migrations theory. Zora 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In case you haven't figured it out from my previous comments, I really don't care too much for WIKIPEDIA however do care if people quote me, quote any of my fndings as well as trivialize my culture and most importantly my people and my ancestors. Many people have been doing that for years, just as I have quickly rose up against these people. People such as yourself may classify us as "sovereignty" proponents or any other name you may use (i.e. savages) but arrogance is a behavior which I deal with daily. It's almost benign to me.

But Mamoahina, you aren't the sole representative of your culture, people, ancestors. Just because someone says something that you, or you and some of your friends, don't like, that doesn't prove that he/she is anti-Hawaiian. It just means that he/she disagrees with you. Zora 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it isn't just directed at you! Social scientists will turn a nitpicking eye on ANY history, social mythology, what have you. If they're honest, that is. It's easy enough to be skeptical of other people's stories while stepping gingerly around one's own sacred cows. Such failures, however, do not discredit the enterprise. It makes it just that much more important to turn an unflinching eye on one's own beliefs.

Yes Zora, you are right in this. However I think you are over reacting to me telling you not to trivialize my culture and are using "scientists" to prove your point. Fact is, scientists really haven't disputed much of Hawaiian traditions. Or were you not aware of that? If you need sources, I could give you a list of names of those at the University of Hawaii who specialize in certain areas, that way you could see for yourself can put your mind at ease.

If they're in Lilikala's department, I'm afraid that wouldn't prove a thing to me. Sorry. However, it doesn't matter whether I believe it or not. If it's a viewpoint that a number of people share, it should be in Wikipedia. We try to handle controversy not be declaring one side right, but by stepping back and saying, "Some people believe A and some believe B", and giving a good enough description of each position that the reader can decide which to believe. The only thing is ... we can't do much of that in the Hawaii article, since it's already oversized. An article on "Theories of Native Hawaiian origins and migrations" might be useful, however, and give us more space to lay everything out. Or we could rework the Hawaiian antiquities article. Zora 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, not familiar with how these forums work and I guess when I try to quote previous entries, they come out differently? I apologize if I am not in tuned with the format. Mamoahina 06:00, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. It takes a while to get the hang of things here, and I'm not sure I have done so entirely. It is clear to me that you are here to discuss things honestly and politely, and that's the important thing. Zora 00:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're not making sense here. Malo was precisely the person who would have known about such stories, as he studied Hawaiian lore before he converted to Christianity. The fact that he doesn't mention it is suspicious.

Wrong! The fact that he was not able to gather all oral traditions is proof that he was not one that knew EVERYTHING but merely knew a lot! He was not an ali'i, so keep that in mind. Because of that, he naturally did not have things normally taught to ali'i children, such as certain genealogies. Everything else he mentions however holds namely because he lived much earlier than I'i and Kamakau.

Only Fornander, who is late, a proponent of Polynesian migration theories. If we even had the stories in their original form, as collected by his assistants ... but no, all that's lost

Funny how you mention Fornander as if he conjured up all these stories himself. But it seems that you already know that he didn't, which is true. He used other people to gather his information. I'm surprised as to how he never mentions his wife as a source.

But there is absolutely NO evidence for the two wave theory. There should be some archaeological evidence, no? It seems to me that the story is a myth validating social stratification, the denial of any kinship between the chiefs and the maka'ainana. There's a similar myth in Tonga, also with zero archaeological validation.

I think you mean "physical" evidence in which case I could only tell you what I know. And the 2 wave theory was mentioned to us as far back as the early 70s. I learned oral tradition a decade later which supported the scientists' 2 wave theory.

And now (in your 2nd sentence) you are the one who is not making sense. What do you mean that the story is a myth validating social stratification & the denial of any kinship between the chiefs and the maka'ainana? And what about the oral traditions of Koko Willis and Pali Lee's version of the earlier Polynesians whose religious ways were different? Then you have the differences of gods being worshipped, how they went from worshipping one true god to many, the introduction of a class system of which was not used (apparently) prior in the islands, the differences of names (or actually repitition) of names in the different branches of genealogies yet leading back to the same source?

Hmm, now I think I am really getting confused at this whole format I may be repeating my responses to your responses of which I probably already responded to.

Fornander is comparatively late. He gathered his materials in 1870-1871, and published in 1878-1880. The introduction to my copy of Malo says that the manuscript Emerson used dates from approximately 1840. The essays republished in Kamakau's Ka Po'e Kahiko were published between 1866 and 1871. There are several generations between Malo and Fornander. Less time between Fornander and Kamakau.

Thanks for the dates Zora, I have Fornander's collection as well as Malo's and all of Kamakau's minus the latest book they came out with, a continuation of Kamehameha. In any case, I know that Malo predates all others. But thanks for reiterating.

There is so much in Fornander and Kepelino that is clearly missionary influenced that none of it can be completely trusted to be representative of pre-contact Hawai'i.

Kepelino is one person I never looked into, but this is the reason why I suspected the Hawaiiloa story was missionary influenced. However, you probably overlooked what I wrote about sharing genealogies with the Maoris. Honestly, I still think that some of it is missionary influenced, as I re-read (again since you mentioned it) how Fornander mentions specific people and their complexion which is like in the bible. In any case, these names in the genealogical tree do appear (to some extent) with other Polynesians, or more specifically with the Maoris. Not unless the same missionary or group of missionaries were smart enough to gather these hundreds and hundreds of names and attached them to actual biblical characters. But who is to say that they were NOT the same people? What if they were? Good example is the first man, Kumuhonua. Could be the same as Adam since he is known in western society as being the first man. But in the Hawaiian tradition, (which Fornander mentions under the Hawaiialoa section of which I said he gathered his source of Kamakau as well as Kepelino) Kumuhonua was known by other names, depending on the time. And his name (unless it was totally made up) closely resembles Adam's name, and I'm not talking the Hawaiianized name - Akamu.

But let's look at Malo's book pg. 234 called THE FLOOD. The first section could easily be seen as missionary influence as well.

You keep turning this into black-and-white, oral tradition is perfect or it is worthless ... it's neither. It's something to be weighed carefully. It's entirely possible, for instance, for a genealogy to be mythical for some generations and then shade into something that's as much history as anything written down.

Yes, finally you agree! It is NEITHER perfect nor worthless. And I agree, it is something to be weighed...of course carefully. However, in your previous posts, you seemed to discount them. And I agree with EVERYTHING you wrote above. I of all people should know that because I have experienced it myself, so this is not new to me.

But that is no proof of the second wave theory, necessarily. It could well be independent evolution.

No, it's not proof of the SECOND wave, but the first settlement, or earliest settlement. The point I was making was that there are things in the culture that scientists have verified as belonging (if not being similar) to a particular group, versus other cultural aspects belonging to another group.

Well, for one thing, the antiquity of the Hawaiiloa story.

I'd say that the genealogy in Hawaiiloa holds true. Everything else however, the flood, the progenitors of different groups of people, that may be suspect. Besides, I had to re-read Fornander's version again b/c I didn't read it very well, but rather paid close attention to the names listed on the genealogical chart.

But Mamoahina, you aren't the sole representative of your culture, people, ancestors. Just because someone says something that you, or you and some of your friends, don't like, that doesn't prove that he/she is anti-Hawaiian. It just means that he/she disagrees with you.

Opponents usually use this exact term Zora. They say that we are not the only representatives of the culture, of the people. Of course not. We're only one person with a voice, but apparently it is that one voice that just doesn't rub certain people the right way. And why did you bring up "anti-Hawaiian"? Unless you assume that I am pointing to you as such a person. I only know of one person who likes to tout that title around via the internet and through the Honolulu Adverstiser, because other than that, I don't hear too many people using that.

If they're in Lilikala's department, I'm afraid that wouldn't prove a thing to me. Sorry.

I am not sure if they work with Lilikala, but if you have a personal vendetta against Lilikala, fear not because I wasn't referring to her.

If it's a viewpoint that a number of people share, it should be in Wikipedia.

This sounds hypocritical, n'est-pas? Because you just told me that I am not the sole rep. of the Hawaiian people, yet here you are saying that if it's a viewpoint shared by a number of people, as if you are stating that my viewpoint is only ONE. Believe me, if I could have a bunch of people (regardless of ethnicity) responding in here who is familiar with the oral traditions, I would think then that it would be something worth putting/leaving in Wikipedia because as you say, it is shared viewpoint by a number of people.

We try to handle controversy not be declaring one side right, but by stepping back and saying, "Some people believe A and some believe B", and giving a good enough description of each position that the reader can decide which to believe.

This seems logical and the right thing to do. However judging from the comments posted here previously, I'd have to say that this is EXACTLY what was being done, that they (without being specific) are saying that one thing is right over another.

only thing is ... we can't do much of that in the Hawaii article, since it's already oversized.

Not sure about that. I see links, etc., so I guess I can understand (although still not Wikipedia savvy) mentioning something briefly and linking them to its own page so that the main page would not be so large?

An article on "Theories of Native Hawaiian origins and migrations" might be useful, however, and give us more space to lay everything out. Or we could rework the Hawaiian antiquities article.

A separate page for it would be good, so that way (as I just said) the main page would not be so cluttered and unnecessarily lengthy.

Don't worry about that. It takes a while to get the hang of things here, and I'm not sure I have done so entirely. It is clear to me that you are here to discuss things honestly and politely, and that's the important thing.

Only because I realized that there was a "discussion" portion after, rather than just "edit" like I did with the hapa page. Now that I know this exists, and although I really don't care for Wikipedia (but was concerned of its contents since someone pointed me to these pages) I figured it would be at least beneficial to discuss about the contents, rather than taking stuff out which usually is someone's hard work. Mamoahina

In the second paragraph, the article states that Hawaii is one of only two US States that has a non-Caucasian majority. What is the other US state? According to the other state articles on Wikipedia, no other state (as of the 2000 census) has a ethnic/racial population where whites were not the majority. Does anyone have any definitive arguments as to why this statement shouldn't be amended?

The other state is California. The census data shows that California has only 46.7% non-Hispanic white. [1] -- KeithH 07:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I might have guessed New Mexico. - Gilgamesh 08:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...that's interesting. Gotta check the census website. California is the one that gets all the news. - KeithH 07:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Considering the length of the article (if it reaches approximately 33 kb, some editors using older computers are locked out from editing the page), I think there needs to be serious considerations in deleting some information that might not be necessary. For example, I question the need to list the "25 Richest Places in Hawaii" and a list of unwikified crime stories in the trivia section that even most Hawaii residents don't know about. -- Gerald Farinas 14:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. We need to start moving things off to their own pages. Although the two examples you give are, I agree, not much of a contribution to this article, their removal will not make enough difference towards reducing the size to make such a move worth while. I'd suggest looking to one or more of the larger subsections and use to start another article. Also, is it necessary to have a several paragraph "summary" of say History, when there is a whole article and more on the subject elsewhere. I'm not suggesting "History" be the first to reduce, but consider some "less popular" subjects like Media in Hawaii to expand out to a separate article leaving only a prominent link behind. That will make progress to getting the article back under 33 kb. Chipping away at statements you do not like simply won't achieve what you are seeking - Marshman 19:00, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the housecleaning, Marshman. Zora 20:31, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. We got more to go if we want to get the article size down as Gerald suggests. - Marshman 03:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the "25 Richest Places in Hawaii" and replaced it with a link to Richest Places in Hawaii, as Gerald suggested. Marshman was right, though, as its removal doesn't make much of a difference (it amounted to about 1KB). However, I figure it's progress either way so I went ahead with it. If you disagree with the change, feel free to revert my changes. 青い(Aoi) 09:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that was a good candidate to move as Gerald suggested. I was really commenting on the one liner under Trivia and similar changes that are more cosmetic than size reducing.- Marshman 18:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I just removed a link to a travel agency. There's another recently added link about which I'm not quite sure. Someone has added a link to the Hawai'i page of Terragalleria, a commercial photographer's website. They're nice pictures, but if we link to every commercial photographer who displays Hawai'i photos ...

I left the link there. I am not sure what to do. Feedback? Zora 04:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I think when it comes to pictures only, there is not much reason for Wikipedia to maintain a link to such sites. In general, Wikipedia discourages outside links, although many are retained because they do provide additional useful information. But we should always be working towards having that information internal. Google, Yahoo, and similar websites are set up to get people to such sites; not Wikipedia. I removed the link. - Marshman 07:20, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The photograph of Akaka Falls on the Hawaii page looks more or less like female genitalia. Perhaps we have other pictures of this waterfall? 200.247.157.204

Perhaps you need to worry about YOUR state of mind, when you see genitalia everywhere? I don't see anything wrong with the picture. Zora 05:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see it everywhere, just in this one picture with the large slit going down the middle. You seem to be defensive. 200.247.157.204

Ha! I must say, your interpretation is possible, but hardly the only thing one sees looking at that picture. Indeed, "more or less" is more of a reflection on your mind and less about the waterfall. But, certainly no reason to change the picture! But in your defense, the ancient Hawaiians would have loved your interpretation. They saw human genetalia in all sorts natural formations, and typically the more of "more or less" there was the more likely they would have seen it and treated the place accordingly and reverently. - Marshman 03:07, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I recommend that 200.247.157.204 visit Rorschach inkblot test. -- Viriditas | Talk 06:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

With the use of actual photographs of genitalia on the penis, vagina and masturbation articles, then we can surely use photos that seem to imply genital symbolism in natural geological formation. -- Gerald Farinas 16:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia has its WikiProjects where standard guidelines for categories of articles are documented. I noticed Texas has a WikiProject page. Perhaps we should have a WikiProject Hawaii and document these guidelines and style conventions? - KeithH 07:27, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)