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.

Given the strongly negative results of the proposal to move this article from Hawaii to Hawaiʻi [1], I harmonized the mentions of "Hawaii" in the article with the now confirmed title by removing okinas. Erudy 21:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own Manual of Style has a section called "Usage" with a subsection called "Foreign Terms", from which the following statements are quoted.

"Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have common usage in English"

"For terms in common usage, use anglicized spellings"

"The choice between anglicized and native spellings should follow English usage"

The Wikipedia MoS is stated to be a guideline that "all editors should follow". Let the MoS, which represents the exalted "consensus", bring an end to the long-term edit war waged (and threatened to be continued indefinitely) by user Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh's insistence on forcing okinas and kahakos into English text is very clearly contrary to the Wikipedia MoS (as well as prohibitions against edit warring).

So-called "Hawaiian English" is not a national variety of English. Like Texas, Hawaii was an independent nation for a relatively brief period of time, but it is now a state. "Texas English" is not a national variety of English either. Neither is any other "state variety" of English. In the past, Gilgamesh created a "Hawaiian English" Wikipedia stub. However, that stub did not survive a recommendation for deletion, as Gilgamesh had based it on demonstrably false claims, and nobody came through with adequate supporting sources. Gilgamesh's claims about his own personal language usage are totally irrelevant, because Wikipedia's MoS is based on published authorities on English usage, not on Gilgamesh's personal anecdotes.

Words that "do not yet have common usage in English" are those that are not found in established, monolingual English dictionaries prepared by professional lexicographers. Any and all such words in the Hawaii article need to be set in italics.

Some loanwords from Hawaiian that actually are in common use in English include Hawaii, Honolulu, Oahu, Waikiki, lei, luau, and poi. Those words have become English words through the linguistic process of word borrowing. As such, they can be found in a monolingual English dictionary. Such words in the Hawaii article should not be set in italics, and their anglicized spellings -- with no okinas nor kahakos -- as seen in the monolingual English dictionary, need to be used.

The people who argue that ONLY the spellings with okinas and kahakos should be used, thinking that Hawaiian spellings are "correct" and English spellings are "incorrect", are lacking in education and understanding on the topic of loanwords. They seem to think that only one spelling is correct, and all other spellings are incorrect. They foolishly miss the point that every given language has its own correct spellings, in conformance with its own culture. English spellings should obey well-established English usage as found in monolingual English dictionaries -- not the wanna-be modern Hawaiian usage advocated by certain Hawaiian-language extremists.

One user claimed that omitting the okinas and kahakos is "culturally insensitive" to Hawaiians. That is irrelevant, and is also nonsense. English spelling should be sensitive to ENGLISH-language culture, not to Hawaiian-language culture. Some people seem to think that everybody else has a culture, but white people, Americans, or English speakers do not. Talk about "culturally insensitive"! It is culturally insensitive to native users of English for them to be expected to bend over backwards to accomodate every other culture in the world, and act as if they have no culture of their own. Forcing okinas and kahakos into English text is disrespectful to English-language culture. Now for the nonsense of the alleged "cultural insensitivity" to Hawaiians. The great majority of native speakers of Hawaiian do NOT use okinas and kahakos in their written English, NOR in their written Hawaiian. That is a long-established practice that far outweighs the recent activity of modern Hawaiian-language extremists, who are virtually ALL second-language users of Hawaiian, not native users. For proof of the long-established tradition of native publication of Hawaiian, without okinas and kahakos, just look at the Hawaiian Bible, the Hawaiian constitutions, Hawaiian legal codes, Hawaiian newspapers, and all Hawaiian literature published by and for Hawaiians during the lifespans of the Kingdom of Hawaii, the Republic of Hawaii, and the Territory of Hawaii. A recent master's thesis by NeSmith points out that native speakers of Hawaiian do NOT write the "University brand" of Hawaiian, i.e., they do NOT write okinas nor kahakos. The people who demand the use of okinas and kahakos include: (a) University of Hawaii Hawaiian-language extremists [99% non-native users]; (b) some "font freaks" who always want to use non-English spellings as much as possible, no matter how inappropriate; (c) the misguided people who lack adequate education regarding loanwords, wrongly thinking that any word should be spelled the same way in every language in the world; and (d) some business-oriented people who use Hawaiian spellings merely as a gimmick.

Arguments in favor of okinas and kahakos, based on pronunciation issues, are totally irrelevant. Current English spelling is based on long-established traditional WRITTEN usage -- NOT on pronunciation. Just look at the words "write", "rite", "wright", and "right". The pronunciations can be identical, but the spellings are different. Conversely, the noun "permit" and the verb "permit" have identical spellings, but the pronunciations are different. The noun has stress on "per", but the verb has stress on "mit". Rhyming pairs include "good" with "hood", and "boot" with "loot", but the first pair does not rhyme with the second pair. "Meat" rhymes with "meet", but not with "great", which rhymes with "bait", but not with "beet". "Through" does not rhyme with "rough", etc., etc. Spelling is NOT determined by pronunciation, and pronunciation is NOT determined by spelling. The same is true in Hawaiian. Written Hawaiian "w" can be pronounced as [w] or as [v]. Spoken Hawaiian [auee] has been written as "auwe" or as "aue".

Loss of distinction between Hawaiian words is another irrelevant argument. The Hawaiian dictionary lists 15 different Hawaiian words that all share the spelling "kau". Some derive from Polynesian "tau", and some from Polynesian "ta`u". Hawaiians themselves phonologically deleted the glottal stop from Polynesian "ta`u", such that its distinction from Polynesian "tau" was lost. In publishing Hawaiian, Hawaiians non-use of okinas and kahakos caused loss of distinction between hundreds of sets of Hawaiian words. By their own free will, and in fact, their own PREFERENCE, native speakers of Hawaiian maintain their non-use of okinas and kahakos. Constant ambiguity is actually an inherent characteristic of spoken Hawaiian, and even more so in native published Hawaiian.

Hawaiians borrowed English "gold" as Hawaiian "kula", and English "school" as Hawaiian "kula". There was "loss of distinction" between "gold" and "school". Are the okina freaks going to complain that Hawaiians cannot do that? Will they cry that it is culturally insensitive to English-language culture to misrepresent "gold" and "school" as "kula", thereby destroying the distinction found in the native English spellings? Will they argue that the Hawaiianized spelling "kula" is "wrong" because the true and correct native spellings are "gold" and "school"? If so, then the okina-kahako supporters will have to complain about hundreds of other Hawaiian spellings of English words, in their misguided police effort to force their linguistic ignorance and their irrelevant cultural sensitivity down the throats of all writers of all languages. Or do they just want to one-sidedly attack Anglicization of Hawaiian words, without attacking Hawaiianization of English words?

It is every bit as correct for writers of English to toss out Hawaiian okinas and kahakos, as it is for writers of Hawaiian to toss out an English letter from a consonant cluster, break up a consonant cluster with a vowel, or add a Hawaiian vowel after a word-final consonant borrowed from English. English takes Hawaiian "lū`au" and writes it as English "luau". Hawaiian takes English "radio" and writes it as Hawaiian "lekiō".

If Hawaiian writers can respell English loanwords, then English writers can respell Hawaiian loanwords. If English writers cannot do it, then Hawaiian writers cannot do it either.

Okay, I have respectfully requested the previous blanking be undone, and another set of paragraphs seems to have just been blanked in response. We need to discuss here first before such severe changes are made. Please restore the text and discuss rationale here. Thank you for your thoughtfulness in this regard. Badagnani 05:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

What set of paragraphs are you referring to? The POV push in the Republic of Hawaii section? Note that that section was a near verbatim quote of PL103-150, even including parenthetical text such as "(hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "Committee")". The POV push there was clearly missed in previous reverts, and I simply restored the text that had been vandalized. -- JereKrischel 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nearly every U.S. state page contains an etymology explaining the literal meaning of the state name (i.e. "Colorado" = "colored" in Spanish; "Ohio" = "great river" in Shawnee). The blanking of the recently added, sourced text explaining the state name meaning for "Hawai'i," complete with insulting edit summary, has thus been reversed. If there is a problem with the etymology and you have expertise in the Hawaiian language, please discuss here, and provide a more accurate etymology for the word. Thank you. Badagnani 09:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You asked for the opinion of someone with a knowledge of Hawaiian. Here it is. I have deleted the section on the so-called derivations of the words Hawaii and aloha. The suggestions were fanciful but not supportable linguistically. For one thing they do not take into account the cognates of those words in other Polynesian languages or the reconstructions of those words in earlier stages of Polynesian. For instance, the syllable ha- in Hawaii is short, and is therefore unlikely to have derived from hā, the word for breath or spirit, which has a long vowel, and its own separate history in Polynesian, deriving from Eastern Polynesian *saa. Hawaii as an entire word derives from Nuclear Polynesian *sawaiki. Kahuroa 09:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is our policy and the sources cited come from Hawaiian speakers. Would you please provide your source for your particular view of the etymology? Why did you, for example, not first evaluate the sources given, present in "discussion" why you believe them to not be factual, and substitute your own sourced etymology, but instead simply blank the text? What is your opinion on why so many Hawaiians believe the etymology presented in the links? Badagnani 09:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Further, what is the etymological origin of sawaiki, the word from which you believe "Hawaii" descends? And is there any relation with the word "Hawaiki," which was mentioned as an ancestral homeland of Maori in the Whale Rider film? Thank you for your expertise. Badagnani 09:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If it can be verifiably proven that the "breath of life/water of life/I" etymology is absolutely incorrect, this information should then be included as a footnote, as it is a widely promulgated etymology in Hawaii. I'm sure that a core of traditionalist native Hawaiians know the etymological origin of their own nation name. Then again, Hawaiian is not the same language as Marquesan or Central Polynesian and word definitions can change, even incorporating folk etymology that becomes accepted as a new definition. That even happens in English. When that is the case and we can prove it, we should explain this. Badagnani 09:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've just found the Hawaiki and the explanation there seems to make a lot of sense. So it's unclear exactly what Hawaiki means, but it seems that the "S" turned into an "H" in Hawaii and the "k" was replaced with a glottal stop. So you believe the "breath of life/water of life/I" etymology to be in fact a folk etymology? Just want to get this exactly right. Badagnani 09:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally, do you believe the word "Aloha" to be related etymologically in any way to "Hawaii"? If not, it can be removed from the Hawaii article entirely, as the article is longer than desired. Thank you again. Badagnani 10:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Etymology is not what speakers of a language come up with when they break words apart. It has to do with the scientifically reconstructable origins of words. The 'etymologies' you quote are not etymologies at all but are folk-etymologies. You can take any word and break it up like that, and Polynesian people are fond of doing that. It sounds impressive, and you can get all sorts of seemingly knowledgeable people doing it, but a folk etymology is just that. Hawaii is cognate with Māori Hawaiki, Rarotongan 'Avaiki, Samoan Savai'i, just like aloha is cognate with Māori aroha or Samoan alofa. No relationship between aloha and Hawaii as words, breathe of life is just a folk etymology, tho of course people might be passionate about it Kahuroa 10:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you, there we have it then. Aloha should be removed from the etymology section but could be included in the Aloha article. You've provided a source for the Savaii reference, have you? I believe I should add the folk etymology in a footnote. You're familiar with the haole controversy ("without the breath of life") that seems also to have been debunked? What are your thoughts about that one? Badagnani 10:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The "without breath" folk etymology is discussed in the Haole article. Zora 10:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, that is kind of you to point that out, but I've known about that article for some time. I was simply asking for another opinion from an editor whom I've just learned has knowledge and sources related to a number of Polynesian languages, who might be able to shed even more light on this subject. Badagnani 11:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re the asterisk on *sawaiki - that is a linguistic convention denoting that the form is a reconstructed one. Please also don't delete the word 'cognate' as that is the proper description of the related words - they are not just similar, they derive from the same original word. As for haole, there is a cognate in Marquesan, hao'e, meaning 'stranger' - that would seem to mean that it is a word that the Hawaiians carried with them when they settled Hawaii, and therefore before they saw white people. (Marquesan and Hawaiian are very closely related). Deriving it from hā + 'ole (breath + none) looks exactly like a folk etymology to me. Unfortunate if people are using such a derivation. Kahuroa 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If the form is "reconstructed," does this mean that the existence of the word is only speculative? Also, I am not aware that I deleted the word "cognate." Badagnani 21:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not speculative. Folk-etymology is speculative. Comparative linguistics is a specialised branch of Historical linguistics which reconstructs words according to carefully-worked out linguistic principles of the Comparative method, subject to the checks and balances of peer review. Kahuroa 04:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, if not speculative, then "hypothetical," as for example the various reconstructed words of the Proto-Indo-European language. If it isn't provable that such a word existed in exactly that form, that should be made clear to our readers with a wikilink to the word "reconstructed." Badagnani 04:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Excerpt from http://hawaiimatters.com:

Fiction: American missionaries and sugar interests led the Revolution that unseated Lili‘uokalani. (Sometimes the phrase “American businessmen” is also used to describe, erroneously, the makeup of the leadership Committee. In other cases, the Revolutionists are referred to as “foreigners.”)

Fact: The thirteen-member Committee of Safety included nine with American connections and four Europeans, all of whom were qualified voting residents of Hawai‘i. The chairman, Henry Cooper, a relative newcomer to the Islands, had qualified the year before the Revolution. Only three of the thirteen were missionary descendants; one a second generation and two, third generation. Of the thirteen, seven were subjects of the Kingdom, having sworn allegiance to the crown (including five of the former Americans and two of the Europeans), four were American citizens and two were European nationals. Five were attorneys; none were sugar plantation owners or operators. Three had been elected by the largely Hawaiian electorate as legislators in the Monarchy’s House of Representatives. None worked for any of the handful of missionary-dominated businesses in Honolulu.

I've removed the incorrect reference to the queen being overthrown by "American plantation owners". -- JereKrischel 11:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this valuable information. I trust you will now replace "plantation owners" with more accurate terminology, then, as opposed to veiling the largely American origins of this movement (keeping in mind that the 13-member Committee were not the only people pushing for such a coup). Did not Sanford B. Dole and the Hawaiian League/Annexation Club play a role? Only focusing on the 13 without acknowledging the role of these others would seem to be a whitewash, would it not? Badagnani 11:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. -- GreatVacationer (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sanford B. Dole was asked to serve as President of the Provisional Government, and agreed to do so reluctantly. Neither was Dole a plantation owner (a cousin of his is the the more reknown Dole pineapple person). To assert that the movement had "largely American origins" is a bit of a red herring, although it can be said that American influence was particularly strong in the Kingdom of Hawaii starting with the arrival of missionaries in 1820. Trying to pin the blame on Americans, when for the most part the Kingdom of Hawaii was modeled after america and had very close ties dating back to 1820 seems a bit of cherry picking again. -- JereKrischel 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest reading Ernest Andrade's "Unconquerable Rebel" regarding the overthrow as well - he goes into quite a bit of detail regarding the various factions and political parties during the time. It would probably be more accurate to describe the overthrow supporters as the "Reform Party" of the Hawaiian Kingdom (as opposed to the "Liberal Party" of Wilcox - there were three main parties at the time...there was also the "National Reform Party" which was in opposition to the "Reform Party"). The Annexation club was also 18% Native Hawaiian by July 1893, so assigning it as a solely American institution is also inaccurate. -- JereKrischel 12:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Blount Report notes the three major parties [2]. The Reform Party was composed of the people who enacted the 1887 constitution, including Thurston, Dole, and most of those involved in the overthrow, although the Liberal Party also had some supporters of the overthrow here and there. -- JereKrischel 12:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Liliuokalani also refers to them as the "Reform Party" in her testimony in the Blount Report [3]. That looks like the most accurate way to describe the political organization that both enacted the 1887 Reform Constitution, and deposed the Queen when she tried to abrogate it. -- JereKrischel 13:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The removal of context about the fact that Hawaii was not unified under a single ruler is again illogical, as was pointed out earlier. It does not make sense to state that Kamehameha united Hawaii if it is not stated, however briefly, that there was previously infighting among clans in the islands. I trust you will replace the text rather than blanking it. That is what our discussion is for; to ensure that we have the clearest, most factual article possible for our readers. Thank you for your consideration. Badagnani 11:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We can definitely make note of the lack of any unified government, but simply stating that chiefdoms grew larger isn't accurate. Let me see what we can come up with. -- JereKrischel 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is true that chiefdoms grew larger over time. A good treatment of the subject is Exalted Sits the Chief by Ross Cordy. Zora 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

And now Dole and Thurston have been excised entirely from all involvement. I'm afraid there seems to be emerging a common thread to each of the deletions I've seen, beginning with the blanking of the two sourced portions about Hawaii's status 1843-1893 and continuing through this one. Please assure me that the present blanking was not done to minimize the roles of these individuals in the events of 1893. Badagnani 11:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dole and Thurston were very involved, in both the Hawaiian Kingdom government, the Provisional Government, the Republic of Hawaii, and the Territory of Hawaii. However, it is inaccurate to claim they were part of the Committee of Safety. -- JereKrischel 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responses. I was referring specifically to these two's support of the actions of the 13, though of course it's clear they weren't members. Badagnani 13:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that focusing on the members of the Committee of Safety alone and refusing to look at the broader context is a mistake. The personal and blood ties among the missionary descendants tended to create a cohesive social group that dominated the kingdom's social and business life. Newcomers prospered if they were accepted by the haole elite and tended not to do well if they weren't. The overthrow would not have succeeded if it hadn't been supported by this group. I've got some paying work on hand at the moment, but when I have time, I'll look for some cites in Daws to support this -- or at least to illustrate this point of view. As for the plantation owners -- perhaps we can make a distinction between those who lived ON the plantations, and could be very acculturated to Hawaiian ways, and those who lived mainly in Honolulu. Zora 07:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right Zora, regarding the focus only being on the Committee of Safety - I think some words regarding the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom and its general makeup are probably very appropriate. I simply objected to the labeling of the Committee of Safety as being Thurston or Dole's, for one because Thurston was not controlling it, and for two because Dole wasn't convinced to join the effort until after the Committee was formed.

Insofar as "plantation owners", I think any assertion that that is a useful distinction really doesn't apply - Claus Spreckels was a thorough royalist, and a major plantation owner. It could be said that most of the Honolulu Rifles/Committee of Safety/Reform Party folks were city dwellers, but I've got no direct reference for that, and I'm not sure if that is of much utility.

Of course the real problem here is that the politics of the time were complicated - the Portuguese swing vote stood sometimes with the Reform Party, and other times against it, various prominent Native Hawaiians were pro-royalist at times, and pro-annexationist at others (Robert Wilcox, Kamehameha III), and even amongst royalists there were pro-U.S. versus pro-Britain factions (think Kalakaua supporters versus Emma supporters). I understand that to a certain extent we can't go into copious detail in every article, but I specifically object to the simplified characterization of those who overthrew Liliuokalani as "plantation owners", "businessmen" or only "white americans and europeans". Any help on finding a succinct yet accurate description for the group is greatly appreciated. -- JereKrischel 08:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support. By the way, I have looked at several nation and U.S. state articles over the past few days, and find that most have a very short (or sometimes nonexistent) "History" section, which links to a separate "History" article. Sending most or all of the "History" text from this article to the History of Hawaii article would probably solve some of the length problem, something that editors at other similar articles seem to have solved in this way. Badagnani 08:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is mention of the Hawaii earthquake really necessary in the main Hawaii article? No one was hurt, damage was nothing compared to the likes of Hurricane Iniki, and on most islands the biggest impact was the loss of electricity. Would anyone object if I moved the earthquake subsection to the Hawaiian Islands article, as a subset of the geology section? 青い(Aoi) 09:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I support this move. — Viriditas | Talk 10:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me :) Zora 10:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your input! I've just moved the section to the Hawaiian Islands article. 青い(Aoi) 19:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The attack on Pearl is not mentioned here. While it is covered sufficiently in other articles, I would think it would be mentioned along with Hawaii's other history along with a pointer to the main article. Student7 20:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Aloha. As a newcomer here I apologise if the point I raise has already been discussed and resolved. I would like to ask whether it is not better for the introduction to say "Hawaiian: Hawai'i" (or "Hawaiian language: Hawai'i" if that is clearer) rather than "'Ōlelo Hawai'i: Hawai'i".

The reason: the language of the Hawaiian Islands in the language of the Hawaiian Islands is of course 'Ōlelo Hawai'i, but the name of this language in English is Hawaiian, and this page is in English.

I am very interested in Hawaiian issues and in the Hawaiian language in particular, and I am not raising this in a polemical spirit but purely in terms of coherence, consistency and also, it so happens, intelligibility. In any case, when you click on the 'Ōlelo Hawai'i link in the text of the introduction it takes you to the "Hawaiian language" page. What I am suggesting is the same criterion I would apply generally to any nation and its language. When writing in Hawaiian about the English language, I would say "i ka 'Ōlelo Pelekane" or whatever, not "i ka english", wouldn't I? -- A R King 09:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Good point. But to keep everyone happy, how about making it Hawaiian language and then putting 'Ōlelo Hawai'i in parentheses afterwards? Zora 09:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the name of keeping everyone happy, okay. In the name of being sensible, I don't know. Is there a suggestion out there that the English-language denomination of the language be changed from "Hawaiian language" to "'Ōlelo Hawai'i"? However, I'm pretty much an outsider here, a malihini, so I guess it's for you guys to fight it out (peacefully, I hope) and decide. -- A R King 12:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I really think there needs to be more about animals of Hawaii. I cant find any information on animals, except for the humpback whale. It would be very useful information to put on here. 75.8.90.210 18:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC) beth

(www.foto-julius.at/ha_hawaii_pictures.html) I think this is a commercial site. It is a photographer's website and if you click the 'Please click here' link at the bottom of the page, it offers his pix for sale, pretty expensive too! I deleted the link, but Julius07, the photographer, has reverted it. Any thoughts, anybody? Kahuroa 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely linkspam. Deleted. -- JereKrischel 09:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

He has done this on lots of the language Wikipedias too - as here, first he adds a gallery of his photos, then he adds the link to his site. Kahuroa 18:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Just floating some ideas here. Given that this page is very long, maybe we could think about getting rid of some of the multiple photo galleries? Or merge some? How many galleries does an article need - if it needs more than one that might be a sign it is trying to cover too much ground. The photos in the last gallery that was added are all by one photographer and its inclusion was probably aimed at bringing traffic to his website rather than at making the article better. So that was perhaps done for a dubious reason, tho the photos themselves are nice enough. I think there is a lot of other material here that could go onto subsidiary articles, quite a lot of detail about the Hawaiian language, for instance, and lots of other stuff. Kahuroa 22:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format has been updated to include a new Sports section, that covers collegiate sports, amateur sports, and non-team sports (such as hunting and fishing). Please feel free to add this new heading, and supply information about sports in Hawaii. Please see South_carolina#Sports_in_South_Carolina as an example. NorCalHistory 16:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe this article is false on it's odd slant towards the absolution of those responsible for destroying paradise and the depiction of Hawaiians as a bunch of stupid "brownies" that the white man civilized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Satsubatsu347 ( talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

It would be helpful if you would list some specifics of text or omissions to which you object. Badagnani 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

One of the introductory paragraphs states "British explorer James Cook chanced upon the Hawaiian archipelago in 1778 in what is commonly assumed to be the first European contact with Hawaiians, however, substantial evidence (Stokes 1932 for example) exists of earlier Spaniard visits to Hawaii." Is an agenda being pushed here? If the evidence is substantial, shouldn't more sources, and certainly more recent sources than a 1932 one be cited? And what is the nature of the evidence? Wouldn't it be useful to include it? 86.134.115.239 21:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone had mangled this section badly, so that it was no longer coherent. I don't know how long it was that way. I was copyediting the ethnicity section and I noticed the problem in the antiquity section. I rewrote extensively. References are needed badly there. I wrote from what I know, which is a fair bit, thanks to graduate school and recent work copyediting Hawaiian history books. Having rewritten several major articles yesterday and today, I badly need to attend to real life, so did not stop to look up references. Someone please help!

It would be good to have breakout articles on the settlement date and Pa'ao disputes. Working on these articles would be a good class project for a class in Hawaiian history. Zora 08:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a pice of history by Solomon Pele'olani a noted Hawai'ian historian. I feel that it appropriate that this is included here along with genetic material that appears to add strength to this history. Peter Marsh www.polynesian-prehistory.com 58.169.201.13 13:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed the paragraphs on the theory of Solomon Pele'olani because it appears to be original research ( Policy on original research), and therefore not appropriate for Wikipedia. The linguistic ideas are not consistent with generally accepted theories of the origin of the Polynesian languages, and the genetic results may have other interpretations. Davidimai 00:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Marsh put it back. But I'm afraid I've undone that again, and this is why. Peter Marsh has been pushing this line on sci.archaeology, and Dr. Ross Clark replied as follows: " the original (or as close as we are likely to get to it) is available online at http://www.kekoolani.org/Pages/1019%20Hookumukalani%20Hookumukahonua%20WEB/index.htm

Unfortunately, what we see is a typed transcript (probably early 20th century -- the dating is unclear -- Solomon L.K.Peleioholani died in 1916) of a manuscript original. There is a marginal notation that says something like "original in poor condition, discarded" [@#$%^&*!!?!]

Several passages are given in Hawaiian, with English translation following. These read much like other Hawaiian chants describing creation, prayers to the gods, etc. Nothing like the narrative below appears in any obvious fashion.

Then we have numbered comments, in English only. It is here that "Kalonakikeke" is identified as Alaska, with no further explanation, It is hard to tell whether these go back to Peleioholani or are the work of J.K.Poepoe, the transcriber and translator. A sub-note identifies the first part of "Kanaka-Hikina" and "Kanaka-Komohana", which in ordinary Hawaiian would mean "eastern people" and "western people", with Canada! , which hardly inspires confidence in the other interpretations. At one point there is a passage in Hawaiian re "Haalewawahilani" [lit. floating in the heavenly regions], where it says "He kai moana keia, ua uhi paa ia e ka Hau Kohi, a oki hoi oia ia Ice. O ke kai keia o ka Moana o Alika (Arctic Ocean)" [This is a great sea completely covered with ice...], which may indicate that this interpretation goes back to Peleioholani -- though I emphasize that the chant text provides no context to support such an interpretation. And the identification of "Ka-Houpo-o-Kane" as Taiwan would seem to be a modern innovation; at least I have not found it in this ms.

Amusingly, some helpful soul has added to the Wikipedia entry the note that "Tap'enkeng is an ancient name for Formosa" -- apparently struck by some resemblance between "Tap'enkeng" and "Ka-Houpo-o-Kane". Of course we have no idea what any ancient name for Formosa might have been. Tap'enkeng is the (Chinese) name of a cave site in northern Taiwan with early neolithic remains."

Given what Dr Clark has said, I don't think that Peter Marsh's edit should stand. Dougweller 18:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this (twice). Neither the genetic claims nor this Alaksa one are valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to have some more input from Hawaiians and scientists regarding the Hawaiian history as described by Solomon Peleolani. This assertion that Hawaiian royal lineages came from the north holds weight when one looks at the similarity in genes between the Tlingit and Eastern Polynesians; the Human Lymphocyte Antigen Bw48 is common to both groups. The HLA Bw48 in Polynesian groups is linked to HLA A11, but is not linked in Tlingit populations inferring that this change must have happened after departure from the Tlingit population, not the reverse - thus ruling out the possibility that the Tlingit were a Polynesian outlier population. There is no such link as close as this with Polynesians anywhere in the Western Pacific.

The following DNA evidence will help clarify the division between Polynesians, Melanesians and Micronesians.(from; S.W. Serjeantson “The Colonization of the Pacific – A Genetic Trail 1989 pp 135,162-163,166-7) "The following genes set them apart: Polynesians lack HLA-B27 , whereas it is common amongst Melanesians. Polynesians have had little contact with Micronesians. There are only a limited number of similarities in the HLA system. It is clear that Micronesia has had an independent source of HLA genes, probably from the Phillipines, as indicated by the high frequency of HLA-Bw35 which is absent from Melanesian and Polynesian groups. HLA-B13, B18 and B27 are found throughout Melanesia. These antigens are sporadic in Western Polynesia and are essentially absent from the populations of Eastern Polynesia. The few sporadic occurrences are attributable to recent foreign admixture. These antigens are also rarely found in Micronesia. HLA-A11 and B40 are significantly associated with each other in Melanesia, but are not linked in Polynesian Populations.HLA data cannot support the theory of Polynesian evolution within Melanesia.Gene frequency distributions, as well as linkage relationships, clearly place Maoris of New Zealand in the Eastern Polynesian branch, together with Hawaiians and Easter Islanders. The HLA-A-B linkage relationships seen in Hawaiians are present also in Maoris and are consistent with a split in these populations 1,000 years ago." For more information on this, see ( http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page5.htm and http://users.on.net/~mkfenn/page6.htm ).

Cultural similarities between coastal Canada and Polynesians is as follows; (From Thor Heyerdahl, American Indians in the Pacific); Rubbing noses as a form of greeting; Formal principles of rank; lineage, and kinship Use of mats or rugs for money Fish hook and harpoon design Tattooing tools and techniques Tiki design and its spiritual significance. Design of stone pounders along with their spiritual significance Use of gourds for containers instead of pottery Canoe design and building techniques, such as use of hot rocks for steaming hulls open Earth oven procedure House design with entrance through totem's legs Protruding tongue carvings and characteristic eye design in carvings Inlaying of shells into carvings Weaving styles Stone bowl manufacture and design The gaping angry mouth motif on the handle of clubs The traditional name for the Haida homeland of Queen Charlotte Island is Haida'gwai'i, very similar linguistically to Ha'wai'i (homeland). Names such as Tongass (southern) Strait and Hakai'i Channel appear to also be relic names suggesting an Austronesian past to this area.

Irving Goldman, author of "Ancient Polynesian Society", has this to say on the comparison between Kwakuitl and the Polynesians. "For reasons that remain to be discovered, the Indian tribes of this area [NW Coast] share formal principles of rank, lineage, and kinship with Pacific islanders. The Kwakiutl, seem very close to what I have designated as the "traditional" Polynesian society. They share with Polynesians a status system of graded hereditary ranking of individuals and of lineages; a social class system of chiefs ("nobles"), commoners, and slaves; concepts of primogeniture and seniority of descent lines; a concept of abstract supernatural powers as special attributes of chiefs; and a lineage system that leans toward patriliny, but acknowledges the maternal lines as well. Finally, Kwakiutl and eastern Polynesians, especially, associate ambiguity of lineage membership with "Hawaiian" type kinship, a fully classificatory system that does not distinguish between maternal and paternal sides, or between siblings and cousins."

Recent DNA analysis suggests that Polynesians, including Tongans, Samoans, Niueans, Cook Islanders, Tahitians, Hawaiians, Marquesans and Māori, exhibit a maternal mitochondrial DNA link to indigenous peoples of the New Guinea Highlands 40,000 years ago (Bryan Sykes - Seven Daughters of Eve, page 133). The paternal Y chromozome also comes from "New Guinea 11,500 years ago - but since that time have evolved quite separately from Melanesians" (see "Melanesian Origin of Polynesian Y Chromosomes" and "Melanesian Origin of Polynesian Y Chromosomes (correction)" cited in References). After this period, proto-Polynesian genes exhibit a 9based pair mtDNA deletion common to East Asians, showing a separation from Taiwanese aborigines 6,000 years ago. (See "Melanesian origins of Polynesian Y chromozome") Polynesian population expansion began in isolation in the Pacific 2,000 years ago (see also Melanesian origin of Y chromozomes). One particular DNA haplotype - the human lymphocyte antigen (HLA)Bw48 is commonly found in Polynesian populations, but occurs only sporadically in Melanesia. The only other known population with an appreciable frequency of HLA-Bw48 is that of the North American Indians or more specifically the Tlingit of Alaska. (Susan Serjeantson - Out of Asia - Peopling the Americas and the Pacific Edited by Robert Kirk and Emoke Szathmary 1985). In Polynesia Bw48 co-occurs with A11, - suggesting a variation since Polynesians departed from the people of the Alaskan/Canadian coast. This DNA evidence is supported by cultural and archaeological evidence showing a definite link between Eastern Polynesia and the Tlingit, Kwakuitl and Haida of the islands off Alaska and Canada. This suggests that although there has been some cultural input, including the arrival of plants and animals into Western Polynesia through Melanesia, the main genetic input into Polynesia has been from the north. This means proto-Polynesians voyaged from East Asia to Alaska 6,000 years ago and then entered the Polynesian triangle via Hawai'i 2,000 years ago.

Personally I believe Solomon Pele'olani's historical records to be very important as they completely agree with the genetic evidence. To ignore his work is to ignore Hawaiian history.

According ‘The Ancient Hawaiian History of Hookumu Ka Lani & Hookumu Ka Honua', by Solomon L.K. Peleioholani; The ancestors of the Hawai'ian race came not from the islands the South Pacific – for the immigrants from that direction were late arrivals there. – but from the northern direction (welau lani), that is, from the land of Kalonakikeke, now known as Alaska. According to this tradition, a great flood that occurred during the reign of Kahiko-Luamea on the continent of Ka-Houpo-o-Kane, (Ta'pen Keng is the ancient name for Taiwan) and carried away a floating log of wood named Konikonihia. On this log was a precious human cargo and it came to rest on the land of Kalonakikeke (Alaska). On this log was the first man and woman who came to Kalonakikeke from the continent of Ka-Houpo-o-Kane, they were Kalonakiko-ke ("Mr Alaska") and his wife Hoomoe-a-pule ("Woman of my dreams"). They were said to both be high chiefs of the countries of Kanaka-Hikina (person of the east) and Kanaka-Komohana (person of the west) and were descended from the great great ancestor Huka-ohialaka. Many generations later, Chief Nuu, travelled with his wife, Lilinoe, their three sons and their three wives in a canoe called Ka-Waa-Halau-Alii-O-Ka-Moku (the royal canoe of the continent), and it rested apon Mauna Kea (white mountain), on the island of Hawaii. They were the first Hawaiians. In the Kumuhonua Genealogy (a royal genealogy) of Kauai and Oahu, Chief Nuu is mentioned, including his wife Lilinoe. Nuu would have been born between 225 and 75 BC Solomon Peleioholani was a descendant of Chief Nuu through the Kings of Kauai. The Arrival of Chief Nuu was between 2225 and 2075 years ago. As most Hawaiians are descended from the above royal lineage including King Kamehameha it seems that although Pa'ao may have greatly influenced the Hawaiian Kapu system with the introduction of a class based society, the building of temples and human sacrifice, it seems that Pa'ao and his fellow late arrivals from the South never actually gained control of the islands. Leaving aside the question of Paao and the history of the Royal Hawai'ian lineage, historians agree that the history of the islands was marked by a slow but steady growth in population and the size of chiefdoms, which grew to encompass whole islands. Local chiefs, called alii (aliʻi), ruled their settlements and fought to extend their sway and defend their communities from predatory rivals. This was conducted in a system of Ali'i of various ranks somewhat similar to Feudalism

Peter Marsh 121.222.188.177 ( talk) 06:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

 —Preceding 
unsigned comment added by 
121.222.188.177 (
talk) 06:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 

I would like to merge Folklore in Hawaii into this article, before I merge, I want to be sure there are no objections. So I open the floor to discussion regarding this merge. Any thoughts? Navou ^talk 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No, please don't merge. This article is already much too long. The folklore article could use some work, but it's a notable separate subject. BTW, I think it's too heavily influenced by Glen Grant and his imitators. People are learning their folklore from books rather than tūtū. Zora 00:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So I gather that the article is too large for its inclusion, I might possibly be in agreement, perhaps I link from the main article then... But I do not understand the second part, what do you mean, the folklore is to heavily influenced? Navou ^talk 02:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Various small books of spooky tales by Glen Grant have sold many thousands of titles, as have similar books by imitators (I proofread one of them for a local press). People read the books and then tell the stories as folklore. But it's a strange sort of folklore, since the transmission is not oral, but written. I myself am not sure how well-known some of these stories were before they were written down -- or invented. Zora 03:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lacking any support and in the presence of very good arguement by Zora I can not merge. :P Navou ^talk 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

what gives? Openlander 05:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

moreover, why do the number differ so vastly and qualitatively from this US census bureau source [4] ??? Openlander 05:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably the 20% of "mixed race" (as defined by the Census Bureau?) have been counted twice or more, which would (approximately) explain the row totals of about 126%. Demographers must have a standard explanation of the exact significance of the numbers and the row totals. Perhaps someone familiar with census data can insert the appropriate words as a footnote to the table. Dirac66 02:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah this is really ugly and ought to be either fixed or deleted. Ofsevit 21:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The pronunciation section completely ignores the Ha-Vai-I pronunciation which is heard extremely often while on one of the islands. It makes sense given that the Hawaiian language was latinized by people speaking Germanic languages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.229.221.138 ( talk) 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

V and W freely vary in Hawaiian, as do T and K. According to my kumu, the W pronunciation is more often heard on the Big Island, the V elsewhere. T is heard in Kaua'i, K elsewhere. The missionaries standardized Hawaiian on the basis of the Big Island dialect -- which makes sense, as it was the dialect of the ruling chiefs, who were their patrons. Anon, your guess that the language was "Latinized" is wrong. Whether we choose V or W, T or K, we're going to upset some Hawaiians. Zora 05:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This was also brought up at Talk:Alaska, but maybe it would be better to show a locator map which showed Hawaii's location in the Pacific, rather than an inset -- Astrokey 44 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about this since the level of support isn't clear to me from what I've read but shouldn't greater mention be made of the sovereignty and independence movements? The article doesn't currently appear to address this at all other then brief mention of the apology bill... Perhaps brief mention of the various goals and demands and level of support and links to appropriate articles like Hawaiian sovereignty movement Nil Einne 12:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC) == == == == == == == == == == == wow its alot but it dosnt help

I just stumbled across this article, and I'm totally astounded that there's not a single mention of the sovereignty movement in the article (apart from one of the references). This is an egregious oversight. There ought to at least be that link you put in above somewhere in the article. This is tantamount to writing an article about the American South and "forgetting" to mention slavery ... + ILike2BeAnonymous 18:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The movement is driven by a very vocal minority within the Hawaiian community, which itself is a minority of the population. While it may be politically correct to mention this movement, by far the majority of people born and raised in Hawaii, who by the way are not ethnically Hawaiian, don't care about it. 70.95.91.197 22:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

i could not disagree more. the only residents in hawaii who don't care about the sovereignty movement are those who don't understand the strange nature of this unfinished federal business OR how much MONEY is floating around this issue. Literally millions of dollars are hanging on the akaka bill, and special recognition will create an enormous change to the government and economic future of hawaii. it should be noted that you might be hard pressed to find very many mainlanders who even know that Native Hawaiians do not have special recognition like other Native Americans. And even more strange is how little Native Hawaiians know about the issues and struggles mainland Native Americans have faced. Providing specific and well linked information on this issue not only does a service to the state, but it provides accurate and unknown information in a forum that is accessible. It is very difficult to decipher this issue on most of the websites, and the main newspapers hardly mention it but in vague generalized terms. It should ALSO be mentioned that the non-native hawaiian majority enjoy tourist money specifically due to selling the idea of Native Hawaiian culture. This is an issue, i think, is very appropriate and should be extensively and objectively laid out here. teacher 10:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there definitely needs to be a section about this. ArchonMeld ( talk) 18:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Before his death in 1819, Kamehameha had succeeded in consolidating (through military force, or in the case of Kauaʻi and Niʻihau, by political means) all of the major Hawaiian islands, including Key Biscayne, a feat never before accomplished in the history of the islands.

Key Biscayne is in Florida. I'm removing the highlighted section. Chegitz guevara 17:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the lead section has two really heavy paragraphs that seem to rehash the History section. Maybe the content could be folded into the History section or the relevant sub-articles? KeithH 07:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The following non-verified text has lacked a citation for a long time, much longer than the date of the current tag. It was previously tagged long before as unsupported. It should not be returned to the article without being verified by a citation to a reference work listed in the article's references.

However, many state and municipal entities and officials have recognized "Hawaiʻi" to be the correct state name ^{citation needed}.

HOW DID THE VOLCANO DIAMOND HEAD GOT ITS NAME. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.157.8.205 ( talk)

Try reading the article, bro. Cheers, KeithH 02:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

the hawaiian language somewhat sounds similar to the japanese language, i wonder why...

the hawaiian language sounds like several Native American languages when spoken correctly. teacher

Folks,

Just finished thoroughly expanding the Hawaii page in Persian language. Short, but relatively complete. Check it out: [5]. (It's really hard there when youre the only editor making articles for the entire 50 states of the United States. Montana didnt even have an article!). Peace.-- Zereshk 19:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Congrats on your accomplishment. Montanan's motto, Oro y Plata, is Spanish for Gold and Silver. Cheers Geologyguy 21:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The article states that Hawaii is one of three US states that was an independent nation prior to becoming a state along with California and Texas, why is Vermont not included in this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollard666 ( talk • contribs) 21:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My surmise is that the Vermont's "nationhood" is a matter of semantics. All the former colonies were "nation-states" under the Articles of Confederacy, but basically the same entity once separated from England as they later were in U.S. statehood. California and Texas each went from Spanish colony to Mexican province to independent nation to U.S. territory to U.S. state.--Buckboard 05:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about US history but wasn't West Florida a republic? It may be important to add that. Lautarocos 20:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Vermont Republic

I hate to nitpick, but i believe Hawaii was the ONLY one of these three that was internationally recognized as a sovereign nation in modern history. teacher 10:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is a very easily verifiable fact like the height of said isle from base to summit considered weasel words and why weasels? Is there some kind of race hang up about hawaii? If so could we have a superscript bit of text saying [race hang up] instead of these weasal words? 80.7.195.184 23:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC) mike poole uk

Who in this day and age uses Fahrenheit? Only backward stupid people that's who, please quote temperatures in Celsius from now on and forget the scale that suggest 30 is cold 80.7.195.184 23:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, 300 million Americans do, for starters. You can argue that Americans should adopt the metric system (personally, I'd agree with that), but the current convention in the USA is to use the old English system, which uses Fahrenheit, not Celcius. As this is a sire about an American state, the common convention for US English would be more appropriate. 75.70.123.215 00:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hawaii vs. Hawaiʻi

The article's title is Hawaii. In the first sentence it's referred to as the State of Hawaiʻi. But the infobox is headed State of Hawaii. So which spelling is correct? I am seeing the state increasingly spelled as Hawai'i these days (but usually with an apostrophe rather than an okina). Has the spelling officially changed? -- JackofOz 12:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the legal status of the spelling may be, from a linguistic and practical point of view, the diacritics should be used. The 'okina is in fact a consonant, and o omi i i is jus like omiing a consonan in English bu expecing people o be able o guess when i should be presen. The difference between a long and a short vowel similarly distinguishes between different words, so that omitting the kahakō is roughly equivalent to declining to show any distinction in spelling between 'hat' and 'hate', or 'fit' and 'fight' in English. The classic example is that in Hawaiian pau, pa'u, pa'ū, and pā'ū are four different words. Awien 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very enlightening. I guess my primary concern is not a linguistic one, but that we need to be consistent in our spelling. I have no problem with the fact that different valid spellings exist, but I do have a problem if we "mix and match" our way through this (or any) wikipedia article. Surely we need to decide on a primary spelling and use it and it alone, consistently. We should deal with any other spellings by explaining them in the article, as a separate topic. -- JackofOz 00:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of consistently using the diacritics, and will make a start on applying that principle to the article as soon as I can. Maybe somebody more techno-savvy than me could take care of the title and re-direct . . . . Awien 16:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Awien, be aware, though, not to replace the image names as they don't need to reflect the exact name of the article but rather, display a depiction or illustration of the subject (that's the main purpouse of the use of images) as per Wikipedia:Images. I indeed believe that they should have a good descriptive name with the correct spelling, however, as so, the russian flag image (Image:Flag of Russia.svg) should be renamed to Image:Флаг России, which is its actual name. As you can see, even though the russian flag has the incorrect name, it still depicts perfectly the purpose of its use: to illustrate the Russian flag. Please do not begin an Edit war and always refer to Wikipedia:Etiquette as a behavioral guideline while using wikipedia. Remember, I DO agree with the use of Hawai'i instead of Hawaii, however, the replacement of the flag image name results in a broken link in an important article. Thanks. -- Loukinho 17:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I’d just like to mention my disapproval of the apostrophe, which in all my 57 years I have never seen before. It is fiddly & unnecessary. I have never heard a glottal stop pronounced. The article is in English, not Hawaiian. Rothorpe 22:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Frequency of observance notwithstanding, I agree with Rothorpe -- compare with Quebec. Corticopia 22:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't an apostrophe - please read what I said above. But I repeat: the 'okina is essential to being able to pronounce Hawaiian place names correctly (notice the explanation of how the name of the state is pronounced, right at the beginning of the article). Also, you do hear it all the time, it's just that in English its presence or absence doesn't change the meaning of a word, so you don't notice it. When you exclaim "Incredible!", that little catch before the actual vowel sound of the 'i' is a glottal stop.

If your 57 years had been spent in Hawai'i, your objection would carry more weight, but from what you say I doubt whether this is the case.

As for Québec, usage in Canada is now to use the accents on Québécois names, so if Wikipedia is not respecting that usage, corrections should be made there too.

This is an English encyclopedia, and use of the okina is generally unnecessary -- its appearance throughout almost appears an affectation. As there is no apparent consensus supporting its use here, I have removed these instances from the article.

Your assertions about usage of Quebec without accents are unfounded and incorrect (not to mention unsourced), since (per that article) the rendition without accents is official in English. Corticopia 14:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. The ʻokina is a very important part of the Hawaiian language and is needed to avoid any ambiguity between Hawaiian words. For example, "Alakaʻi" means to lead or direct, "ʻAlakai" means to someone has a potbelly, and "Alakai" means sea route.

In addition, a while back, the people working on Hawaii articles came to a general consensus that both the ʻokina and kahakō should both be used in articles where they are appropriate. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style. 青い(Aoi) 00:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the okina may be an important part of the Hawaiian language, but this is an English article about the topic. Feel free to use appropriate symbology when it may clarify matters (e.g., your example above), but to do so for the many instances of Hawaii in the article is rather distracting and superfluous and will be corrected. Arguably, their excessive use may be inappropriate and, thus, contrary to the MoS.

Secondly, please demonstrate the prior consensus you speak of. The link you have provided is to a proposed guideline. Even if there was a prior consensus regarding this, consensus can change ... and there is definitely no consensus currently to support that stance. Corticopia 08:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The argument that this is an English encyclopedia / article / context is not valid. Both Aoi and I have given examples drawn from the language to demonstrate that Hawaiian diacritics are FUNCTIONAL, not merely decorative. But most place names and a very large number of street names in Hawai’i actually are Hawaiian words, meaning that when the diacritics are omitted, there is no way of knowing how to pronounce them (unless you happen to know already). Therefore, even in an English context, there is a powerful practical reason for using them, reflected in the fact that they are indeed increasingly being used on street signs and maps. This being the case, consistency requires that the principle should also be applied to the one Hawaiian word everyone does happen to know, Hawai’i. Please stop trying to impose some principle of “Englishness” where it doesn’t apply. Awien 12:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What examples? Of course it applies here. Redirecting a plethora of Wikipedia articles in this article beforehand with piped links is absurd, and serves to confuse visitors. Among other conventions, the common naming convention requires that this article and renditions in it reflect common English usage: Hawaii. This article already addresses itd usage. Demonstrate an actual consensus or policy to support your continual morphing of this article to suit your linguistic particulars. Corticopia 17:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Englishness applies: we are using English here. Normal English usage has 'Hawaii' for the island group and state. The okina is used for place names, and is appropriate when referring to the Big Island. Rothorpe 13:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed on Wikipedia many, many times before, and not only on this page. Here are just a few of the previous discussions for reference. See:

• Talk:Hawaii/Archive 1#.E2.80.98Okina
• Talk:Hawaii/Archive 2#Language
• Talk:Hawaii/Archive 3
• Talk:Hawaii/Archive 4#Manual of Style for Hawaii-related articles

Each time the issue was brought up, the final decision was to use the ʻokina.

There is no consensus to remove the ʻokina, so please don't remove it until a concensus is created.

Finally, do you have a stance in use of the kahakō? I noticed that the kahakō was not removed in the article, and quite frankly, having the kahakō remain while removing the ʻokina made all instances of Hawaiian place names look ridiculous. 青い(Aoi) 19:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but none of the links provided above give any hint of agreement or consensus regarding this. My volume of the Oxford English Dictionary indicates only Hawaii, as does the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Since you have not demonstrated why the okina should remain, non-English text out of context will be rectified. And that also includes extraneous use of the kahakō (shortly). Really, please do not confuse the general readership through use of non-English content/characters and useless redirects contrary to Wikipedia policies and procedures. Corticopia 20:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a kamaʻāina haole born in in the Kapiʻolani Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaiʻi and I pronounce both ʻokina words [kaˌpiʔoˈlani] and [haˈʋaiʔi] in all contexts in my native language, English. And it is true that some people, even in Hawaiʻi (particularly for people who weren't born or raised there), use a more typical North American pronunciation, [həˈwaji]. Both are acceptable in English, and even though I live in the continent now, I still maintain [haˈʋaiʔi], not [haˈʋaʔi] or [həˈwaji]. In writing, I spell the name in all contexts with the ʻokina. You must understand that while both spellings are acceptable, the spellings with ʻokina and kahakō are not wrong in English, and at times even strongly encouraged. The U.S. government registry for place names does not keep records for diacritics or any letters outside the 26 conventional letters of the modern Latin alphabet, so the name is registered as "Hawaii". However, in Hawaiʻi both spellings can be encountered, while "Hawaiʻi" is considered a more correct and sensitive spelling. As I've read above, I can agree that it is not a cosmetic spelling and it is not for decoration—it is a functional spelling, not just for speakers of the Hawaiian language, but for many monolingual speakers of English in Hawaiʻi along with expatriates like myself. I encourage sensitivity on the matter, so that we can cooperate with reason instead of blind compulsion. I, for one, recommend ʻokina and kahakō spellings in all circumstances for the sake of clarity and unambiguity, as this is not purely an internal Hawaiian language issue, but affects English-speaking people from Hawaiʻi of many ethnic backgrounds too. Personally, I really don't know how to carry a conversation in Hawaiian, but I still manage to pronounce it and spell it correctly, and it is not a stilted or foreign thing. - Gilgamesh 01:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not insensitive to these concerns, but the okina et al. are not English characters and uncommon renditions. They should only be included when the context requires it. I have no difficulty with including Hawaiian renditions as alternates in the introductions of every Hawaii-related article, or even as the secondary term throughout this article, but to do throughout in this article as before seems rather obvious and flies in the face of Wikipedia naming conventions. Corticopia 07:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You will have to accept the fact that they are accepted characters for Hawaiian naming and wording in English in Hawaiʻi, where they are common. Far be it for me to change every instance of "harbour" to "harbor" or "center" to "centre". It is the particular English language convention of the place. Contextually, it is highly appropriate for Hawaiʻi. We need not artificially enforce the conventions of North America or Britain because of their numbers. Most people in North America and Britain do not live in Hawaiʻi or deal with Hawaiʻi. They deal for the most part with their own lives. So Britain has its own spellings, North America has its own spellings, and Hawaiʻi has a strong tradition of its own spellings for words of regional origin. If I recall, Wikipedia does not favor a supremacy of any one English spelling subsystem, and does not condone unnecessary broad respellings of words to reflect specifically U.S.-only or U.K.-only conventions in every context in the entire article library of Wikipedia. Therefore, it is perfectly natural for "centre" and "center" to coexist in Wikipedia, with one being more common in one context, and the other being more common in another context. Therefore, what seems overly obvious to you is simply something you do not properly understand. You have to realize that it is wholly appropriate for Hawaiʻi contexts. The diligent use of ʻokina and kahakō is judicious, not by any means frivolous. And that this seems to be difficult for people not from Hawaiʻi to understand is exactly why this subject keeps coming up repeatedly. These exact same points have been argued before, many times, without results that were very different from before. It is in the appropriate nature of traditional Hawaiʻi-rooted English language writing to write in this fashion, and it is never wrong in context. If you still believe it to be a serious problem, then try changing the literary culture of Hawaiʻi itself, otherwise this convention will very naturally always resurface as yet another Hawaiʻi-associated editor will spell in a way that comes naturally to him or her, just as it comes naturally to me and to various other people you're going to meet in relation to this subject. - Gilgamesh 15:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Rothorpe and Corticopia, please stop your disrespectful reversions. I am restoring the version with 'okina on the following grounds:

It is not true that the use of diacritics "flies in the face of Wikipedia naming conventions". There are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of articles in Wikipedia about Portuguese, Swedish, French etc. etc. etc. people and places where the use of the appropriate diacritics is respected. Let us accord the same respect as regards Hawaiian names.

You admit that "the okina is used for place names". Hawai'i is a place name and therefore the use of the okina is appropriate. The potential exception, as has been pointed out before, is when referring to the state AS A POLITICAL ENTITY.

I have in front of me the map of Hawai'i (sic) The Big Island, in the series of Reference Maps of the Islands of Hawai'i (sic), published by the University of Hawai'i (sic) press, 2840 Kolowalu Street, Honolulu, Hawai'i (sic) 96822

I also have in front of me the guide to Hawai'i (sic) Volcanoes as handed out at Hawai'i (sic) Volcanoes National Park by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, as well as their guide to Pu'uhonua o Hōnaunau (sic).

The world-renowned Bishop Museum gives its address as Honolulu, Hawai'i (sic) on its brochures.

When organisations such as these sanction the use of the diacritics, there is no valid reason for Wikipedia to do otherwise.

(As for Québec, I am a bilingual (French and English) French teacher resident in Canada for the last 38 years. Are you sure you know more about what is going on here than I do? However, this is off-topic to this discussion). Awien 17:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to say that I have no objection to your putting the spelling without 'okina alongside the one with it if you insist. I also apologise for failing to refer to the points I just made here in the edit summary - I got distracted. Awien 19:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was talking about. The deeply-rooted English literary culture of Hawaiʻi. When combined with the arguments of Rothorpe and Corticopia (albeit arguments that may certainly be perfectly sensible to them, in all due respect), this is why this issue will probably never go away and will keep coming up again and again and again, as it has already. If it's not Awien and I, it will be someone else. If it's not Rothorpe and Corticopia, it will be someone else. We need to very seriously address this perenniality on the Wikipedia policy level. (BTW, Awien, I created the {{okina}} template long ago as a neat and efficient way of embedding the proper Unicode ʻokina repeatedly in Wikipedia texts and talk pages. ^_^) - Gilgamesh 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not made any reversions. I never do. As you will see if you read my previous comment, I am in favour of using the okina once the threshold has, as it were, been crossed, but not before. Rothorpe 22:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I now discover it is you who have made a reversion. I am now going to restore my minor edit that you apologise for 'losing'. Rothorpe 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I really alone in thinking that there is a useful distinction to be made between Hawaii (state, no okina) & Hawaiʻi (island, okina)? (There, I've used one.) Rothorpe 23:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope it didn't hurt too much? (Joke meant kindly, not unkindly). It seems to me that the situation is that the spelling Hawaii (there, I left it out) got entrenched for the legal entity at a time before there was any sense that allowance should be made for local usage, so that doesn't look like changing any time soon, but as far as place names are concerned, the group of islands acquired the name of one of them: Hawai'i. Awien 00:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, let us remember that this article is about the U.S. state, not the eponymous island or archipelago -- it's all a matter of context. I do not disagree with including alternate variants of applicable names within context and when appropriate, but to do so at the expense of common English variants and ad nauseum is ostentatious and ultimately a disservice, even disrespectful, to the general audience. If the above rationale to retain the Hawaiian spellings is sound, perhaps said editors should propose moving Hawaii (island), Oahu, etc. to the Hawaiian language variants -- I suspect this would not get very far. The Encyclopaedia Britannica article about 'Hawaii' does not even note the Hawaiian variant, nor does the Columbia Gazetteer of North America, for instance, so why should it be excessively indulged here? Again, the common naming convention applies. In the introduction, I have even linked to the existing usage note regarding the use or not of the okina, et al., which succinctly explains the situation. Corticopia 00:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Corticopia, please see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Diacritical_marks which states that in the absence of consensus, the decision needs to be made on a case-by-case basis. Cogent arguments have been made that Hawaiian names are a special case. Your efforts to impose an illusory uniformity are not in accord with Wikipedia policy, and are not supported by consensus. Please think again. As for "a disservice, even disrespectful to the general audience", is the function of an encyclopedia not to provide people with the best and fullest information possible? Even if that leads to their needing to modify their pre-existing views? Awien 00:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That is only a link to a talk page, with little weight, and is not policy. Your arguments are not supported by any sort of consensus, and cogent counter-arguments have also been presented; moreover, the body of references in parallel volumes provided clearly contradict your stance. Hawaiian names are not more or less special than indicated in the very usage note in the article. Alternate versions are appropriately noted in the leads in relevant article (e.g., Oahu) where they belong. Garner a consensus to support your version, or desist. And, an encyclopedia must also provide comprehensive information in an equitable manner: ostentatious exhibition of non-English punctuation (which was previously the case) is definitely not that. Corticopia 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to force your edits into the article. — Viriditas | Talk 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not forcing anything: provide compelling reasons and demonstrate consensus for the prior ostentatious version; otherwise, desist from fairweather editing. Corticopia 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the edit history shows you just forced your version into the article four times in violation of the WP:3RR. The consensus is to keep the okina in the article. This is supported by myself, Awien, Aoi, Gilgamesh and others. — Viriditas | Talk 01:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Supported by a majority perhaps, but not by consensus nor policy -- Wikipedia is not a democracy. I have thoroughly discussed reasons throughout, citing policy and other volumes to demonstrate the point, and Rowthorpe and I and others do not concur, while counterarguments are not at all rooted in policy. After all, this is an English language exercise, not one to intended to pander to ostentatious regionalism and POV-pushing. I'll be back later. Corticopia 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a history of protracted, tendentious edit warring, [6] and alleged sockuppetry. [7] And I find it very strange that the only editor that has ever made the same arguments as you is User:AgentX. [8] You created this "new" account on January 11, knowing exactly how Wikipedia works, with no learning curve at all. How many accounts do you have? — Viriditas | Talk 03:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In absence of anything else, I find it curious that you would resort to ad hominem arguments to try to discredit a cogent argument. I have nothing to do with the editor you cite -- given your riposte, I will not indulge your distaste by responding further. Corticopia 06:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary for you to not refuse to talk with other editors User:Corticopia. WP:TALK says that if there is a disagreement about edits to the article, then it is necessary to discuss these edits in the article's talk page. Since there is a content dispute, you cannot simply revert the article at your whim; you must discuss changes in the talk page.---- ^Dark Tea 07:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

DarkTea obviously has difficulty comprehending, since I have been discussing this throughout (see above) and her comments are in furtherance of support for her own agenda at 'Asia' and related articles. I will not, however, cow-tow to editors who insist on resorting to ad hominem argumentation to try to push through disagreeable edits that also fly in the face of policy. But I guess, here as elsewhere: garbage in, garbage out. Now, can anyone cite a salient policy that will allow the current article to stand? I'll be back later. Corticopia 07:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you'll be back later...but under which account name? :-) — Viriditas | Talk

Too much indentation. Let's resume below here, shall we? - Gilgamesh 11:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems I am alone in thinking it would be useful to use the okina for the island but not for the state. Sigh.

Presumably the strange contrast between 'Hawaiʻi' and 'Hawaiian' reflects local speech habits? Phonetic English spelling, very 21st century. Rothorpe 12:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

'Hawaiian' is an English adjective derived from the place name; compare Quebecker (and similarly daliesque, adhockery etc.) Awien 17:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

So no glottal stop there then? But when you say 'Hawaii' in English you use one? Rothorpe 17:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, whenever I say Hawai'i I use the glottal stop, as I try to wherever it occurs. It is, after all, one of the language's few consonants. Awien 17:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you sometimes get confused & use it when you say 'Hawaiian'? After all, the stress is in the same place. Rothorpe 18:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The conventional usage is rather peculiar, I'll admit. "Hawaiʻi" is [haˈʋaiʔi]. "Hawaiian", always having been a uniquely English-derived adjective because of the English-derived attached suffix, is [haˈwaiən] or [haˈʋaiən]. It is possible to sometimes encounter the spelling "Hawaiʻian", but this is a zealous spelling, and virtually everyone pronounces the word with just three syllables in English. "Québec"/"Quebecker" is a good comparison. (Though just personally, as I am not from Canada, I learned the term "Québécois" first, and that tends to be my instinctive adjective for Québec in my English, but that's uniquely me. Anyway.) - Gilgamesh 19:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Peculiar indeed. - I respectfully suggest, Awien, that you continue to say 'Hawaii' when speaking English. I think it will be easier for you, as there are plenty of consonants in English already. Of course you will say Hawaiʻi in Hawaiian. Just as I pronounce 'Portugal' differently depending on which language I'm speaking. Rothorpe 03:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that several extremely POV editors have a stranglehold on this issue and are claiming a consensus simply because the opposing voice here isn't as large. I'm sure that if you put this to the broader Wikipedia community in general, the consensus would be to use Hawaii. It has been pointed at that no other encyclopedic source uses Hawai'i and there is a hundred fold difference between the number of google hits on Hawaii and Hawai'i. From what I can gather from the arguments made, the ' is used to help indicate pronunciation. I, and the other 99% of people who visit this page, do not speak Hawaiian; the ' serves no purpose to us and only looks awkward and pretentious. Dramma! 05:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

To presume it to be awkward and pretentious is rather inflammatory, and to me seems to reveal a culture clash. Let's try to avoid culture clashes if possible. In our (Hawaiʻi people) contexts, the ʻokina is never awkward nor is it ever pretentious. On the contrary, the opposite is true—writing "Hawaii" without the ʻokina looks uneducated and boorish, at least in the context of Hawaiʻi literary culture. In particular, most of the Hawaiʻi-rooted literary contexts that use the "Hawaii" spelling are either people without solid roots in the islands, or publications that pander to tourists whose interaction with Hawaiʻi is nonexistent beyond its tropical getaway resorts with postcard beaches. The ʻokina issue can be a pretty charged one, as its intentional exclusion seems to imply a contempt of Hawaiʻi's distinct and proud English language literary culture as irrelevant just because its more educated conventions are not shared by literati in North America or the British Isles. Whether or not it is actually the case, it appears as such brazen arrogance that robs Hawaiʻi of more than a century of its own prestigeous English language conventions. It's not something that can just be blindly folded into the context of American English standards without taking into account the conventions that are used and reinforced in Hawaiʻi's locally-rooted multiethnic culture of all walks of life—hell, even the Hawaiʻi state legislature constantly makes judicious use of the ʻokina and kahakō in its official English language public documents. Therefore, the argument that it looks awkward and pretentious cannot apply, because it is not remotely true where it matters most of all—in Hawaiʻi. - Gilgamesh 07:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As an outside editor, I have no opinion on whether it should be Hawaii or Hawaiʻi. I can understand the arguments from both sides. Hawaii is more likely to be used by the general English-speaking users of Wikipedia, while Hawaiʻi is the proper spelling in the context of the article (just as colour is correctly spelled in a British context). However, I disagree with Dramma's statement that people will find the ʻokina awkward and pretentious. I certainly don't. Most people unfamiliar with the Hawaiʻian language and its subtleties will no doubt find it odd, but an explanation as to the ʻokina's use as a consonant should clear up any confusion. I say we should use the proper name (that is Hawaiʻi), just as accented characters are used in French or Vietnamese articles. -- clpo13_{( talk)} 08:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I cannot fathom the belligerence that this argument has brought, especially as this belligerence includes a wholesale dismissal of writing practices that have been perfectly natural and correct to me for my entire educated life. I may probably never understand... I will just continue to do what comes to me as natural and properly educated as a kamaʻāina. English is my first language. For most communications, English is my only language. I have no useful proficiency in Hawaiian. Nor do I speak Hawaiian Pidgin—I have no remarkable accent until Hawaiian words cross my lips. And to me, in context with my roots, this is just one part of what it is to speak English properly. I admit, that when I was younger, I was rather concerned that people from the continent would think I sound funny or arrogant or that I was trying to show off, as I was conscious that very few others in the continent pronounced or spelt the names of my birthplace the way I had learned them to be correct. I'm an adult now, and I know better, and there is no embarrassment. I've lived in the continent for more than half my life now, but in essence I am still an islander, and I think like an islander, and that does not change with my level of education. The way people in the continent do things—I know that that's just how life is for them, and it's no less natural for them than my life has been for me. Sometimes, in moments of my own arrogance, it can be easy to think that the way continental Americans do things is bizarre and perhaps even stupid and boorish. But just as with everyone else who feels like a foreigner in the place they find themselves in, I have to recognize that the way that people here do things may be alright for them, even if it may never be natural for me as an expatriate. And you people, who have a problem with these Hawaiian English literary customs—you need to recognize that they are as correct for Hawaiʻi and its expatriates as your literary customs are for the places where you have your roots. People rooted in American culture would never spell "colour", but that also doesn't mean "color" is the only correct spelling in perpetuity globally. Likewise, people rooted in British culture would never spell "center", but that doesn't give "centre" the international spelling monopoly. And for someone living in London, it may be natural for them, writing in London for someone else to read in London, to spell "Hawaii". I wouldn't advocate any extreme eradication of non-ʻokina spellings internationally, as I ought not to force a change on valid local literary cultures. But when you're writing about Hawaiʻi for the whole world to read, it would be stilted to write it on Wikipedia wholly by standards dictated solely from London or Chicago. Hawaiʻi is not an illiterate backwater—it has a literary tradition of the English language that is completely intelligible with English speakers in the rest of the networked world. Why not give it due reverence? - Gilgamesh 09:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The variants colour and color are known and used worldwide. This is not the case with Hawaii & Hawaiʻi. (I am drafting this in Word. Where is the okina in Insert Symbol? I have had to resort to putting a space before an opening quotation mark - which of course doesn't work when transferred here.) I understand that you would wish to educate the world about the okina, & that there is a Hawaiian English tradition that requires it, but Wikipedia is not the place for a fait accompli.

Dramma, welcome. Rothorpe 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You realize that, as along as that attitude is asserted, this issue is never going to go away. If it's not me, then it's just someone else, and then it will again be someone else, and then it will still yet be someone else. Just let the Hawaiian English editors do their educated job without making them feel belittled by heavy continental belligerence. Hawaiʻi has already had plenty of that over the past century and a half and they are very sensitive about it. This issue is far greater than just you and just me, or just any of the editors who have spoken on this issue through the multiple times it has resurfaced. As I have suggested before—take the issue up with the Hawaiian English literary culture. If you feel that way, then tell them you don't think their educated standards are welcome at Wikipedia or on the world stage as a whole. I guarantee that will not go over well. - Gilgamesh 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

'Take the issue up with the Hawaiian English literary culture.' How? You seem to be representing them very well, anyway. You know your okina (available or not in Microsoft Word, do you know?) is safe from me, that I am arguing for argument's sake, because I feel I am right. But perhaps you can explain this for me: "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)"— Rothorpe 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I remember that. "Hawaii" is used as a state in the federal U.S. government as represented in Washington, and in tourist/vacation marketing in many parts of the world, where the usage intends to advertise instead of inform. But in Hawaiʻi itself, "Hawaiʻi" is more appropriate for all contexts. And "Hawaiʻi" is always the appropriate spelling for the Island of Hawaiʻi, and in use on the state government level or lower. As this article here is for the U.S. state entity, I rested on the case long ago that "Hawaii" need not necessarily be changed in this context as it is the name of a political entity with its particular name spelling registered as such in Washington. As many of us either live in Hawaiʻi, are expatriates of Hawaiʻi or otherwise come from Hawaiʻi, our educated usage with the ʻokina and kahakō cannot be considered in any way improper and does not merit reversion. Now...if you're just arguing for argument's sake, then I don't see the point in arguing this further. I have better things to be doing. Is there anything pressing you need to bring up? - Gilgamesh 23:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Typing the diacritics - answer for Rothorpe, for typing directly into the window. (Sorry I can't help with Word).For the 'okina, an apostrophe is generally considered adequate, though there are perfectionists who disapprove . For the kahakō, on an Apple computer, just make sure the US (sic!) extended keyboard is selected, type option+a then your vowel - that simple. One system for PC is (if my old notes are right) numlock on, then hold down ALT while you type 0101 for ā, 0113 for ē, 012b for ī, 014d for ō, 016b for ū.

Too late for other issues tonight, but I do hope we can get this sorted. Awien 02:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Awien, I have only Word - ʻand ʻanyway ʻI ʻokina ʻokay.

Gilgamesh, first, you echo my position that the okina is only required once over the threshold of the state, not from outside; then you go all hard-line again. Time to get on with those better things? Rothorpe 17:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Once for the U.S. state as it is considered among one of the 50 states. Always in other contexts. And please, "hardline" is offensive. To us it's the opposite position that seems hardline. - Gilgamesh 20:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I see. No offence intended. Rothorpe 21:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's been demonstrated that it is spelled Hawaiʻi in English materials produced in Hawaiʻi. It is also spelled this way increasingly in materials produced elsewhere. We should use the spelling that is used in the local variety of English. As a somewhat related case, Bogotá is located at that title and uses that spelling almost exclusively; it's not relevant that many non-Colombians pronounce that name Bógota and spell it Bogota. The name is Bogotá; the name is Hawaiʻi. — The Storm Surfer 05:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a somewhat related case. ‘Bogotá’ is a simple matter of English stress reflecting local stress, whereas ‘Hawaiʻi’ involves a glottal stop, a phoneme in Hawaiian English absent in most (all?) other varieties & thus not easily pronounced by most other anglophones: the article mentions two variant pronunciations which dispense with it. Rothorpe 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Since discussion seems to have stagnated and as there seem to be no more points to make, I’ve made a move request and set up a poll hereinafter. Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 12:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The commentaries in this section are extremely disturbing to me. The true subject here is not just the use of the `okina, but it’s obvious to me that the people here who want the `okina spelled out in Hawai`i are debating on the behalf of their right to assert their diversity in an encyclopedia built on international contributions. To say that the English represented in Wikipedia must be British-English or American-English assumes that English belongs to the British or Americans. However, English is now an internationally used language and used in many variations by many different people. These variations are not just slang or regional dialects, as some people here are treating them. They, in their own regions, are standardized and a proper use of the language, as is the use of the name Hawai`i in the region of Hawai`i. Moreover, to assert that an article written about Hawai`i must conform to Eurocentric or North American dialects robs this encyclopedia of its ability to become truly objective and well rounded from an international point of view. I would urge our editors to please work towards insuring that this encyclopedia has a high level of integrity, especially in the area of insuring that the points of views represented are not, as in many discourses, blanketed over by Eurocentric and Americanized world viewpoints. I wonder if the survey that was taken had any contributions from people outside of Europe or North America. Before you go along with the “majority,” please ask yourself – the majority of whom? Do the people of Hawai`i not have a right to name their islands? Do the people who NAMED Hawai`i not have a right in an encyclopedia that is supposed to reflect what all the world’s people know, to tell others the true name and pronunciation for the name of Hawai`i? The true name of Hawai`i is Hawai`i and that name has meaning. That a super-power like the United States should come along and have no value for that meaning and simply remove - out of convenience – part of a name that gives that name meaning, and then for people to come along here to an international encyclopedia and try to enforce this cultural insensitivity in this day and age of growing global understanding is ignorant, backwards, racist, and just plain unethical. Jaspercat 08:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm interested to see that although a lot of energy has gone into how the name of this place should be spelled, not much energy seems to have gone into telling how this place became a US state. I can hardly follow the poorly written section on this. Anyone want to focus on that content instead of accents? WikiEditi ( talk) 03:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

According to the current revision there are no non-religious people living in Hawaii, even though previous versions of this article have the percentage at 18%. Which version is correct? AntiuserX 11:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

See [9]. — Viriditas | Talk 13:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Over 50% seems a bit unusual, but my edit at least was valid. Thanks for posting a source. AntiuserX 19:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That page claims that 772,843 Hawaii residents (nearly 70%) are unaffiliated with the Christian religion. [10]. According to that site, the number refers to "unclaimed" populations: "those that are not adherents of any of the 188 groups included in the Church & Church Membership Data. This number should not be used as an indicator of irreligion or atheism, as it also includes adherents of many groups not included in the data." According to the same site, 0.5% of the total American population is atheist. [11] — Viriditas | Talk 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition to 9.3% non-religious, whatever distinction they think they're making between the two. Awien 22:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't live in Hawaii myself (I don't live anywhere in the USA either), but I thought Hawaii was the only State in the USA with no straight lines on its borders? Correct me if I'm wrong, by all means. _~~ Neo 2.3 Hylan 10:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you could say that... since it has no borders... but why include it?-- Patrick 01:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I add Israel Kamakawiwo'ole and Jack Johnson (musician) to the famous persons gallery?
Just to fill it out as a 2x4... Any objections? -- travisthurston 01:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

We need the English version of the Hawaiian motto, "The life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness" put on there. It needs to be with the Hawaiian motto in the table. Complex-Algorithm 22:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Native Hawaiians. Badagnani 02:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of mentioning the stuff about the UN? How is this relevant? -- M a s 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are two rows in the table under the heading "Ancestry Group". They are identical, except the percentages are significantly different. Perhaps someone who knows the correct percentages can remove the incorrect row? (and perhaps verify the entire table).

       
Esb 00:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Don-ho.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

What's up with this sentence: "Politically, Hawaii is considered to be a part of the North American continent."? I would like at least to see a reference where this subject is further developed... What about Alaska, was it politically considered an Asiatic territory before it turn into an USA state? What about the North Pole, is it considered to be politically part of which continent?

What I mean is, this is a pointless observation. Who is it to decide which are the "political" continents??... What about Turkey, is Wikipedia going to enter the dispute about whether it is "politically" a part of Europe or not? What about the Philippines, was it politically part of Europe, and then North America (as Hawaii), and then Asia? I bet there is a large number of USA citizens who don't consider Mexico, or perhaps Cuba, to be "politically" part of the North America...

I think it's no good to put such a statement in an article, specially in the beginning. If there is a geological justification to say that Hawaii is part of the North American continent, then let's say it is, and end of question. I don't see any good-hearted reason to talk about some region of the planet to be or not "politically" part of some continent. -- NIC1138 ( talk) 00:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it is odd too. Continent is a geographic term. -- Tom ( talk) 15:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this; I've made editions that hopefully clarify matters. Corticopia ( talk) 15:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

yo 24.148.25.3 if you made an acount and are still watching this page then listen up! i've got a bone to pick with you about some "distasteful" comments. ANOMALY-117 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Disregared if amends have already been made for the trouble you've caused. ANOMALY-117 22:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you move this discussion to User_talk:24.148.25.3, please? — Viriditas | Talk 22:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A possibly WP:FRINGE article that isn't even linked from this article. In my opinion, it warrants deletion and since it isn't linked (avoiding attention from Wikipedians perhaps) I thought I'd bring it to the attention of those who know more about Hawaii. -- TheSeer ( Talkˑ Contribs) 14:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no satellite photo of Maui in the island gallery? ArchonMeld ( talk) 18:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says Hawaii became a state in 1951 - WRONG - it was 1959. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.75.230.2 ( talk) 06:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I just did some research and this seems to be true (Places I looked: http://www.netstate.com/states/intro/hi_intro.htm and also here: http://www.askforkids.com/web?q=When+did+Hawaii+become+a+state%3F&qsrc=1&o=0 ). If it has not yet been done I will edit this. -- Talk to Stealth500 ( talk) 01:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The article says Hawaii was formed by a hotspot and the hotspot is remaining stationary. However, according to one source, Hawaii sits atop the East Rift Zone in the Pacific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.80.15 ( talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii has nothing to do with the East Pacific Rise (Rift); nor is the hot spot stationary relative to the Pacific Plate, which is passing over it. The East Rift Zone mentioned in the article is a small feature within the massif of Kilauea, nothing to do with the geometry or origin of the island chain as a whole. Cheers Geologyguy ( talk) 23:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

it may have to do with the East Rift zone however Hawaii was formed by a volcano, a hotspot.-- Talk to Stealth500 ( talk) 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

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.