Talk:Hawaii/Archive 5

"Nearly bloodless coup"

Would a genuinely bloodless coup be termed "nearly bloody"?--Son of Somebody 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be more appropriate to indicate clearly that only one police officer was wounded while trying to stop militiamen from distributing rifles. No other shots were fired, and no other casualties (deaths or wounds) occured. I'm open to alternate wording suggestions. --JereKrischel 03:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Mount Wai‘ale‘ale

The article lists Mount Waiʻaleʻale as the third wettest place on earth. However, when I follow the link, I see only one wetter spot listed (Mawsynram, India). Does this bother anyone besides me? Derekt75 22:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess I was the only one bothered by this. I spent over a half hour with google trying to find wetter spots. The only other contender was Cherrapunji near Mawsynram, which wikipedia lists as the third wettest spot in the world. I also found that the Mawsynram data is somewhat disputed, since the data collection there is rather primitive. Anyway, if you can find a wetter spot than Mawsynram or Mount Waiʻaleʻale, please let us know. Until then, I think we should say "second wettest". Derekt75 22:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its probably better to just say "one of the wettest". I've seen statistics that vary based on what period of measurement is used (one year, average over a decade, average over 50 years, etc). Hard to make the claim of "wettest" if we don't get specific on the measurement we are using. --JereKrischel 23:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This just seems like such a cop-out to me. Sure Cherrapunji has had a year with more rain, but the commonly quoted "average yearly rainfall" seems to be 11,430mm to Mount Waiʻaleʻale's 11,684. When I read articles, things like "one of the ...est" bother me. Why not tell me where it ranks? As far as the specific measurement criteria, I think the 2nd half of the sentence made it clear that it was talking about annual rainfall. To address your concern, I tried being more specific, but honestly, I like what I had before better. Derekt75 12:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Railways

Does Hawaii have railways? Felix 15:02, 27 July 2006

Yes, Hawaii has two, small, heritage railways, one at West Oahu (see their webswite here) and one on Maui (see their website here. Both are too short (each runs on track that's about 6 miles long), too slow, and too expensive to be used by commuters.

Most of the Hawaiian islands used to have railroads servicing them regularly. Oahu, for example, had the Oahu Railway and Land Company, which ran around the entire island. The Big Island had the Hawaii Consolidated Railway. Most of Hawaii's railroads, however, shuttered after World War II as trucks became more economical.

You might have heard that Honolulu is currently planning a mass transit system, which might include a light rail system that would run from Kapolei through Manoa/Waikiki.

I hope this answers your question. 青い(Aoi) 20:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could someone take a look at Maglev train and see if the entry for Honolulu should be revised or not? Thanks. Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but the Sugar Cane Train on Maui has changed its name to Lahaina-Kaanapali and Pacific Railroad. Most if not all of the sugar cane on the west side has been replaced with houses (just like Oahu) although you can still see it growing wild (if you have good eyes). Of course, it still fills the valley on the other side. —Viriditas | Talk 23:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Felix 16:04, 28 July 2006

Land growth

From article "and it is the only state that continues to grow due to active lava flows, most notably from Kīlauea." This is true for only active lava growth, not any land growth as it seems to say. I asked the Alaska Volcano Center and they said Augustine Island has grown due to debris avalanches, not sure how recently. Rmhermen 21:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Like most oddities and extremes, etc. there are always exceptions of some kind somewhere. I'm unclear what the Alaska (Augustine Island) example is exactly, but it is the case in many coastal areas that the land area advances (increases) due to various geological processes. For example, I suspect that until they started destroying their coastal marshes, the State of Louisiana was increasing in size (and at a daily rate exceeding that in Hawaii) as the Mississippi delta built out into the Gulf at the expense of a lot of soil from the Midwest (but no loss of land area to the sea in those eroding states). So the "active lava flows" part is clearly important to the statement - Marshman 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Israel Kamakawiwo'ole`

As a famous Hawai'ian? I don't really know too much about him, but I'm a fan of some of his songs & life. I would suggest that his accomplishments should induct him to a title of "famous Hawai'ian" --Duemellon 7 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I think "famous" is a term that means well known outside of a typical group of friends and associates, and Isreal is now known outside of Hawai'i, and possibly well-known outside of Hawai'i. (BTB: it is Hawaiian not Hawai'ian ;^) - Marshman 7 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Sandwich Islands

The name was in common use until the late 19th century and can still be found today in today's writing (See for example: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/28/opinion/diary.php). Since it's therefore not unlikely that today's readers will stumble upon the name, I think it is wise to include the name in the introduction to the article.

Much as I respect Marshman's edits, I'm afraid I have to agree with Canoeguy on this one. I routinely work with older 19th century texts and I'd be lost if I didn't know where the Sandwich Islands were. But perhaps we should make sure that readers know that it's an older term, never used now, and that it has overtones of the quaint and imperialist? Zora 17:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The way it was put in at the top of the article made it a sort of synonym for Hawai‘i. I think it should be in the article, but in correct context (as you suggest), not the incorrect context from which I deleted it. And 19th Century is still history (this is now the 21st) %^) - Marshman 17:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a island not a state

Why would you think it "cool" to demonstrate your ignorance? - Marshman

Kamehameha, the "Great" Mass Murderer

Like Saddam Hussein, Kamehameha used the WMD of his era (firearms and cannons) to murder thousands of his own neighbors who opposed him. Kamehameha is the "great"-est mass murderer in the history of Hawaii. He was responsible for the murders of more Hawaiians than anyone else. To euphemize his bloody and brutal subjugation of the Hawaiian people as "uniting the islands" is misleading. The people of Maui, Molokai, and Oahu resisted the unwanted dictator who invaded and stole their land. So he is also the "great"-est thief in the history of Hawaii. He was "the First" person to steal all of the land, and "the Great" murderer of Hawaiian men and women. It is dishonest to sugarcoat what he did. Agent X 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to oppose the factual accuracy of what you added to this article (though I will say it needs to be sourced), but all that information does not belong in this article's introduction. According to Wikipedia:Lead section, the introduction of the article typically shouldn't be longer than four paragraphs (it is currently seven paragraphs long). In addition, "the lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms." This information does not do any of that. The current long introduction to the article doesn't work. The Kamehameha "mass murderer" information really isn't that important to the scope of the article. IMO, it should be moved to the Kamehameha I article and any mention of this information in the Hawaii article should be moved down to the "history" section, and even then, anything written should be very brief. This article is supposed to give a general overview of Hawaii, not detail Kamehameha's "mass murdering." 青い(Aoi) 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In contradiction to what you wrote, Wikipedia:Lead section has made self-contradictory statements regarding the length of the lead (as well as other points). For example, it has stated that: (1) there is no set length for a lead section; and (2) the lead can be "several" paragraphs long, depending on the article. The general idea seems to be "the shorter/longer the article, the shorter/longer the lead".

You have misrepresented what I added to the article. You quoted "mass murderer" and "mass murdering", neither of which I added to the article. I wrote "mass murderer" here on the TALK PAGE, but not in the ARTICLE. You are guilty of misrepresenting what I wrote in the article as what I wrote on the talk page. In the article, I used the phrase "By aggressively murdering all who opposed him". That was my one-and-only use of "murder" in what I added to the article. Your writing, above, falsely makes it sound as if I wrote about nothing other than Kamehameha's greedy slaughter of Hawaiian people. In fact, I contributed an overview of the original colonization and subsequent governance of Hawaii, from 1000 A.D. up to statehood. I also contributed information on the various pronunciations and spellings of the word "Hawaii". The latter info has nothing to do with "murder". But it is relevant to "defining the terms", in contradiction to your assessment above. After I worked on it, the lead was 6 paragraphs long, NOT 7 as you claimed. As for SOURCES, the Wikipedia guide used to REQUIRE that citations be OMITTED from the lead. One admin changed that around 4 July 2006 (which I only found out yesterday). Now it seems that citations are needed in lead sections. Ping-ponging of Wikipedia guides causes chaos for contributors. At any rate, your revision of the lead had no citations, after you criticized me on that point. (I was following the former established guide.)

I'm not arguing against revision per se. But please, Aoi, do not misrepresent what I wrote (whether in an article or on a talk page). And do not use such misrepresentations as false justifications for revisions. Agent X 13:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down. I apologize for misrepresenting what you said and I didn't mean to. All I did was point out that there needed to be changes to the ridiculously long introduction and I cited WP:Lead as the appropriate criteria from the manual of style. And while it is important to define the terms, I mainly edited the introduction because a lot of the content in the introduction was info that wasn't even included in the article itself (or in any of the article's subarticles, for that matter). Because of this, I didn't think the introduction was a true "introduction" anymore. Anyway, please don't think I'm going against you and what you're editing. My main concern is with keeping this article readable, which was why I edited the introduction as I did. My intent is NOT to misrepresent your contributions as "false justifications" to revise the article. You really don't need to sound as sharp as you do on talk pages, I doubt many of the editors on this article are challenging your edits in general, which in my opinion have been very beneficial to the article.

On an unrelated note, I've been working on an offline version of this article that tries to add citations to major parts of the article. Depending on my school schedule, I hope to get it online soon. 青い(Aoi) 00:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hawaiian Antiquity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii#Hawaiian_antiquity

Under that section, I noticed someone added that according to recent evidence, the initial settlement was as late as 800 A.D. So whatever happened to the carbon dating pinpointing it to 400 A.D. from Halawa Valley? Is that now thrown out because of recent evidence showing a more recent date? That doesn't make sense to me. Granted that none of you don't comprehend genealogical reckoning that could aid in the dates. -- Mamoahina 23:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose carbon dating is not necessarily always accurate, and the new findings have addressed that, but I don't have access to the raw study data used for that conclusion. Although genealogical reckoning could aid in validating the dates, it is difficult to use that as a primary source, given the lack of verifiable records (I'm assuming you're talking about oral histories and traditions). --JereKrischel 01:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument

Will information about this be added here? Northwestern Hawaiian Islands National Monument Badagnani 12:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a mention in the geography section would be appropriate. 青い(Aoi) 23:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

added --JereKrischel 06:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Legal status of Hawaii footer

I'm aware that Zora and IslandGyrl are discussing this issue on their respective talk pages, but can the two of you briefly summarize and state your positions regarding the use of the template? Due to the controversial nature of this template, it may be a bit premature to include it on this page without consensus. --Viriditas | Talk 13:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to having the template there. The POV that template represents is an extreme minority POV. If I recall correctly, that POV is well-represented on Wikipedia -- and if IslandGyrl doesn't believe it is, she should write an article that is as NPOV as she can manage and we'll edit it and link it from the main Hawai'i page. I don't want to censor the POV, but I don't think it should be elevated to template status, as if there were really some doubt about the state's legal status. The template makes it look as if Wikipedia were endorsing the belief that there is some such doubt. What else? Templates for every political position in the islands? Zora 00:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your position, Zora. There certainly is no doubt except in the minds of a very few people who tend to be rather out of touch by hanging out at UH. I used to go there, and I know how little most at UH really know about the community around them. - Marshman 01:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the template should probably be kept only on the hawaii pages that are directly in the time frame of the dispute - that is, on the Hawaii sovereignty pages, the Kingdom of Hawaii, Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii pages. Once we get into the Territory, Statehood, and delisting from UN article 73, the dispute isn't particularly mainstream (one could even argue that the 1874 Morgan Committee Report is the furthest boundary of legitimate dispute). Perhaps that would be an appropriate compromise. I think that IslandGyrl's work on the templates has been in good faith, but that the objection to it's universal placement is understandable. I think that part of the issue is that despite being fringe and unjustifiable, the historical revisionism of the hawaiian sovereignty movement has made great strides when unopposed (i.e., '93 apology resolution, the continuous near-miss of the Akaka Bill). I think the fear is that giving prominent placement is akin to giving legitimacy - much as a scientist would object to the inclusion of intelligent design or creationism in a science class. That being said, intelligent design WOULD be an appropriate topic in a creative fiction class (Spaghetti Monsterism), or a social studies class - and I think that for a certain subset of Hawai'i pages, the legal template IslandGyrl has worked on would be appropriate --JereKrischel 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom overthrow information

The accusations that the U.S. peacekeepers requested by Minister Stevens and led by Capt. Wiltse somehow aided in the overthrow are claimed by the Blount Report of 7/17/1893, which was repudiated by the Morgan Report of 2/26/1894. Although President Grover Cleveland did demand the queen's reinstatement on 12/18/1893, President Dole of the Provisional Government of Hawaii flatly refused. Cleveland forwarded the matter on to Congress, and made his famous condemnation of the situation. However, upon Congress's reply, with the Morgan Report, which exonerated Minister Stevens, the U.S. peacekeepers, and discredited the Blount Report, Cleveland completely reversed himself on the issue, recognizing the Provisional Government, and the Republic of Hawaii. Cleveland even went so far as negotiated Kingdom-era treaties with the Republic of Hawaii, considering it the lawful owner of the old Kingdom treaty rights and obligations. --JereKrischel 01:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Stevens, through his own correspondences, incriminated himself. The Morgan Report exonerated Mr. Stevens by one vote…. Morgan’s vote. Unless you want to explain how John Tyler Morgan was the father of Jim Crow politics, it’s hardly prudent to exclude Mr. Stevens' contribution to the overthrow. --User:70.232.95.196 09:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Stevens did not incriminate himself in any way, other than having the opinion that annexation would be desirable. His pro-annexationist stance does not automatically lead to proof that he colluded with the Committee of Safety, or provided them with any material support. And Morgan's bigotry does not automatically stain Stevens' exoneration - after all, 4 other bigoted democrats voted in the minority, and 4 non-bigoted republicans voted with Morgan in the majority. It is completely unsupportable to assert that Stevens was not rightfully exonerated merely because of the racial bigotry of one of the commitee members. --JereKrischel 09:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Despite the Morgan Report, the official position of the United States is that Minister Stevens, in fact, contributed to the overthrow (UNITED STATES PUBLIC LAW 103-150). To assert otherwise is hardly NPOV.70.232.95.196 09:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Apology Resolution, which has whereas clauses which are not official findings of fact, does not represent an official position of the U.S. government. If you would like to read more detailed argument regarding that, please see this page, as well as the Apology Resolution page. --JereKrischel 09:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry that you pointed me to two pages that you actively maintain. Cut out the bias POV. I submit, for the sake of neutrality and simplicity, that you remove any debatable points on the very broad and general topic of "Hawaii."70.232.95.196 10:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Although the page I maintain on the morganreport.org site is clearly biased in one direction, the Apology Resolution page here is explicitly NPOV. I merely referenced it for your information. If you have specific debatable points you wish to remove, let's hear your suggestions, and ask other editors to weigh in. I think that in general, though (no offense intended), asserting that the Apology Resolution represents the official position of the U.S. government that repudiates both its investigative findings in the Morgan Report and the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission report is what is typically called "tin-foil hat". As such, I'm not even sure if it merits any sort of treatment, even if just stated as a conditional, "some people believe" statement. I would ask other editors to weigh in on any suggestions you may have. --JereKrischel 10:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Really, I see no point in including this information on a very broad topic when there are other pages addressing Stevens, the Overthrow, the Apology Bill, Liliuokalani, sovereignty, etc. And if we were to expand the information to encompass those topics, not only does redundancy become an issue, but the topic will get lost amidst all the explanations. Lets keep the Hawaii page as neutral as possible without trying to impose beliefs. I say remove mention of the overthrow when describing Liliuokalani. --70.232.95.196

Well, I'll try removing some of the text, but I think that some mention of the Hawaiian Revolution is necessary - I was actually trying to keep the information you originally put in with your edit, but you're right, it is elsewhere. Let me know what you think of my redactions. --JereKrischel 10:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Status as 50th State: Inevitable?

Can any of the editors of this page shed light on the way in which Hawai'i's inclusion as the 50th state was viewed in a larger context? I'd like to know whether, when the 50th state was added, there was anything like a sentiment among Americans that 50 was a nice round number, and that no more states were "needed" to round out the tally. —Ericrodenbeck 20:20, 2 May 2006 (PST)

Language-related questions and issues

State symbols gallery

Does anyone know the Hawaiian language name of the Humpback Whale found in the state symbols picture gallery on the article? It would be nice to have that listed. On a related note for my article on the Cathedral of Our Lady of Peace, what is the Hawaiian language equivalent of the word cathedral? I used to know it but it has escaped me. The cathedral is often called by Hawaiians as Malia o ka Malu Hale Pule but its official name uses the Hawaiian word for cathedral not hale pule which means church. Anyhoo, thanks! —Gerald Farinas 22:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ooh! Never mind. I found it. The word for cathedral is hale pule nui. The humpback whale is called kohola kuapio. I stumbled on a great new Hawaiian Dictionary online published by the Native Hawaiian Library of Alu Like and the Hale Kuamoo Center for Hawaiian Language at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. It has new Hawaiian words formulated by the Komike Huaolelo Hawaiian Lexicon Committee for modern Hawaiian language usage. I added the link to the WikiProject Hawaii homepage as a resource. —Gerald Farinas 05:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pronunication MP3?

Y'know, could someone with a clue (I'm clueless) put up an MP3 of just how one pronounces Hawai`i with the `okhina? As a mainlander, I'll admit that if there's a reason I don't use the `okhina'd spelling, it's because I have no idea how to pronounce it. --Penta 18:23, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... that is an excellent idea! Unfortunately I don't have the means to do it at the moment. --Gerald Farinas 18:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good idea and could be made a part of the article 'Okina where, by the way, pronunciation is described. The ‘okina is an "unsounded" consonent described as a glottal stop. English speakers may never have heard of this, but it is certainly not unique to Hawaiian. It is hard to describe how to do, but pretty obvious once you hear it - Marshman 17:22, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It can't be an mp3. Wikipedia will only host ogg files, like the way Hawaii ponoi and Hawaii Aloha media files have been formated. --Gerald Farinas 19:25, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Say uh-oh. Or uh-uh-uh-uh-uh! (While shaking head) The - is equivalent to the ' in Hawai'i. BirdValiant 08:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen seen the 'okina explained by reference to English Cockney dialect, where a consonant is often replaced by a glottal stop. Bottle, frex, becomes bo'el, battle becomes ba'el. English-speakers will often have heard Cockney in English movies. Or is this explanation too recondite for today's MTV-watching audiences? Gosh I sound like an old fut <g> Zora 19:40, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Makes a good example for me, so it sems to be one useful approach - Marshman 7 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Even simpler, say, "uh-oh". It's what you do between the "uh" and the "oh." KeithH 19:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

You are right, Keith - Marshman 19:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I am saying "uh-oh" and I'm not getting it. Does that just mean there is a pause? Also, do you pronounce the whole word the same? How about the "w" and the last "i"?

There are several ways to pronounce "Hawaii", which is part of the problem. Here, it's generally huh-wai-ee" (closed vowels), but it's also correct as "ha-vahee-ee", especially in songs and chants. This idea is a good one, though, and maybe I will get a recording of some basic Hawaiian. At the moment, I suggest googling for recordings of ancient Hawaiian chants since the pronunciation is generally more accurate than modern day song. Keakealani 18:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Okina template

I reverted back to the version that included the okina template...it seemed to revert a lot of edits all at once, and at first blush, it looks like the okina template is really useful for readability during edits - Aoi, did you really mean to just get rid of the okina template, and why? --JereKrischel 06:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting me, you caught a major mistake. I guess I wasn't paying attention and I reverted a lot more than what I intended to revert. The only thing I intended to revert was the Template:Infobox U.S. sovereign state back to the original Template:US_state. Reverting everything else was a big accident on my part. 青い(Aoi) 06:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Tagalog vs Ilocano

The misconception: just because Filipino (based on Tagalog) happens to be the national language of the Philippines, it is hardly a reason for the correlation. Ilocano is much more widely spoken in Hawaii! Get your facts straight.

Actually, statistics gathered by the 1990 Census (sorry, I'm too lazy to look up the 2000 Census data) recorded that about 55,000 people in Hawaii spoke Tagalog while only about 26,000 people spoke Ilocano. 青い(Aoi) 06:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Although that census is 16 years old now, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of Tagalog speakers have increased even more. For one, the Ilokano speakers today seem to be mostly older Filipinos above the age of 40. Then you have a huge influx of Filipino immigrants who speak Tagalog so I am not surprised by that amount at all. --Mamoahina 23:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I have a source for this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilokano_language says otherwise.

Note that the Ilokano language article's claim also lacks a citation.

As for my claim, please refer to the Atlas of Hawaii, 3rd Edition from the University of Hawaii Press, 1998, page 200 to be specific. I'll quote part of the paragraph here:

More than 100 languages were listed as spoken by residents of Hawai‘i participating in the 1990 census. The leading non-English languages were Japanese (70,000), Tagalog (55,000), and Ilocano (26,000).

I will admit, though, that the 1990 data is somewhat out of date, though I still think it is relevant. If you can find a more recent source (e.g. 2000 census data) that proves the opposite, then please feel free to fix the article and cite the reference.

青い(Aoi) 08:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, wait, I take that back. After some searching, I've found the language data for the 2000 census, which says that 60,965 people responded that they spoke Tagalog at home versus 45,900 people who answered that they spoke "Ilocano." So, I'm sorry, but the according to the census data, the Ilocano article is wrong, as I doubt these statistics have changed significantly in the past five years.

If you want to view the report iself, you can download it from the U.S. Census website. Caution, though, the file is very large (72MB). 青い(Aoi) 10:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Okina

How do I get the Okina symbol to appear? I'm always getting those boxes, and they are quite irritating. Usually, I just use the "`", that symbol below the tilde primarily. Or, the "'" apostrophe, if it's going straight down. What encoding is used? Or do I have to download something?

Hopefully it will work (you will see something other than a little box) when you insert {{okina}}; otherwise the single quote on the right of your keyboard is the best substitute - Marshman 18:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I mean, as a reader, and not an editor, I cannot see the okina. 69.92.51.86 00:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It works for me in FireFox, but no encoding or any other setting in Internet Explorer will get it to show up for me. It's always either boxes or Ê ». If it's not working for me I can't imagine it's working for the majority. I have the most common computer and browser configuration in existence. I say mass-replace the symbol for ` or some other display work around as described in Okina. socalifornia 08:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe if we put a firefox link on the page, we can improve adoption stats and create a new majority (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp) :). Seriously though, I'm really torn about breaking the "real" way to show an okina just to support broken browsers. Is it possible to build some sort of mediawiki plugin that will allow users to set an "okina" preference, and show it one way for one browser, and another way for another browser? AgentX mentioned this somewhere before, and I'm not sure as to the feasability (or the slippery slope of all the characters munged by non-standards compliant browsers) of such a preference. I get the feeling that this argument was hashed over once before, and by the time we agree to anything, IE might have added decent unicode support. --JereKrischel 08:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is telling people they have to use FireFox really practical? I don't see why we can't just use an apostrophe or the ` mark. If an apostrophe is good enough for an online Honolulu Advertiser article about the use of diacritical marks in Hawaiian spelling, it should be more than good enough for Wikipedia. Even in FireFox, ` still looks better to me than the rather bulky-looking symbol. If some future version of IE does support it, it'll still be a year or two before IE6 users fully make the switch to their new version, and when that time comes we can always go back to using the glottal stop then. It's just a matter of mass-replacing text in Notepad -- hardly difficult. Would using a PNG image of the mark in place of text be possible? socalifornia 11:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Unreadable orthography

Please convert the spelling of Hawai[]i to some-thing readable on computers not set to what-ever special settings are needed to convert [] to ' or ` or what-ever it really is . Kdammers 10:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but isn't this a problem with Internet Explorer? It seems to work fine in Firefox. —Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, since it also works with Opera. Unfortunately, IE is widely used. Thus, we should try to make viewable in that system. Kdammers 10:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

See Okina. Seems to be a problem with Windows, not this page. —Viriditas | Talk 10:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Okina looks okeh in IE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdammers (talk • contribs) 10:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, read the article. It explains the problem, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 04:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I have two PCs running IE on Windows XP. One shows the ʻokina correctly, one doesn't. Both are Auto-Selecting Unicode UTF-8. The article Okina goes into some rambling discussion of the technical issues of what the best computer character is to represent it, but the article does nothing to explain how to make it look correct. Clearly IE and Windows XP are capable of displaying an ʻokina. Wouldn't it be nice to tell people how to do this somewhere? Derekt75 20:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting Derekt75...do you have any specific information about what version of IE you are running on both computers? That kind of information might be very helpful in showing people how to make IE render it correctly. --JereKrischel 22:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The one that displays the ʻokina correctly is Version 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.050301-1526. I'll have to check later about the one that has a problem. I should also have mentioned: the correct one is running XP Professional (version 5.1 2600.xpsp2.050301-1526 : SP1). The problem one is XP Home. Derekt75 20:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Constitution Article XV and Hawaiian language

In the article, I quoted the relevant portion of Article XV Section 4 which specifies that Hawaiian language is NOT REQUIRED for any state government activity unless there is "law", presumably one in Hawaii Revised Statutes, that specifically requires its use for a specific situation. Article XV was being misrepresented and wrongly cited in the article as absolutely requiring the use of MODERN Hawaiian-language spellings (as opposed to native practice) in all government activities. There is an extremist modern-spelling bias among some Wikipedia editors which is resulting in distortions of the truth. Please check sources in order to avoid making Wikipedia a waste of the readers' time. And don't lie in order to push your political agenda.

Agent X 01:11, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith. I'm not a linguist and I'm not an expert in the Hawaiian language but please don't just assume that any factual errors you find on Wikipedia were added deliberately to push a political agenda. In either case, thank you for clarifying the errors that were on this article. 青い(Aoi) 01:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I do not "just assume that any factual errors you find on Wikipedia were added deliberately to push a political agenda". What I wrote above, about "an extremist modern-spelling bias" and a "political agenda", is based on specific writings of specific users on specific talk pages, as well as their specific edits which I have observed as recorded on specific page histories. To be relatively polite, I did not address or name any individual user. Agent X 06:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Okina

As a Hawaiian who doesn't speak the aboriginal language, I found the ubiquitous spelling of Hawaii as Hawai'i to be a bit too new aget and offensive. I don't know anyone who spells it like that. DKARP

The manual of style says that place names should be the most common english version and that any other varient should be mentioned only, and not used for general refence.(at least that is how I remember.) HighInBC 14:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii's manual of style page states "Where appropriate, use of the ʻokina is preferred in Hawaiian words and names used in articles dealing with Hawaiʻi." The manual of style should be followed since it gives all Wikipedia articles consistency. If you feel the okina should be barred from use on Wikipedia, you should open a discussion on the manual of style page to see if there is a concensus (or to try and form a concensus) to have this particular criteria changed. 青い(Aoi) 08:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So can we put the ʻokina back in using the template for now? This template is supposed to fix the MSIE problems, per the Template talk:Okina page. Then it’s just a matter of putting the ASCII text {{okina}} in where we want it, and people editing the page should see it and follow suit. I myself like to be reminded whether there’s an ʻokina in Lānaʻi or not... — Jéioosh 22:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be the appropriate thing to do. 青い(Aoi) 00:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"y" rather than "j" in [hə.ˈwai.yi]

I contributed the phonetic representations for the various pronunciations of "Hawaii", including both the English pronunciations and the Hawaiian pronunciations. At first, I used [hə.ˈwai.ji] for a certain one of the English variants. However, I soon changed it to the Americanist phonetic notation [hə.ˈwai.yi], with "y" instead of "j". The American style is better since the article is about the 50th state of the USA.

Two users have changed the "y" to "j". Because I am the major contributor of pronunciation transcriptions to the article, other users need to defer to my decision to employ the American style --- "y", not "j". Rather than repeatedly going over this point with individual users who know some IPA and think that they will "correct" the transcription by replacing "y" with "j", I am posting this explanation on this talk page. If I need to undo "y2j" edits in the future, my edit summary will say "See talk page". Agent X 14:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Reduction of "pidgin" section

The article stands at 62KB in size. It will help to reduce the "pidgin" section, especially since there is a separate main article for that topic. I will kill the pidgin examples, and unkill them in this section, following this post, in case someone would like to transfer them to the Hawaiian Creole English article.

Agent X 14:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The unkilled pidgin examples are enclosed by the following horizontal rules. Agent X 14:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Here are some examples of Hawaiian words which are commonly used:

• Aloha (aloha): a courteous greeting. It can have a variety of meanings including connotations of love, affection, kindness, well wishing, and can be used for "hello" and "goodbye".
• Mahalo (mahalo): an expression of gratitude. It functions like "thanks". It is frequently used after a business interaction is completed.
• Keiki (keiki): a word for "kid" or "child".
• Haole (Haole): a word for "White" or "Caucasian". The term is a racial classifier but is not necessarily derogatory. The word is often pronounced [ˡhao.li]. (Raising of word-final [e] to [i] is a natural phonological process.) A person who has one Caucasian parent and one non-Caucasian parent (usually Asian or Pacific Islander) may be referred to as a hapa haole (hapa meaning "half").
• Popolo (Pōpolo): a word for "Black" or "African". The term is a racial classifier but is not necessarily derogatory.
• Pake (Pākē): a word for "Chinese". The term is a racial classifier but is not necessarily derogatory.
• Kepani (Kepanī): a word for "Japanese". The term is a racial classifier but is not necessarily derogatory.

Loanwords in the mainstream American English lexicon:

• Lei (lei): a Hawaiian adornment, often a flower necklace
• Hula (hula): Hawaiian dance
• Ukulele (‘ukulele): a Hawaiian musical instrument
• Muumuu (mu‘umu‘u): a Hawaiian-style dress
• Luau (lū‘au): a Hawaiian feast featuring food and entertainment

Here are some examples of HCE expressions:

• Brah: from "brother", but used to address any male.
• Broke da mout: from "broke the mouth", used to express that a food is delicious.
• Choke: used to say that there is more than enough of something.
• Da kine: from "the kind", but used as a substitute for a noun. For example, a person can point to a cucumber on a table and say "Pass me da kine."
• Grind: this means to eat a large amount of food quickly.
• I K sufa: it is hard to translate this term literally, but it is used to empathize with another's misfortune.
• Lickins: from "lickings", it is used to imply punishment such as spanking to a child.
• Mo bettah: from "more better", it means one thing is better than something else.
• Pidgin to da max: used to refer to a person who has a very limited understanding of proper English pronunciation and grammar.

---