Talk:Hawaii/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Disputing facts on page

If I am doing this incorrectly, please forgive me. This is my first time disputing something on the site.

Section 1: "Geography", subsection 1.1: "Location, topography, and geology" states that "Hawaii is the only state of the United States that... is located entirely within the tropics."

In the "State of Hawaii" section of quick facts on the right at the top, in the "area" section, it states that the range of latitude for Hawaii is "18° 55′ N to 28° 27′ N"

Now, if my memory serves me, the tropic latitudes are at roughly 23 degrees on each side of the equator. The article for the Tropic of Cancer confirms this stating at the beginning of the second paragraph that "The Tropic of Cancer currently lies 23° 26′ 22″ north of the Equator."

So, unless I'm missing some intent in the "Hawaii" article, the two facts I mentioned coming from that article cannot be in sync with one another. Can anyone check this out or gently correct me if I'm missing something.

Thanks in advance, OneLife4Music (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question is perfectly appropriate. I'm going completely off memory on all of this in terms of geography so might be a bit off. But basically I think the statement about "entirely within the tropics" is almost correct with regards to the eight main islands, although (here's where my memory is hazy and i'm too lazy to look it up at the moment) the Tropic of C bisects Kauai, the northernmost of the main islands. As for the other area located to the north of the ToC, that is also correct since (as I recall) the state boundaries go all the way to Midway Island, which is quite far to the north and west of the main islands. But since none of the islands west of Kauai are permanently inhabited by anyone except wildlife managers, it would be true that the populated part of the state is (almost) all located in the tropics. So the upshot is, assuming I'm accurate in all this, you're right that the text should re-state these facts. Go for it. Arjuna (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

---

"almost correct" = wrong. People editing this page need to backup their silly Hawai'i is the whatever-est exaggerations without citation especially when it's easily determined by looking at a map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.131.131 (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The inhabited islands are in the tropics, so the entire population lives in the tropics, but the uninhabited islands extend well north of the Tropic of Cancer. Have deleted the sentence completely, since this section is a bit too much like a list of trivia anyway. Awien (talk) 13:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Locked

I have put a lock (for non registered members) on this article until March 9 2008 since lately there has been a lot of unnecessary changes (mainly vandalism). If this needs to be undone let me know. --Talk to Stealth500 (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Srikes in the 1930's

Try adding The Vibora Luviminda trades union's shuger plantation stike on Maui island Hawaii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.240.225 (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Are the people nice and what to expect?

The people are just down to earth they are also easy to talk to. For example, if you have any questions they're willing to help. One big thing is it hot and very sunny so pack suntan lotion. Also, if you here about any markets or big events going on such as a holiday look into it more indepth, how nows you might like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.202.225 (talk) 22:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

US Naval Base 1919

Tend to believe that omitting a paragraph on the expansion of US Navy to the island is intentional. In 1919, according to the fact, stated in the "Perl Harbor" article in Wikipedia ("It [ the dry dock] was ceremonially opened to flooding by Mrs. Josephus Daniels, wife of the Secretary of the Navy, on 21 August 1919. "), US started to move Pacific Fleet onto the island. Here are quotations from the "Pacific Fleet" article in Wikipedia: "Its homeport is at Pearl Harbor Naval Base, Hawaii." and "The General Order of 6 December 1922 organized the United States Fleet, with the Battle Fleet as the Pacific presence." By staging its fleet within close proximity to the "mainland" Japan, US threatened Japans dominance in the Pacific.

User: AR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.69.160.1 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does this have a lock on it?

I just wanted to know why this state has a lock on it's article. California does too, but not New York or Nevada. I think New Jersey is in the process of getting it "locked". Are vandalizers still at it again? Will they ever stop???

Yes, it seems to attract a particularly puerile variety of vandal. And no, it doesn't look as though they'll ever stop. Awien (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

This page still seems to be locked; however, it is locked with vandalized text! nothing but some "hawaii sucks" crap.... February 20, 2008 11:10 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.7.209 (talk)

Those who overthrew the monarchy.

The essay is contradictory: One part of the essay says, "The Kingdom of Hawaii existed from 1810 until 1893 when the monarchy was overthrown by native born Hawaiians of American ancestry." Another part of the essay says, "On January 14, 1893, a group of American[s] and Europeans formed a Committee of Safety in opposition to the Queen, and seized control of government." The first part is incorrect and should be revised to be consistent with the second part, as follows: "was overthrown by a group of American and European residents." The second part should add the letter "s" to the word "American."

Native born Hawaiians = persons of the Hawaiian race. Some of those overthrowing the monarchy were American citizens, but none were Native Hawaiians, though some may have been born in the Hawaiian Islands. Mikehaas (talk) 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Michael Haas, author of "Multicultural Hawai`i" HALEY&BUZZY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.160.163 (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Map

The standard map being used by the other states? should be used at this article. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the map, with the standard map being used by the other US states. PS- Due to Hawaii's geographical location? Perhaps the geo map can be re-added with the political map. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Why

Why is it that when I go to edit this page on the actual page, and I try to find the link to change the Congressional Delegations or whatever it says from List of...Hawai'i to Hawaii instead, it isn't even on there, and a whole bunch of stuff that doesn't appear on the page appears on the Edit page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethan c.00 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Where Hawaii is

Hawaii is in North America, not Oceania. This is because it is a state in a country in North America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.44.43 (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Politically you're correct; geographically you're wrong. Bazonka (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry groups

In the article, there are stats for British, English, Scottish and Irish. This doesn't make sense. The English & Scottish both come under British (and some of the Irish might do to). You can't have British in there and then have all the other countries that make up Britain too. Atouraya (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the flag next to the irish section it's that of the republic of ireland so not part of britain. With the separate English/Scottish/British thing, that'll be the percentages of people that consider themselves to be of that ancestry. Not knowing how the data was collected I can't say if there would be any overlap in that. You cant merge them 'cos you'd lose data and you cant remove British because you don't know if those people are also included in the English/Scottish percentages. 137.222.215.52 (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

It should therefore be changed to English, Scottish and Other/unspecified British. Bazonka (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up

For 2005, we have the following numbers for different racial groups:

White 41.26% Black 3.33% American Indian 2.03% Asian 57.53% Pacific Islander 22.10%

That adds up to 126.25%. What's the deal? john k (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Hawaiian Islands

Digger2000 (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Hawaiian Kingdom, as an independent State, was an influential player in the formation of the first principles of international law as it related to neutrality and the rights of national vessels during war. As a result of the Crimean War (1853-1856) between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, the governments of England and France, prior to their impending involvement, each issued formal Declarations on March 28, 1854, and March 29, 1854, respectively, that declared neutral ships and goods would not be captured. Both Declarations were later delivered to the Hawaiian Kingdom government by the British and French Commissioners resident in the Hawaiian Islands on July 7, 1854.

Accompanying the British correspondence to the Hawaiian Government that provided a copy of the Declaration of Neutral Rights was a copy of Her Britannic Majesty's Privy Council Resolution of April 15, 1854, that expanded upon the rights of neutral States. The resolution provided, in part,

"Now it is this day ordered by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, that all vessels under a neutral or friendly flag, being neutral or friendly property, shall be permitted to import into any port or place in Her Majesty's dominions all goods and merchandise whatsoever, to whomsoever the same may belong; and to export from any port or place in Her Majesty's dominions to any port not blockaded, any cargo or goods, not being contraband of war, or not requiring a special permission, to whomsoever the same may belong."

Knowing of the breakout of the Crimean War, His Majesty King Kamehameha III formally proclaimed the Hawaiian Kingdom as a Neutral State with its territorial jurisdiction extending one marine league (three miles) from the coasts of each of its islands on May 16, 1854.

On June 15, 1854, in Privy Council Assembled, the Committee on the National Rights in regards to prizes had delivered its report. His Excellency Robert C. Wyllie presented the report of the committee and the following resolution was passed and later made known to the Representatives of the Nations who were at war.

"Resolved: That in the Ports of this neutral Kingdom, the privilege of Asylum is extended equally and impartially to the armed *neutral vessels and prizes made by such vessels of all the belligerents, but no authority can be delegated by any of the Belligerents to try and declare lawful and transfer the property of such prizes within the King's Jurisdiction; nor can the King's Tribunals exercise any such jurisdiction, except in cases where His Majesty's Neutral Jurisdiction and Sovereignty may have been violated by the Captain of any vessel within the bounds of that Jurisdiction."

• - the term neutral must be construed to be a misprint by the recorder of the Privy Council. Subsequent communications and resolutions refer to the word national and not neutral when referring to this resolution of June 15, 1854.

On July 7, 1854, the British Consul General to the Hawaiian Kingdom had sent a dispatch to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in regards to an interpretation of the Privy Council Resolution of June 15, 1854, concerning "armed national vessels and prizes." The French Commissioner also requested clarification. These dispatches were read in Privy Council assembled on July 17, 1854, and the following resolutions were passed.

"Resolved: That by the words armed national vessels and prizes in the Resolution of the 15th June, are meant only vessels regularly organized and Commissioned on national account, and what prizes they may make; and that that Resolution does not extend the privileges of Asylum in the ports of this Kingdom to vessels armed on private account or the prizes taken by them, whatever may be the flag under which such vessels may sail: Therefore all Privateers and prizes made by them are hereby prohibited from entering the Ports of this Kingdom, unless in such circumstances of distress as that their exclusion would involve a sacrifice of life, and then only, under special permission from the King, after proofs to His Majesty's satisfaction , of such circumstances of distress.

Resolved: That the communications of the Representatives of Great Britain and France, be published in the Polynesian of Saturday next; and that the Resolution of this day relating to Privateers, be published every week during the War, under the Resolution of the 15th June last."

On December 6, 1854, the U.S. Commissioner assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, His Excellency David L. Gregg, sent the following dispatch to the Hawaiian Kingdom government regarding the recognition of neutral rights. The correspondence stated, in part,

"...I have the honor to transmit to you a project of a declaration in relation to neutral rights which my Government has instructed me to submit to the consideration of the Government of HawaiÁi, and respectfully to request its approval and adoption. As you will perceive it affirms the principles that free ships make free goods, and that the property of neutrals, not contraband of war, found on board of Enemies ships, is not confiscable.

These two principles have been adopted by Great Britain and France as rules of conduct towards all neutrals in the present European war; and it is pronounced that neither nation will refuse to recognize them as rules of international law, and to conform to them in all time to come.

The Emperor of Russia has lately concluded a convention with the United States, embracing these principles as permanent, and immutable, and to be scrupulously observed towards all powers which accede to the same." (emphasis added)

On January 12, 1855, the U.S. Commissioner also sent another dispatch to the Hawaiian Government that contained a copy of the July 22, 1854 Convention between the United States of America and Russia embracing certain principles in regard to neutral rights.

After careful review of the U.S. President's request, the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, by His Majesty King Kamehameha IV in Privy Council, passed the following resolution on March 26, 1855.

"Resolved: That the Declaration of accession to the principles of neutrality to which the President of the United States invites the King, is approved, and Mr. Wyllie is authorized to sign and seal the same and pass it officially to the Commissioner of the United States in reply to his dispatches of the 6th December and 12th January last."

Following the Privy Council meeting on the same day, His Excellency Robert C. Wyllie signed the Declaration of Accession to the Principles of Neutrality as requested by the United States President and delivered the same to the American Commissioner to the Hawaiian Kingdom, His Excellency David L. Gregg. The Declaration provided, in part,

"And whereas His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, having considered the aforesaid invitation of the President of the United States, and the Rules established in the foregoing convention respecting the rights of neutrals during war, and having found such rules consistent with those proclaimed by Her Britannic Majesty in Her Declaration of the 28th March 1854, and by His Majesty the Emperor of the French in the Declaration of the 29th of the same month and year, as well as with Her Britannic Majesty's order in Council of the 15th April same year, and with the peaceful and strictly neutral policy of this Kingdom as proclaimed by His late Majesty King Kamehameha III on the 11th May 1854, amplified and explained by Resolutions of His Privy Council of State of the 15th June and 17th July same year, His Majesty, by and with the advice of His Cabinet and Privy Council, has authorized the undersigned to declare in His name, as the undersigned now does declare that His Majesty accedes to the humane principles of the foregoing convention, in the sense of its III Article."

On April 5, 1855, His Majesty King Kamehameha IV, successor in office to His late Majesty King Kamehameha III, ratified the 1852 Treaty with the Kingdom of Sweden and Norway which included the rights of neutrality. Article XV provides,

"All vessels bearing the flag of Sweden and Norway in time of war shall receive every possible protection, short of actual hostility, within the ports and waters of His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands; and His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway engages to respect in time of war the neutral rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and to use his good offices with all other powers, having treaties with His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, to induce them to adopt the same policy towards the Hawaiian Kingdom."

Similar provisions of neutral rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom were also made a part of the treaties with Spain (1863, Article XXVI), Germany (1879, Article VIII) and Italy (1869, Additional Article).

On April 7, 1855, His Majesty King Kamehameha IV opened the Legislative Assembly. In that speech he reiterated the Kingdom's neutrality by stating, in part,

"It is gratifying to me, on commencing my reign, to be able to inform you, that my relations with all the great Powers, between whom and myself exist treaties of amity, are of the most satisfactory nature. I have received from all of them, assurances that leave no room to doubt that my rights and sovereignty will be respected. My policy, as regards all foreign nations, being that of peace, impartiality and neutrality, in the spirit of the Proclamation by the late King, of the 16th May last, and of the Resolutions of the Privy Council of the 15th June and 17th July. I have given to the President of the United States, at his request, my solemn adhesion to the rule, and to the principles establishing the rights of neutrals during war, contained in the Convention between his Majesty the Emperor of all the Russias, and the United States, concluded in Washington on the 22nd July last."

The abovementioned actions on the part of the Governments of England, France, Russia, the United States of America and the Hawaiian Kingdom relating to the development of the principles of international law in relation to neutrality provided the necessary pretext for the leading European maritime powers to meet in Paris, after the Crimean War, and enter into a joint declaration that provided the following four principles,

1. Privateering is, and remains, abolished.

2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war.

3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under the enemy's flag.

4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective, that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy.

The aforementioned Declarations and the 1854 Russian-American Convention represented the first recognition of the right of neutral States to conduct free trade without any hinderence from war. Stricter guidelines for neutrality were later established in the 1871 Anglo-American Treaty made during the wake of the American Civil War, whereby both parties agreed to the following rules.

First, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.

Second, not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

Thirdly, to exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

Newer and stricter rules for the conduct of neutral States were expounded upon in the 1874 Brussels Conference, and later these principles were codified in the Fifth and Thirteenth Hague Conventions of 1907, governing, respectively, the rights and duties of neutral States in Land and Maritime warfare.

Since the 1843 Anglo-Franco Proclamation, wherein the Hawaiian Islands was admitted into the great Family of Nations by England and France, the Hawaiian Kingdom participated in the establishment and growth of the international law of neutrality. With the Hawaiian Kingdom's unique location in the middle of the North Pacific Ocean for both commercial trade and a sanctuary for ships at war, the maritime powers of Europe and America found it prudent to include the Hawaiian Kingdom in the evolution of the principles and subsequent codification of neutral rights.

As a neutral State, the Hawaiian Kingdom was afforded all the protection of international law it had helped to establish, and by 1893 the principles of neutral rights were enough to preclude any other independent State from infringing upon the sovereign neutral rights of the Hawaiian Kingdom. It was the United States of America, in its 1871 Anglo-American Treaty, that established rules preventing belligerent States from utilizing neutral territory or ports for warlike purposes such as outfitting vessels, recruiting troops, or basing military operations.

Digger2000 (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Battle at Nu'uanu Pali.jpeg

The image Image:Battle at Nu'uanu Pali.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The Official Demonym of Hawaii

I don't believe that Hawaiian is the official demonym for locals in Hawaii. I don't really know what it is, since Hawaiian refers to Native Hawaiians, and simply "Locals" refer to locals of Hawaii, regardless of blood. What do you think? I find it weird when I go to the mainlands and say, "Welcome, Hawaiians!" Because I'm not of Hawaiian ancestry. – Obento Musubi (C • G • S) 04:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Everything2 lists it as "Hawaiian," but since it's listed alongside kama‘āina, that may refer to Native Hawaiians. (Malihini is listed, but it is definitely not widely used.) At best, I would say "people of Hawai‘i". However, discuss on; it's just a suggestion. Kal ^(talk) 04:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

hawii is very great that i want to come an drink juice out of coconut cup and wear a pretty skirt that they be wearng in awii and so that is why i want to come vvisit hawii and when i row u i will visit hawii when i grow up and if that visit go well i move to jawii so my child can be hawiian . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.182.130.192 (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii Reporter

Is the Hawaii Reporter really notable enough to have more space devoted to it than any other of the newspapers mentioned in the Media section? Is there evidence that it actually "has become a significant resource to residents and mainlanders"? I think the reference to HR should be at least pared down if not removed entirely. 72.130.221.6 (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

General tone about annexation/statehood

I notice that the general tone of the article in the sections about annexation and statehood implies that the United States invaded Hawaii and imposed a dictatorial rule. It also implies that most Hawaiians were opposed to becoming part of the United States. While this is consistent with the generally anti-American bias of Wikipedia (which is quite disgraceful given that Wikipedia was started by an American, apparently not a very patriotic or loyal one), I do not think it is correct. Can anyone show a poll showing the majority of Hawaiians would support seceding from the Union and giving up their sovereignty to a Queen of Hawaii??? I doubt it. Americans are against monarchy: we believe that men should have the right to choose their own leader, not have someone automatically become the leader based on genetics. It seems to me that if the majority of Hawaiians back then thought that the Americans were unwelcome invaders, they would not have voted to become a state. Thus these anti-American implications that we took control of the island against the will of the people of Hawaii should be removed.71.116.89.82 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.89.82 (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

But your last sentence is true; a group of American businessmen did overthrow the Queen and, by doing so, the Hawaiian Kingdom itself. Had any sort of overthrow not occurred, there is a good chance that Hawaiʻi would be an independent monarchy today. In addition, most Hawaiians of that time were against becoming a part of the United States. More than half of the Native Hawaiians (21,269 of appx. 39,000) signed a petition against annexation ([1]). —Kal ^(talk) 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Kalathalan, I concede that Americans (not America officially, but Americans) overthrew the Queen. However, the fact remains that the Hawaiians voted in favor of statehood. Hence, the will of the People of Hawaii is to be part of the United States. This notion that somehow the United States took over Hawaii against the will of the people of the islands is false. Wikipedia really has to reform this anti-American stance they have. It is found in article after article. That's called a bias, I thought wikipedia articles are supposed to be neutral? This is why people pay for real encyclopedias, for non-biased information.71.116.89.82 (talk) 18:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

here is what an article about Hawaii SHOULD look like. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ha/HawaiiSt.html it's from Columbia Encyclopedia, published by Columbia University, a world renown institution of higher learning. Notice there's nothing in there about statehood being invalid or whatever, since those are fringe beliefs. To put such things in an article about Hawaii is like saying in an article about Northern Ireland that it is not a legitimate part of the United Kingdom! Because IRA terrorists think that does not make it a legitimate fact. At the very least, Wikipedia should point out "these nonsense statements about Hawaii being illegally invaded are fringe ideas, and most citizens of Hawaii support it being a part of the United States and would not want to give up their sovereignty as citizens of the United States of America to a King or Queen."71.116.89.82 (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a user edited encyclopedia. If you are dissatisfied with a perceived point of view in any article, including this one, you should be bold and correct it to make the encyclopedia better by editing the articles yourself. Happy editing, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I fail to understand the objection. The article is meticulously NPOV and well-cited. It is not "anti-American". Nowhere does the article say that "the U.S. invaded Hawaii". However, any statement that the overthrow did not benefit from the presence of U.S. marines that were landed in support of the coup d'etat is not well-founded in scholarly literature, and would be a highly tendentious and POV statement -- indeed, "fringe". On the other hand, that an overthrow took place and that native Hawaiians objected to it, does NOT in anyway imply that Hawaii's current status as a U.S. state is illegitimate. Readers should consider the distinction between native Hawaiians (who largely objected but were -- or were soon to become -- a minority in the islands) and Hawaii residents, and in light of this, the 1959 plebescite makes more sense. In short, I can only assume that the complainant is unfamiliar with the history of Hawaii, or has an ideological bias his/herself. The wording of the article has been very carefully considered and is the result of a hard-won consensus. Any changes should be discussed on this talk page first. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• By the time Hawaii voted for statehood in 1959, more than 60 years after the original overthrow, Native Hawaiians were a tiny group that had lost most of its cultural identity. They had been forced to believe that statehood was good, and even if they voted against it, other groups would have still outnumbered them. The 1993 Apology act acknowledges the role of the United States in overthrowing the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893, and the Blount report commissioned by President Cleveland showed that indeed a majority of Hawaiians supported the return of the monarchy. It is also the position of many prominent groups in Hawaii that the overthrow was illegal, and some groups believe that because of this Hawaii is not technically a state. The majority of people regard it as a state, but this does not mean that they would have supported the overthrow of the monarchy that was carried out by a small minority of rich businessmen.
  It appears that the complainant has a clear pro-American bias, claiming that Jimbo Wales is not a "patriotic" American. Wikipedia was established to be a UNIVERSAL encyclopedia without bias of any kind. Whatever your history teachers may have told you, America is not a nation free from evils. Anti-immigrant nativism, anti-black racist, anti-Semitism, crusades against Native Americans, and brutal interventions abroad are all part of American history as much as more positive things like Emancipation. The Civil Rights movement could not have happened if there were not brutal discrimination against blacks. However, brutal the British were to the Irish during their occupation, the Americans were no better to the Filipinos during theirs. Wikipedia reflects BOTH sides of the argument, making it more fair than the high school history books that paint America as some sort of utopian society that can do no wrong. America's history on Wikipedia is not any more biased than that of another country. the_one092001 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting that the United States is without flaw. However, what I *am* suggesting is that the other EXTREME is not correct either, that being the extreme view that the United States is without merit. We have a Republic based on the consent of We the People in which We the People tell the government what it can do, not the other way around. In most European countries for example, the authority of the government is derived from the monarch, but in the USA, it is derived "from the consent of the governed". In 1776, when our nation became independent from the UK, most major countries were run by monarchs (that is to say, the role of the President of the United States, in most other countries, was executed by a monarch). We don't have to be a "utopia" to be a great nation. In any case, if wikipedia is to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA of any kind, including "universal", articles have to be based on TRUTH, not "consensus". If the majority agrees that one can accelerate to a speed greater than that of light in vacuum (as opposed to using a wormhole etc.), it would not change the fact that it is impossible as physics is currently understood. Hence, there should be no reference to the statehood of Hawaii being "questioned" as to its legitimacy. No credible organization -- and I emphasize CREDIBLE... "I am Bob, I am the King of Hawaii, and I question the legitimacy of Hawaii as a state" is not credible -- questions the legitimacy of the statehood of Hawaii. Do Encyclopedia Britannica, or Columbia Encyclopedia, both highly credible sources, claim that the legitimacy of the statehood of Hawaii is questioned? Certainly not. It's like saying that the state of Israel is not a legitimate nation because Hamas and other fringe groups think Israel should not be there. Oops, I better look up Israel on wikipedia and see if you silly people didn't write that in there by "consensus". ((rolling eyes)) --Brian (I am the original poster in this section about the general tone of the article)71.116.105.187 (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The US is actually governed by We, the majority of the people that decide to vote, and occasionally by the minority living in more important swing states. Not everyone. For instance I (along with more than half the people in this country) did NOT want President Bush in office. But it didn't happen. People living in more important swing states, and judges in the courts decided that President Bush was the winner. As a matter of fact, there are no absolute monarchies left in Europe. The few monarchies that remain are only figureheads and have NO power over their government. Most were destroyed in uprisings or by the onset of communism in Eastern Europe following World War II. The Divine Right of Kings was something that was discarded long ago, and they are all democracies at least in name. The few remaining absolute monarchies exist in the Middle East and Southeast Asia (such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, etc.).

I never said, nor did anyone else here, that the United States is without merit. On the contrary, I am proud to live in this country and I consider myself a patriot. But in doing so, I acknowledge that this country has done many wrongs, just as all other countries have done, and endeavor to ensure that they are accurately remembered so they do not happen again. The United States should not have involved itself in the overthrow. It should have stayed away. But the annexation is not without benefit. Hawaii is far more developed than nations that remained independent or joined another nation, such as Tahiti, the Philippines, Samoa, or Tonga. Honolulu is one of the 50 most populous cities in the country, and Hawaii has become both a prime tourist and military destination. But that does NOT change the fact that the U.S. was involved in the overthrow when it should not have been. Stating one wrong action does not mean that we are calling the entire nation despicable.

Wikipedia information is based on citable fact, that part is NOT based on consensus. No matter how many people say it shouldn't be, it is and that is one of the conditions of use. The consensus part is about how things are worded and formatted. About whether or not certain sections should be included, and which articles should be kept or deleted if they are not notable. The article pertaining to travelling at relativistic speeds will rely on CITABLE sources only, while the community discusses how to best format and order the article.

There are a multitude of CREDIBLE sources relating to the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy. The Blount Report, commissioned by President Cleveland, concluded that in fact Foreign Representative Stevens had overstepped his bounds by ordering the Marines ashore and had been complicit in the overthrow. It declared the overthrow to be illegal and that Queen Liliuokalani should be restored to the throne.
Both the University of Hawaii and the Kamehameha Schools (the largest private school system in the US) as well as others have published works analyzing the events of that time, and both have concluded that the overthrow was illegal and supported by elements of the United States delegation in Hawaii. Regardless of their views on Hawaiian sovereignty, it is generally agreed upon by most Hawaii residents that the United States played a role in overthrowing the monarchy.

Finally, the 1993 Apology Resolution formally acknowledges the active participation of U.S. citizens in the overthrow of the monarchy, and that the Native Hawaiian people never formally submitted to U.S. rule. The bill was passed by both the House and Senate, and was signed by President Bill Clinton.

Just because there are no sources in whatever Republican state you live in that talk about the overthrow doesn't mean it didn't happen. By your own argument, just because everyone wherever you live think the US did no wrong in Hawaii doesn't mean that they're correct. Go out and actually look for sources instead of just dismissing whatever is presented to you.

The Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention the US involvement because it does not have the space to do so. Consider how long the Wikipedia entry on Hawaii is, then look at how long the EB article is. There simply isn't enough space in a paper encyclopedia for anything but the most cursory description of the noun in question. Wikipedia, however, is not a paper encyclopedia, and has the luxury of pursuing a broader range of topics into further depth, which inevitably leads to more detailed discussions of controversial issues. the_one092001 (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Island names italicized?

Why are the island names, except for Maui, italicized in the second paragraph? —Kal ^(talk) 06:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, but the likely reason is that per MOS, uncommon foreign words are supposed to be italicized. (See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Foreign_terms) Obviously, this doesn't apply in this case and should be reverted. Viriditas (talk) 07:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Viriditas (talk) 07:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I just wanted to make sure they weren't italicized for a reason. Otherwise I would have removed them :P —Kal ^(talk) 09:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

An Irish presence in Hawaii before the British!!!???

"There is substantial evidence (Stokes 1932) of earlier Spanish, and possibly Irish, visits to Hawaii". The statement is nonsensical. No ship from Ireland (before its integration into the United Kingdom) could have voyaged around the world to make contact with Hawaii. If there really is evidence for such a fantastic voyage, it should be cited better. I will revert if there is no opposition.Catiline63 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the statement since it is a controversial issue and needs to be restated with current sources. I don't think the author was talking about Irish ships, but if I had to guess, Irish indentured servants of the Irish diaspora. Viriditas (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sports in Hawaii

Someone from Hawaii should add a sports section to this article. Ghoongta (talk) 03:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Rick lay95 is the Hawaii WikiProject contact person for all things sports-related. You can also view Category:Sports in Hawaii to get an idea of what needs to be covered. It might be best to start with Sports in Hawaii, perhaps something along the lines of Sports in Minnesota. Then, we could just include a summary style of the article here. Viriditas (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Length of Hawaii

The sidebar telling Population, Size, etc. states that the "Length" of Hawaii is 1522 Miles. I just used Microsoft Streets and Trips to measure the length and it is actually about 400 miles long. Quite a large difference. 76.104.185.119 (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Daphriend

You're confusing the length of the main eight islands with the length of the coastline. The entire Hawaiian Island chain is about 3,800 miles (6,100 km) long. However, the coastline is somewhere between 750 and 1000 miles long, depending on how you measure it. The number 1522 is pretty close to the length of the entire tidal coastline in kilometers, not miles. For the state of Hawaii, the Atlas of Hawaii lists a general coastline of 750 miles (1,210 km), and a tidal shoreline of 1,052 miles (1,693 km). Viriditas (talk) 03:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Revised answer: From the Big Island to Kauai it is about 400 miles. The 1,522 mile figure is the length from Kure Atoll, the northernmost island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to the southernmost island of Hawaii. It is about 1,200 miles (1,900 km) from Kure Atoll to Nihoa. So your answer is correct. However, except for Midway Atoll, the NWHI are administered by the state and are part of its overall "length". Viriditas (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii SuperGraphic Link

I would like you to reconsider adding an external link to the Hawaii SupgerGraphic contentHawaii SuperGraphic.

Hawaii is the nation's endangered species capital. The Hawaii SuperGraphic site has information on the evolution and development of species, geology and an interview with Dr. Sam Gon, director of science at the Natural Conservancy of Hawaii, who talks about Hawaiian evolution and the happy face spider. I don't see this content discussed or developed anywhere on the Hawaii page.

The link I selected minimizes any U-Haul promotional context. The purpose of the SuperGraphic content for U.S. states and Canadian provinces is to highlight little known facts or places in North Amercia. We've taken great pains to make the content educational and informational. Teachers and students have been using our content for years for school projects.

Please view the content and reconsider adding the link to the External Links section.

Thank you. Aztom2 (talk) 06:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Aztom2 8.18.08

state of Hawaii still not fixed

if any criticism of the vote for hawaii to be a state is to be mentioned, then the following paragraph,

"On June 27 of that year, a referendum was held asking residents of Hawaii to vote on accepting the statehood bill. Hawaii voted at a ratio of 17 to 1 to accept. There has been criticism, however, of the Statehood plebiscite, because the only choices were to accept the Act or to remain a territory, without addressing the issues of legality surrounding the overthrow."

should read:

"On June 27 of that year, a referendum was held asking residents of Hawaii to vote on accepting the statehood bill. Hawaii voted at a ratio of 17 to 1 to accept. Some extremist fringe groups criticize the Statehood plebiscite, because the only choices were to accept the Act or to remain a territory, without addressing the issues of legality surrounding the overthrow."

Unless you can show me a credible, non-biased group which questions the vote to become a State. (hint: hawaii-nation.org would not be a non-biased group, nor would cpusa.org or internationalanswer.org)

Regardless of the legality of the overthrow of the monarchy, the fact remains that Hawaiians had wanted to be a US state for many years, and Kamehameha III was trying to get an annexation treaty, as Wikipedia itself admits in a few places (suspiciously, this is not admitted in the main Hawaii article...bias, anyone? reminds me of Dick Cheney's office cherry picking intelligence to promote the Iraq war). Plus, "Hawaii voted at a ratio of 17 to 1 to accept" becoming a state. There you go. If Hawaiians felt that Hawaii should not have become part of the USA, they would have voted the other way, but they did not. Do the secession people question the intelligence of Hawaiians who voted for that? If you think America should get off your island, and you want the island to be its own country, WHY would you vote to become a US state?????????????????????? If Option B was "change the name of Hawaii to Funkytown", you would vote for that, rather than say yes to Option A. Clearly the INTENTION and WILL of the people of Hawaii was to become a state, regardless of what had happened in the past. Past events cannot render illegitimate the legitimate vote of the people. Governments derive their just power "from the consent of the governed". btw some claimed that I am "From a republican state", actually I grew up in California, specifically, the "Silicon Valley" region, and I am registered with the Democratic party, though I consider myself a moderate liberal, and I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger (republican) for Governor, and still support him. I also voted for John Kerry in 2004 and was an official "veteran for John Kerry for President", and voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 (I turned 18 in 1996). In 2000 I had difficulties getting an absentee ballot so I could not vote that year (I was in the Navy), but I would have voted for Al Gore. I intend to vote for Obama for President because I was against the war in Iraq from day 1. I'll grant you I was born in Michigan, but we moved to California when I was 5. But Hawaii is properly a state, and the people of Hawaii CLEARLY wanted it at the time. maybe there should be a Hawaiian native reservation, a small one around the Palace, or something, but Hawaii should remain a state, as the people living there at the time VOTED. --Brian 22 August 2008.71.116.105.187 (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You're STILL here whining about it? Annexation was not by ANY means met with universal acclaim. Get off your ass and think, and realize that most Hawaiians decided NOT to vote since voting was an "American" system. You know those boycotts that Martin Luther King Jr. organized during the Civil Rights movement? That's what it was. Many Native Hawaiians refused to cooperate with the system that had put them in their negative situation, and thus the final vote tally only reflects those mostly non-Hawaiians who were in favor of statehood. Your argument falls prey to the logical fallacy that supposedly everyone votes, and as we can clearly see in any sort of political election even in the mainland United States, far from everyone decides to participate even in an election as hyped as the current Obama-McCain campaign.

Also, note that the election in the case you mentioned dealt exclusively with statehood. The only options in this case were to either remain only a territory and recieve no voting rights while continuing to pay taxes, or to become a state and gain those rights. There was no option for independence at all; the United States had no intention of giving up its major stopping point in the Pacific. There was no option to rename Hawaii to "Funkytown," as if it would have helped at all. The choice was simple: become a state and gain rights/representation, or remain a territory and end up largely ignored like Puerto Rico and Guam. The native Hawaiians stayed out of it for their boycott, while the remaining residents saw the obvious benefit of statehood over territory status. Hawaii had already been annexed as the Territory of Hawaii more than 50 years ago, and the overthrow had taken place 5 years before that.

The Kamehameha III article mentions that in his later years he asked his foreign minister to "ascertain the views of the United States in relation to the annexation thereto of these Islands," which is completely different than asking for them to be annexed. He likely asked to determine what the United States' goals were in its relationship with Hawaii, so as to be able to build alliances with other countries should the US get too greedy or build an alliance with the US if other powers targeted Hawaii (since the British and French were already swallowing up the rest of the Pacific islands).

Make note of this: the major complaint isn't statehood. That came much later. The issue was the annexation that led to statehood, and even further, the US sponsorship of the overthrow. "Hawaiians" are different from "residents of Hawaii" also. Residents of Hawaii include all ethnicities, Chinese, Japanese, Filipino, Korean, Portugese, Samoan, Tongan, Caucasian, African, etc. This is distinct from Hawaiians, who are the native people of the islands and were a sovereign nation before the overthrow. The vote of 17 to 1 is for "residents of Hawaii" and does not include a significant number of "native Hawaiians." There are some Hawaiians that do indeed realize the value of voting and participating in the American political system, but many avoid it as a symbol of "oppression." The statehood vote was essentially rigged: who would reject it if it meant languishing as a territory? The overthrow, however, and the following annexation, are the primary points of contention, and on the overthrow, the United States government, which you so zealously champion, admitted that it had assisted in the overthrow and that the Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their control over their own country to the interim government or the United States. It specifically mentions also that neither the official government nor a plebiscite or referendum ever relinquished control of the country, land, or people to the United States. There was no 17 to 1 election here, the entire affair was carried out by a few American businessmen with a militia and an expansionist US foreign representative with a US Marine detachment.

The prevailing idea that "governments derive their power from the consent of the governed" is true, but only when followed by the phrase "Silence implies consent." Elections only count those that vote, and so long as only one person doesn't vote, it cannot be said that a government can represent all of its people. It simply represents the majority of those that voted, as well as a bunch of people who for some reason decided not to vote and in all likelyhood strongly disagree with the government's policies, and finally the minority that voted against the government but lost. Looking at those three groups, it is clear that a government can only at best truly represent a fraction of its citizens. Does this of course mean that the people who didn't vote don't matter? Your argument certainly seems to present this view: because people who voted for statehood, everyone who voted against it or didn't vote doesn't matter because they LOST and are therefore free to be ignored. There is a reason why we continously hold elections for governmental positions: because ideas and thoughts change over time, and people need to be allowed to express it. Trumpeting the results of a 50-year old election held at a time when Hawaiians were beaten for speaking their own language and declining in population to a now-revived and active Hawaiian community is like waving King George III's coronation celebration in the American colonies to US citizens after the War of 1812 and saying that since the colonists celebrated, they must be reannexed as a part of the British Empire. Times change, people change, and the revitalized Hawaiian community is more active in political affairs now, although not yet to the same degree as other ethnic groups. Should they still be held to the results of a 50-year old election they didn't take part in? Should the US still be held to the results of the 2000 or 2004 election and keep George Bush in office for life since we elected him a while ago? Should we still cower in isolationism since that is what our government preached many decades ago?

And this is the most important misconception: Not every Hawaiian who believes the overthrow was illegal wants an indpendent nation or a restoration of the monarchy. Those radicals who try to occupy Iolani Palace claiming to be the new Hawaiian Kingdom government of course get all the attention, but the VAST majority just want some kind of recognition. Native Hawaiians are the ONLY indigineous people not recognized by the Federal Government in any form, and most at least want the same recognition that other Native American groups recieve. "Hawaiian sovereignty" doesn't mean a bunch of radicals fighting to gain independence. For the vast majority of Hawaiians, and the vast majority of non-Hawaiian Hawaii residents, it means getting Federal recognition, and hopefully protection. Sovereignty isn't just an issue for Hawaiians either; any politician of any race or political party running for office encounters it. Hawaiians don't vote for a candidate that they like very often, but they certainly vote against candidates that they don't like. Even Republican Governor Linda Lingle turned out to support the Kamehameha Schools when its pro-Hawaiian admissions policy was under attack, as did Lt. Governor Duke Aiona. The sovereignty movement isn't some kind of fringe belief held by a bunch of radicals, but the radicals get far more media attention due to their antics than the more level-headed and moderate groups do.

As for sources, you really aren't even bothering to look. Radical sites like hawaii-nation.org are easy to dismiss as being biased, but really, what isn't biased? "Reliable" news companies often have the most obvious slant (FOX News, anyone?), and most people don't even notice. The "unbiased" USA Today newspaper once ran a story about how Hawaii was supposedly a powerkeg of racial tension waiting to explode into a conflict worse than the most violent gang fights in LA, while newspapers in Hawaii (arguably a more reliable source in this case) paint the state as a paradise of mixed culture. The truth is somewhat in between and takes a degree of research and experience to ascertain for oneself. But here's a [article] from the History Channel website that does a good job of keeping the facts short and accurate, and [longer article] that mentions the overthrow and annexation from the National Public Radio site. Here's an [[2]] from the New York Times, although it is a bit old (from 1992, almost 100 years after the overthrow). And here's [one] from CBS that covers one of the more recent sovereignty movements in the news, once again getting ridiculed by both the media and the moderate Hawaiian sovereignty groups. If this stuff isn't enough, then I have nothing more to say because it is clear that you aren't listening. the_one092001 (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And keep in mind, there is a major, ongoing PR effort by the 50th Anniversary of Statehood Commission to promote and celebrate the 50th anniversary of Hawaiʻi statehood in 2009. They have already started blanketing the airwaves in Hawaii. The efforts of 71.116.105.187 are only the beginning. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Statehood Commission is trying to be tasteful about their celebrations though. Long gone were the times where it was acceptable to parade the dominance of one culture over another, or hold one point of view to be correct. They're cautiously celebrating so as not to anger the local population, focusing on the act of becoming a state rather than the actual annexation in 1898 or the overthrow in 1893. the_one092001 (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Famous People

I think BJ Penn should be included in the list of famous people from Hawaii. The current #1 lightweight in the world, and constantly ranked in the top 4 pound-for-pound fighters in the world. He is more famous than some of the people listed, but I would probably omit Nicole Kidman. She had Australian parents who were working in Hawaii and returned to Australia when she was 4 - although she is quite famous I really can't see her idenifying herself as hawaiian. Just my opinion Disco (talk) 07:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be deleted and merged into List of people from Hawaii. There should not be a "Miscellaneous topics" section. If it can't be merged into a major subsection, then it should be removed. Viriditas (talk) 09:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I want to go to Hawaii after reading this article on Hawaii! Sept. 10 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.119.108 (talk) 14:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Felixleiter.jpg

The image Image:Felixleiter.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Israel Kamakawiwo'ole Facing Future.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Flag of Hawaii - History

Why the flag of Hawaii has the United Kingdon label attached if its a State of U.S.A.?

- Actually, that's because the British influence over those islands in the late 19th century. This is the only current use of the Union Flag in any American state flag.

Kane.82 (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The clear origins of the flag are not known, although it was clearly influenced by the British Union Jack. The British were the first to arrive in Hawaii after the Polynesians, and Hawaii as a Kingdom enjoyed warm relations with them. the_one092001 (talk) 04:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

ahem. references for secession statement

obviously writers in the hawaii article still don't get it. hawaii-nation.org thinking that the statehood of hawaii is immoral or whatever do not count as references. That does NOT belong in an "encyclopedia". The Hawaii Reporter article is credible, BUT it does not advocate the idea that Hawaii's statehood is illegal or invalid. I have yet to see a neutral, credible source giving any validity to the idea that the legality of the statehood of Hawaii is in question. btw, if Hawaii becoming a state was invalid, why did the Soviet Union not say anything??? We occupy territory illegally and our chief political/nuclear/military rival says nothing??? Seems illogical. For a recent example see what happened in Georgia. I notice wikipedia does not have any references to the theory that the Apollo 11 landing was faked under "Apollo 11", so why would they have references to Hawaii not being a state under "Hawaii"? Both are equally stupid views which do not belong in an "encyclopedia" and are not found in REAL encyclopedias. This is like including "aztlan" in the California article and claiming it is rightfully part of Mexico. ((eye roll)) Wikipedia is good for esoteric knowledge like Dungeons & Dragons, or types of Jedi. It's not good as a credible source of historical, scientific, or other empirical knowledge, for that you need professional editors and professional sources. Wikipedia will NEVER be Britannica. This Hawaii article proves that. --Brian71.116.105.187 (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of just complaining (about this article and Wikipedia itself) for three months straight about this, why don't you just go and edit the Hawaii article yourself? Your good faith contributions to make Wikipedia better would be appreciated. Thank you, 青い(Aoi) (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There's not point in replying to him. He doesn't even listen to what we reply with. I will say it once again: Hawaii's statehood was not disputed. The overthrow most definately was, as was the following annexation. Both took place BEFORE the turn of the century (1900) which anyone with any grasp of history will realize was LONG before the Soviet Union existed. Get it through your head and stop whining. The Apollo moon hoax theories are stated on a different page because it is part of a different subject (conspiracy theories) and because there is enough information to create a fully separate (and very complete) page on the subject because whole books have been fired back and forth over the subject for decades. the_one092001 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

minor edit

aren't hawaii's boundaries straight lines corresponding to lat/long dilineations of the Pacific Ocean? Amdurbin (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC).

Fifth highest island?

The linked list has it as the second highest. Which is correct? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 10:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Second sounds right, but I'm in the process of doing the research to find a cite. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

I've just performed a major cleanup of the structure of this article. Many links have been temporarily removed but are in the process of being added back inline. If anyone has any issues with my edits, please respond here rather than reverting. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"These practics of human sacrifice continued until the eventual conversion to Chistianity under King Kamehameha V." should be Kamehameha III? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.171.92.111 (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It's confusing as the practice was banned by Kamehameha II and Queen Ka'ahumanu. I removed it for now since several paragraphs later, it says "Kamehameha II ended the human sacrifice and the Kapu system and Kamehameha III was the first christian king." Viriditas (talk) 15:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just added the "cleanup references" tag due to the random formatting style. The paucity of sources is also troubling, but I will attempt to rectify this in the coming month. Viriditas (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Land growth

Already discussed here. Viriditas (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In a limited example. so what you are saying is that Yellowstone National Park has no active lava flows or geological features. or that the San Andreas fault does not move, pushing eastermost California (although slowly) in a NW direction? you;re also saying the Cascade Volcanoes dont erupt and no subduction zone exisits in this area? that there is no geological activity in Alaska?

provide a citation to back up your fact! Jw2034 (talk) 18:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's commonly cited, for example in ISBN 0313308993, p. 83. Viriditas (talk) 18:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

'Using Internet Primary Sources to Teach Critical Thinking Skills in Geography'?

hardly Nature (journal) is it? notably, i dont see the words 'physical geography' in the book. if its commonly cited a citation from more than the middle of a slightly obscure book must be available? Jw2034 (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Put up or shut up. Please name a state other than Hawaii that is actively and currently growing in area due to lava. Viriditas (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

A Desirable and Helpful Table to place in this article

A desirable and helpful table to place in this article would be a table of the land areas of the significant islands, from largest to smallest. Also, while someone is at it, the populations of the islands could be tabulated, too.72.146.42.76 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove the reference to biographybase.com

Biographybase.com is used as a (fairly minor) reference in the article. Since biographybase.com is a copy of wikipedia circa 2004, it is not a suitable reference. It should be removed. I would do it myself but the page is currently semi-protected. 165.189.91.148 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good eye. Viriditas (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Hawaii is a state. it was made one in 1959. that made it the 50th state. August 21st is when it became a state. Hawaii has nine islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.248.167.149 (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks!

thanks for the super-useful map -- I'd always wondered exactly where Hawaii was! Actually, it's why I came to the article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.214.224 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for new section on environment

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. Please create Environment of Hawaii and expand that article first. It would be even better if you focus on a smaller subtopic instead, such as Marine debris in Hawaii, as there is a significant number of sources on that very topic. Viriditas (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Sorry to just dump it here and run. I was on it, then I got a call and had to fly. I will put something together ASAhumanly possible.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you are working on Kamilo Beach, I temporarily moved your table there, as the source for the table mentions Kamilo Beach in the article. If you don't want it there, please feel free to remove it. Viriditas (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Actually I thought I had already zapped it. Someone who worked on the beach said the info was bunk. Cheers.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. Viriditas (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started the section. I just threw it together. If you want to help make it presentable, it may be worth putting into the Hawaii page at some point. HawaiiEnviro --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Language section

Way too long for this article, and needs to be split out, summary style. Viriditas (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Need correction on this site.

In the media section. There is a incorrect sentence. It has two movie titles in while it should be one. Snakes on a Plane and Forgetting Sarah Marshall

This is the sentence, "The film Snakes on a Plane Forgetting Sarah Marshall takes place on a flight departing Hawaii for the U.S. mainland"

Robby1075 (talk) 08:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving Environment section

I suggest creating a main article Environment of Hawaii and moving Hawaii#Environment, Hawaii_Clean_Energy_Initiative, Climate_change_in_Hawaii, List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Hawaii there. What do you think? --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - it's already a very long article. Awien (talk) 16:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Religion stats

uuuh, they add up to 99.8% where has that .2% gone? 93.97.21.143 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal templates

Hi everyone. I've been bold and removed the merge tags from the sections in this article. Articles on states or other large geographic regions should cover all significant aspects of the topic, and I think most people would agree that this article should include at least a few paragraphs on history, as well as several on demographics, more on transportation, etc. Some of the merge tags also proposed merging with articles that don't exist yet, so it's not really meaningful to "merge" per se.

I imagine that the intention behind putting up these tags was to indicate that the sections are too long that it would be better to move the detail to sub-articles, keeping briefer summaries in this article. I agree with that idea, however anyone can just go ahead and do that, or if you prefer, tag this article as being too long and needing to use "summary style". See Wikipedia:Summary style for details. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is simply too much detailed information about the topics that I tagged, and it is more efficient to work on a section by section basis rather than placing a single tag at the top of a page, a style that I have described as "useless" for years. Tags should, whenever possible, target the material in question. I plan on working on the merges and I will ask others for help. While the page doesn't seem too long (81kb) there is an undue weight on certain topics with little said about others, and this is a problem that can only be solved by splitting material out and expanding other sections. The media section is basically a small article, and there is a lot said about education (in a state that is not known for it) and very little said about culture (the touchstone of Hawaii). Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree with what you're saying. I just didn't think the word "merge" is the right term to express what we're looking for. I've replaced a couple of "merge" tags with "please shorten" tags which I think communicates the idea better. If you feel strongly that the tags are not right, please feel free to revert my changes. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. I apologize for not reading you correctly the first time. You're right, of course. The tag I was looking for was {{Splitsection}}. Thanks for keeping your eagle-eyes on this article. We need more of that. Good work. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem, this is what talking is for :) Mahalo! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I just split out Media in Hawaii. Too long, totally unsourced, and reads as if it were written by HAL 9000. I would also like to point out that this section misses the boat on what makes Hawaii media unique, and avoids even addressing the issue. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

wow

i amdoing this for my state report and i need mo info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.239.61.171 (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Scientology - Religion?

Shouldn't it be considered a cult? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.110.105 (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, according to the government of Hawai'i and the United States. --Hwwood2010 (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Page title

Shouldn't the page title include the 'okina? 'Hawai'i' instead of 'Hawaii' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Formic15 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Free Hawaii

Hawaii should be freed from US occupation. It's funny to see US demands a free Tibet while committing the same evilness themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.228.107.33 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum.the_one092001 (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Overthrow

The annexation of Hawaii was done to prevent an unfair royal policy from taking effect on American businessmen. The queen, after seeing the great wealth possible from the American business venture decided to kick the businessmen out and in doing so would sieze all the property and operations on the island(essentially nationalizing the meger economy). This wasn't good business so the marines were sent in to ensure this wouldn't take place. After much deliberation the leaders decided that in order to prevent an incident like this from happening again the overthrow was necessary. Hawaii then became a protectorate under The United States of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.141.42 (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Article on Hawaii lists Obama specifics not pertinent to island's history

This article lists specifics about the election of Barack Obama not pertinent to the history of the island. As a corollary, the description page for the state of California doesn't mention Ronald Reagan, even though Reagan was a former governor of that state. The article for Texas lists George W. Bush only in reference to his service as governor of that state. The Arkansas page only lists Bill Clinton in reference to his service as the governor of that state.

This addition is clearly biased pro-democratic, and illustrates a trend on Wikipedia to slant articles towards democratic candidates/elected officials. This should be removed, and this as well as many other articles should be assessed as they are clearly in violation of the "Neutral point of view" policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.27.170.162 (talk • contribs) 17:16, 31 March 2009 {UTC}

The small paragraph on Obama says why he is notable: Obama was the "first presidential nominee to be from Hawaii". And as the article on Politics of Hawaii states: "Hawaii is primarily dominated by the Democratic Party and has supported Democrats in 10 of the 12 presidential elections in which it has participated." You were saying? Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Discovery - Juan Gaytan?

If you google the discovery of the Hawaiian islands, one sees the name Juan Gaytan who is reported to have seen islands (e.g. Isla Mesa) in 1542. La Perouse considered these islands to be Hawaii. Should this be mentioned somewhere or is this too speculative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobbema (talk • contribs) 06:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See Juan Gaetano. At this time it is too speculative to include in this article, however, it should be said that Manila galleons were regularly sailing between Mexico and the Philippines in the 16th century, so their absence in the historical record of Hawaii is strange indeed. If you want to try investigating this further, there is an alleged artifact in the Vienna Museum of Ethnology that could lend some light on this theory. See if you can contact someone there. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification on Topology section, subsection "Hawaii is the only state of the United States that:"

As stated, the text reads: does not have a straight line in its state boundary

I believe this is incorrect, and should read: does not have a straight line <over xxx length> in its state boundary

Since a line, by definition, is the space between any two points... Assuming that Hawaii DOES have a state boundary, it is made up of an infinite number of points; each of which are connected by a (very small!) straight line - which makes the claim, as stated, mathematically (and I would assume cartographically) inaccurate.

I know it's a minor point, but as a former math major, it reads awkwardly in it's current form.

Timmcgrath (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironically self-referential

From the article: "The nuances in the Hawaiian language debate are often not obvious or well-appreciated among English speakers outside Hawaii. The issue has often been a source of friction in situations where correct naming conventions are mandated, as people frequently disagree over which spelling is correct or incorrect, and where it is correctly or incorrectly applied."

Ironically, this could just as easily refer to Wikipedia's own debates. --75.173.88.157 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

hawaii

hawaii is next to alaska —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronbilsky (talk • contribs) 17:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protected?

Why is this article semi-protected? Bytebear (talk) 19:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the article's history from the last period of un-protection (mid-October). I wouldn't be massively opposed to someone unprotecting it, but I have no reason to believe that the results of unprotection would be any different than last time. AlexiusHoratius 19:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Union Jack?

Why does the flag of Hawaii have the Union Jack in its upper left corner? Wouldn´t it be more natural with Stars and Stripes?? --Oddeivind (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the link to Flag of Hawaii to see the details of the flag history. it does have the general design of the US flag, and the stripes. I would speculate there might remain a subtle feeling that the U.S. annexation was a bit one-sided, or at least keeping a neutral point of view, remains controversial to this day (see recent "ceeded lands" court case), vs. the two treaties with Britan that were seen as more fully negotiated in good faith. But of course would need references to add that to an article. W Nowicki (talk) 18:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii vs. Hawai'i

This article varies in its spelling convention. This introduces confusion, such as links that don't match (e.g., Sugar Plantations in Hawai'i - note the difference in article title and link text) and confusion between the island of Hawai'i and the state of Hawaii (e.g. Section 2.1 references Hawai'i the state immediately after the table referencing Hawai'i the island). As the official state name is "Hawaii," as mentioned in 5.4.1, recommend changing references to the state to the English spelling. Basseq (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw someone go through the article about two weeks ago and change most mentions of "Hawaii" to "Hawai'i", (I didn't do anything about it since I personally don't really care), but for what it's worth, until a couple weeks ago the spelling of the name of the state, at least on this article, was almost always "Hawaii". I wouldn't have a problem if someone went through and changed them all back, as, like you said, it doesn't work very well to switch from one to the other in the same article. AlexiusHoratius 02:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree; see also my recent comment on the Manual of Style, which should be the guide here, ideally? That would be: if the word would appear in a reasonable English dictionary, the ʻokina can be omitted, and certainly "Hawaii" would be in that category. My convention is to call the state "Hawaii" and the island "Hawaiʻi", and even then it can be confusing. Generally I would prefer to work on improving the content instead of churning ʻokinas in and out. Now for words that would generally not appear in en English dictionary, e.g. Kahaluʻu, I would prefer to keep the ʻokinas, but they seem to be removed in CDP and NRHP articles because of some database limitations? And yes, we agreed (I thought?) to avoid ʻokinas and especially Kahakos in article titles, which means every link is piped, but that seems reasonable to me. W Nowicki (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the compromise that was reached on accents is (pretty much?) as you say, W Nowicki. Awien (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A map observation

Hi. There are two "world" maps featuring Hawaii on this page. World maps are useful for giving a country/place grographical context, but unfortunately both of the maps use the standard US template which shows Hawaii as a cut-off strip placed next to the west coast. This is useful in its own way, but in it being used twice there is no map showing its actual location from a distance, relative to Asia or North America, which is a key feature of its being. Just a suggestion! 88.105.3.6 (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I added File:Hawaii in Pacific Ocean.png to replace one of the USA political maps. Any better? Astronaut (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Missionaries to Hawaii

Some excellent points are made in this article but there is a need to correct the error(s) regarding Christian missionaries to Hawaii. Under the headline, "1778-1983 - European Arrival and the Kingdom of Hawaii" (5th para.), it states that "Christian missionaries began to arrive in the early 1800s eventually converted many of the population to Christianity. Their influence led Kamehameha 11 to end the human sacrifices and the Kapu system...."

This is not true. The first Christian missionaries to Hawaii didn't arrive until March 1820.

Ten months before, King Kamehameha the Great had died and his son succeeded him. Shortly after, King Kamehameha 11 abolished the "ancient" religion (that had been forced on them by the Tahitians), burned down the temples, and smashed the idols. He did this with the support of his very highest priest and military commander. In fact, a very bloody battle had occurred in Kailua-Kona on the Big Island of Hawaii while the missionaries were on the high seas that was between the king's supporters and the supporters of the old religion. The king's supporters had won. The kapus were lifted. ("Grapes of Canan: Hawaii 1820" by Albertine Loomis, "Shoal of Time: A History of the Hawaiian Islands" by Gavan Daws, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.14.133 (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please Remove Reference to California Republic

There is a sentence which effectively compares the spurious "California Republic" to the fully sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawai`i, Republic of Texas and Republic of Vermont. The reference to the California Republic should be removed; there were only *two* states besides Hawai`i (Texas and Vermont) which were independent countries before becoming part of the United States.

FYI, the so-called California Republic was nothing more than a short-lived rebellion and highly localised against Mexican rule. Basically, a bunch of Americans living in what is now Sonoma County decided to declare independence from Mexico. The established an unelected provisional government that exercised a modicum of control over parts of what became Sonoma, Napa and Sacramento counties. Four weeks later, they discovered the United States had declared war upon Mexico and invaded California. They then declared the California Republic null and void, and joined the American war effort.

Clearly, the "California Republic" was never a sovereign state, and it should not be treated as such in this encylclopaedia. 24.4.56.26 (talk) 05:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no content about Hawai'ian self-determination?

Fair enough this article discusses the "state" of Hawai'i; but it's a little disingenuous to not include reference to the indigenous campaign for self-determination and independence, or of their own proposed national flag. This is not "trolling" by the way (to pre-empt any attempts by overzealous contributors to shut down a discussion of this), there are articles such as: Apology Resolution & Hawaiian sovereignty movement floating about; one would expect them to be at least mentioned in a paragraph sub section of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.74.203 (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC) User:macdaddy

Go ahead and do it - that's what "anyone can edit" means! Awien (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Is the land area correct?

The article sidebar lists the size of Hawaii as 10,931 sq mi (43rd largest). What is the source of that data? Every other reference I find says it is about 6,423 sq mi (6,422.62 according to http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/15000.html). This would rank it 47th, I believe, so if this is changed then the "List of US States and Territories by Area" would also need to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.27.35 (talk) 00:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

sigh. nevermind; i'm an idiot. the larger number in the sidebar includes land and water surface area. should've caught that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.9.40.230 (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Is Hawaii the United States' top producer of hot lava?

I don't know where to look for this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.222.71.26 (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a place to start, anyway:

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/

Awien (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Proclamation 3309

Proclamation 3309, Admission of the State of Hawaii into the Union, 21 August 1959, by Ike now available to cite or whatever on Wikisource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.237.235.127 (talk) 01:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you see Oahu from Maui?

Can you see Oahu from Maui? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.37.169.173 (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

From Maui County? Yes, from the west sides of Lanai and Molokai. I do not believe you can see Oahu from Maui island but if so, it would be from and area Lahaina, West Maui on the clearest day. --Travis Thurston+ 22:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This site may help, especially if you ask. Software / maps of 'longest sightlines' (Viewfinder Panoramas) Regards Chienlit (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Typography

Please read the Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style before removing the special characters used to spell Hawaiian words in this article. W Nowicki (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on my talk page, that is a proposed guideline, not an accepted one. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is the appropriate, accepted guideline. Horologium (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is, for the most part, accepted by practice. Please do not continue to remove okina's until this is resolved. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

As I've poined ou before, he 'okina is a full consonan in Hawaiian. O omi i is equivalen o omiing a random consonan in English, like his. Makes i hard o undersand and pronounce, doesn' i?

Omitting it in article titles makes obvious sense. Removing it from the body of the article is totally unnecessary. This compromise was agreed on long ago, so I agree with Viriditas, leave the diacritics in the body of the article. Awien (talk) 23:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue about all of the other names, because (despite having a guideline backing my position) I'm being ganged up upon here. However, I'm not going to back down on "Hawaii", because that is the name of the state; it is the name used by the U. S. Government, it is the name used by the state on its own website (no okinas in the state's name on the website), and it is the name that appears in all dictionaries. Additionally, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Internal consistency, one spelling should be used throughout the article (except in specific instances where different orthography or spellings are addressed). "Hawaii" (without the okina) is unquestionably the most common and most correct (in English) spelling.

If you want to argue that the okina is a letter, rather than a diacritic (As Awien does above), then we are discussing transliteration, and we use the most common *English* forms are to be used. The okina does not exist as a letter in the English language (much like Thorn or Ash), so it is transliterated into its nearest equivalent). Horologium (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

We like to call it "a consensus" instead of "ganging up". :-)

I am not a linguist, but would say the ʻokina is both. Orthographically (with respect to a writing system) it follows the definition of a diacritic: a glyph added to a base letter, in this case a vowel. It never appears on its own. But orally it functions as a consonant with respect to articulatory phonetics for example, and always marks the start of a new syllable. That is why Lānaʻi is the name of the island, a three syllable word, while "lanai" is a two syllable word, a perfectly valid and common word in the Hawaiian language meaning the patio on a house. It is a simplified spelling of a Hawaiian word; the closest to an "English name" might be "Pineapple isle" but that is not often used. For places like Pearl Harbor we do use the English name as per guidelines, similar to those of European languages. If you are advocating using simplified spellings, then that would allow, say "u" for "you" or "dont" for "do not" or "gonna" for "is going to". And even if those are in common use, do not belong in encyclopedic quality articles in our opinion.

Even U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: State of Hawaii agrees that the modern state name uses the simplified spelling, so that is what I use too for anything after 1959. I would propose spelling the state name that way consistently, but keeping the others. My experience is that people outside of Hawaii are usually not even aware that there is more than one island, let alone having the island names in "common usage".

First, I indented your response to differentiate it from mine; I hope you don't mind. Discussions are much easier to follow when they are properly threaded.

I do understand consensus, but I definitely felt like I was getting a blanket party from a group of long-term editors of this topic with a case of groupthink, using an unapproved guideline to oppose what I felt were policy-based changes to this article. The issue is not direct translations of the names (which is not what any of the guidelines state); it's changing widely accepted English language exonyms for the various islands and substituting the Hawaiian language equivalents. While it's true that GNIS is now using the okinas and the 2010 census plans to do so, the 2000 census did not, the state's own website does not (see this maps page, in which none of the islands' names have okinas, either in the maps themselves or the links to them), my copy of the American Heritage College Dictionary(4th edition; 2007) lists all eight islands without the okinas, and The New York Times and CNN don't appear to use them. (A check of "Oʻahu" on the NYT website showed the same hits for "Oahu" without the okina, and none of the articles contained the okina; the CNN website produced a single hit to a dead link page). And FWIW, the AH dictionary differentiated between the patio (lanai) and the island (Lanai) though capitalization; the island is always capitalized, while the patio is not, except at the beginning of a sentence. They are two separate listings.

What I have been saying is that different languages use different names for the same place, and in English the okinas are not used. The French Wikipedia article on Kauai uses the spelling without the okina, and the French Wikipedia article on the state uses the spelling "Hawaï"; are you planning on going over to fr.wp and trying to enforce your preferred spellings? I suspect that you'd run into a good deal of opposition, and if you persisted, earn a block from that project. The same should apply here, since this is not the Hawaiian language Wikipedia, and English usage prefers the spellings without the okina. (I am not threatening anyone with a block, so please do not accuse me of misuse of the administrator tools.) There is extensive and overwhelming precedent for using the okina-free spellings, and they don't equate to substandard usage such as "u" or "gonna"; drawing an equivalence is rather disingenuous. Horologium (talk) 01:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I would be happy to get more editor's opinions. We thought the policy was a reasonable compromise as consistent as we could get with other guidelines, banged out over quite some discussions. And if you want to accuse someone of Hazing, our project has had many contributors driven away by people who spend their time taking out the special characters instead of improving the information in articles. I have almost quit several times, and have given up editing CDP articles for now. Also interesting that the article you pointed me at uses the word "naïveté" in the lead (with the special characters in it). I do speak a bit of French, and know that the French are adamant about their own accents. I would guess they probably would agree to using modern orthography in their own articles, but I have my plate full right now. I do not agree "English usage prefers the spellings without the okina", nor that comparing other arguments soley on word count as "disingenuous". If you look at, for example, which publications do use the okina, it is generally any academic or serious scientific publication for example. The trend is to use them more often. The GNIS swithed in 2000, but the 2000 census used 1998 data. Wikipedia should look to the future, not the past.

Another case in point, I was just rewriting the Hawaiian Organic Act article, because it seemed at least one editor of that article did not know Hawaii consisted of more than one island. And I did say we agreed with "Hawaii" itself, so please stop repeating that. I agree we should use English, so when I see "the alii nui was kapu because of his mana" I think it is an improvement to translate. But when the names are spelled using the official standard spellings, changing them to simplified spellings does not add any information. W Nowicki (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have already explained why I added the link to hazing (actually to "blanket party", which is a redirect); I felt like I had entered a secret space, where the normal rules of Wikipedia didn't apply, and I got jumped by three people who WP:OWNed the space, angry because I had broken their rules. I came across this article only because I was given an assignment in one of my college classes which focused on Hawaii's state government; without that, I would not have had reason to step into the little walled garden. I'm sorry if asking people to follow WP conventions chases them from the project, as you assert, but that doesn't mean we should violate those conventions to accommodate them.

As for my repeated discussion of "Hawaii", it is not only you who has disagreed with my edits to this page, and the other two editors have not weighed in on whether or not they want the okina back in the word. In any case, I strongly suspect that there are plenty of other places where the okina-enhanced version is in use (such as 15 April, 4 July and Octopus), where it doesn't belong, so obviously other editors disagree with both of us. Horologium (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way, but it is not the way it is. There is no wall and no garden or at least overgrown with weeds to stretch the analogy :-). We are trying to follow the rules, but do not feel they are applied fairly. Any editor who removes information by rule has the burden of proof to show why the source, in this case GNIS or any modern atlas, is not to be trusted. The word counts for Oahu might justify, say, that for an article that consistently spells Oahu without the ʻokina, fighting over them might not be constructive. But it does not justify removing them all. There is no rule that says Hawaiian language is a special case, and diacritics are not allowed in Hawaiian words, but are allowed in European languages. There is a rule for neutrality and fairness. If diacritics are allowed in European language names, they should also be allowed here, according to the rules. Removing them violates that rule.

It might be your opinion that just removing a diacritic translates a word into English, but to justify a policy you need a source to back up that claim. It is a rule that personal opinions should not be the basis for an edit. It is easy to find counter-examples: removing the diacritics from Puʻuloa does not translate it into English. The article is Pearl Harbor, not Puuloa, because that place does have an English name. You do not get to Germany from "Deutschland" by removing diacritics. The WP:UE rule uses examples of names with diacritics as acceptable. Thre is also a rule Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Use_modern_names that says to use "modern" names. There are verifiable sources to show that GNIS and Census use of diacritics is more modern than the 1820 names, which even Lorrin Andrews admits in his dictionary were printed that way because his Ben Franklin era press did not have the right fonts. By rule you would need a better source to show the simplified spellings are more modern.

Your examples undermine your argument. The state web page clearly says it is 2000 census data. Much has changed in the last decade. The fact that a French wikipedia uses the simplified spelling tells me they do not think it is English. Mon Dieu, ce n'est pas possible. Il faut parler le Français propre, pas Anglais. And just because a word is in a dictionary does not make it acceptable for an encyclopedia. A large enough dictionary probably also has other simplified words such as "Thru" "OK" "dis" and maybe even "gonna" in it. It is the application of the rules I am arguing for. Editors who think they are above the rules themselves are what drives us away. W Nowicki (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

There was an edit conflict and I have to leave now, so I'm adding what I had to say without reading WN . . .

Dear Horologium,

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but a lot of the things you say indicate that you are taking personally things that are not personal at all. Nobody is targeting, hazing, or harassing you personally, it’s just that with your well-intentioned edits, you happen to have stepped into a situation where there are strongly-held opposing views as to what is appropriate. There’s also no secret, and there’s no ownership, it’s just that the state of the article before your edits did represent a compromise worked out through long and difficult discussion, and a couple of people have expressed the view that it was fine the way it was.

Even if there is a WP policy on the subject of diacritics and non-English letters, one of the great things about WP is its flexibility – exceptions to policies are possible when circumstances make that advisable. And whatever the letter of any WP “law” may be, the spirit of the law is always to maximise the usefulness of the project.

So rather than repeating here and now the whole discussion by which the compromise was reached, what I propose is that we restore the article to the version with the diacritics while you take the time to review the archived discussion, then if you still think a mistake was made, re-open the discussion on the basis of your specific objection(s). Sound fair? Awien (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

And I hope Horologium does not take my comments personally either. Horologium has a very good point in my opinion, that if the article had been consistent at the start it might have avoided this. That consistency rule seems clear, which is why I proposed putting in the diacritics for the islands (based on Geographic sources) but not the political entity, the state. Thanks for your patience. W Nowicki (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This will be my last response to this thread, as I'm removing this article from my watchlist. Do as you wish with the okinas on this and all Hawaii-related articles, but I will remove any occurrences I encounter in the word "Hawaii" (referring to the state, not the island or county) elsewhere within the English Wikipedia. FWIW, W Nowicki is incorrect in his assertions regarding the map page I linked. The maps in the first two links are the only ones that are produced using Census Bureau data (although the Enterprise zones also note census tract data, so they can be lumped in with the first two). All of the rest of the maps are produced either by the state itself, or by a private concern contracted by the state. Not a single one of the maps uses okinas for any of the island names (or for the state itself), either on the map page, or on the map itself. As for the nonsense about "thru", "gonna", and the like, I responded to that on my talk page last month when you tried to use it the first time; it still doesn't wash. Whatever. Horologium (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii's greatest historical significance

Opinions are not encyclopedic. I'd like the keeper of this page to take out or rewrite words that are opinions, please. I think Hawaii's greatest historical significance is when the US deposed the Hawaiian queen over pineapples, just as an example.

No ill will meant, cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, see Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Removed.

It isn't on an archipelago, it is an archipelago

for real... how about "an archipelago, hawaii is in the southwest pacific..." and so on?

This article is supposed to be about the state. The archipelago where the state is located is the Hawaiian Islands, so geographic information should go there, not this article. W Nowicki (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

This article has been sprotected since February 2009.[3]98.203.142.17 (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No idea what I'm doing, but note that the following passage is an incorrect interpretation of the data that footnote 49 links to. "According to the 2008 American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau, White Americans made up 27.1% of Hawaiʻi's population; of which 24.8% were non-Hispanic whites. Blacks or African Americans made up 2.4% (2.3% non-Hispanic). American Indians made up 0.2% ( 0.1% non-Hispanic). Asian Americans made up 38.5% (37.6% non-Hispanic). Pacific Islander Americans made up 9.0% (8.6% non-Hispanic). Individuals from some other race made up 1.4% (0.1% non-Hispanic). Multiracial Americans made up 21.4% (17.8% non-Hispanic). Hispanics and Latinos made up 8.7%.[49]"

For example, it states that "White Americans make up 27.1% of Hawaiʻi's population; of which 24.8% were non-Hispanic whites." The "of which" is incorrect. 24.8% is out of the total population, i.e., 319,553 out of 1,288,198. Etc.

Maybe someone wants to make the change...if anyone reads this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.128.196 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes some do read it. Unfortunately this page attracts much vandalism, and tends to be a "dumping ground" for things besides info on the current state (e.g. language or historical debates). If you want to contribute, please create an account for yourself (and read the style guides!) so we can better communicate and reach a consensus. W Nowicki (talk) 21:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Spelling of state name

So let me get this straight, even though this is en.wikipedia.org (not haw.wikipedia.org) and the official recognized name of the state is Hawaii wikipedia chose sides and decided to go with a known incorrect unofficial colloquial spelling; are we going to start changing all the other US state names which are based on Amerindian's words to the Amerindian spelling? Are we going to change Wisconsin back to Meskousing also?

Please change to the proper spelling. While its nice you acknowledged the debate when in doubt you might want to go with approved spelling per the constitution and federal registrar.

81.187.27.117 (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are complaining about? No, Wikipedia is just a forum, it cannot "take sides". The manual of style promotes a neutral point of view if at all possible. If you are talking about the ʻokina in the state name, neither spelling is "colloquial" since both appear in scholarly writing and state offices. See for example http://www.courts.state.hi.us/ or http://www.ehawaii.gov which uses both. The style guide says both are acceptable, although my opinion is to spell the state without the diacritic, since this is the more "common" spelling (and GNIS standard), perhaps not the "modern" one. I like to spell the island with diacritic, if nothing else than to make a distincttion with the state, since my experience is that most English speakers do not know about the island. And as stated in the article, the diacritics are intended exactly for non-Hawaiian speakers. It seems to me that "Wisconsin" is more than a removal of diacritics from "Meskousing" but do you have evidence that both are used in official or scholarly writing? If not, then they do not seem analogous. Whoever edits next should probably change to no diacritic in the state name, but there are more efficient uses of our time in my opinion. W Nowicki (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually what bothers me is the spelling of Hawaii in Hawai'ian instead of English which appears to go against the style guide and Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) (especially see paragraph four). While wikipedia is consistent in most places (see Moscow for example where the native non-english spelling is only used in the first line as posted to Москва through the entire document) Hawaii seems to have a special place where we use its native Hawaiʻian spelling. My point here is Hawaii is the official English spelling (see state seal, see articles of incorporation into the USA) whereas Hawaiʻi is the official Hawaiʻspelling. Given the requirement is to use english and this is consistent throughout the rest of en.wikipedia.org Hawaii should be used here. If folk wish to use Hawaiʻi outside the first line then they need to do so on haw.wikipedia.org in the same way every other native langauge uses their corresponding wiki's. This is not about being PC or making a point, its about following the wiki standard. Also, outside Hawaii, the rest of the English speaking worlds spells it Hawaii which also goes with the style guide; that was my point. (btw thanks for pointing me to the style guide, figured I would go read it as didn't think I would have to argue why one should write things in English on the en.wikipedia.org)

Also while I can run with using the okina for geographic features in Hawaii constant with the BGN [4] the State of Hawaii is not a geographic feature. 81.187.27.117 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I still do not totally follow what policy you are advocating. The GNIS does in fact have U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: State of Hawaii for the geographic center of the state, spelled without the diacritic. WP:EN is mostly about article titles, and we already avoid the diacritics in titles, to make searching easier, for example. Also in this case it is the same word, just a different writing of it. WP:PLACE says to use "modern" names which would argue for the diacritic. As mentioned in the article, the diacritics were introduced for non-Hawaiian speakers. Hawaiian speakers generally do not need them since they learn the spoken language first. So "English" spelling would generally include the diacritics. The document you cite shows the U.S. Government allows diacritics, but ironically it spells the state name without them. Even Congress is inconsistent, e.g. the name of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park now has an ʻokina, but most other mentions do not. The argument that convinces me is using a word ending like "Hawaiian" indicates treating it as an English word, which is why the consensus was not not use diacritics in that word. So unless someone comes up with more over-riding evidence, I propose to comply with the style guide using no diacritic in the state name but keep them in other place names. W Nowicki (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As a long-time WP editor, my opinion (FWIW) is that the article title should be Hawaii, with a redirect page for Hawai'i. Like other articles on US States, and also like articles on countries, WP always uses the language of the wiki, not the language of the country. For this English wiki, the name must be Hawaii, in spite of any feeling that the Hawaiian spelling, Hawai'i, is the preferred spelling by the residents of that state or in other contexts. By the way, there is no word Hawai'ian in either language. We need to follow WP policies, not what we personally would like to see or other considerations. David spector (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The undeniable FACT is that 90%+ of the world's English speakers spell it Hawaii, not Hawai'i. And by proffering a "compromise", what is really happening is getting a foot in the door (or, in this case, the entire leg up to the groin). This is the English language Wikipedia, and regardless of Congressional inconsistency, major sources of English (e.g., NY Times, et al.), use "Hawaii" for both the state and the island. Look, I don't actually care one way or the other, because it doesn't read any different, but don't think you're arguments hold up--you have hijacked this article and made WP:UE irrelevant. (Could you just do us all a favor and secede, while you're at it?) 98.82.22.154 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

so-called "Revolution of 1893" was not a revolution but a coup d'etat

The overthrow of the constitutional monarchy of Hawai`i in 1893 was not a revolution, it was a coup d'etat. The overthrow was not a result of mass mobilization or a popular movement, which is how 'revolution' is mostly defined in wikipedia. The overthrow was the result of the efforts and collusions of a cabal of elite white businessmen and plantation owners with assistance of troops of the U.S. military. Absent any form of mass mobilization or popular movement, a small group of elite, well-established men with the assistance of a small contingent of U.S. military muscle overthrew the legitimate government of Hawai`i to form the illegitimate Provisional Government of Hawaii-- a process which is the essence of a coup d`etat, not a revolution. In wikipedia.org list of revolutions, there is none listed in 1893 for Hawaii, but in wikipedia's list of coups d'etat, there is one listed for Hawaii: "1893: With the aid of U.S. Marines, U.S. Department of State Minister to the Kingdom of Hawaii, John L. Stevens backs businessmen of native and foreign nationality in a coup that deposes Queen Lili'uokalani." Imzio (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well according to the revolution article they do not have to be popular, just result in a change of power. Although I do not totally agree, the convention here seems to call it a "rebellion" if they lose and "revolution" if they win. The article itself calls it an "overthrow" which it certainly was. The revolution article lists Coup d'état as one of the methods, and this fits too since the constitution came after the fact. I would suggest we use a "main" template and move the last paragraph under the "1887" heading under that. Now it would be sadly commical if people remove the expression "Coup d'état" because it has a diacritical mark, so "is not English"! W Nowicki (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The important thing here is what the sources call it, not what we think it should be called. History is full of questionably named events, like the Glorious Revolution or the American Revolution, and it is full of really poorly named things, like the Great Leap Forward, the Greater Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, and the Final Solution. We call them these not so much because they are good descriptions but rather because that is how they are widely known. As a historian much greater than myself once said, "Talk amongst yourselves: The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire - discuss." AlexiusHoratius 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, so please do not hold us in suspense. Did you count up the sources? Which was the winner? Seriously, I have seen it called several things, some of which should not be repeated here. :-) W Nowicki (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I have some knowledge of the history of Hawai'i and fully agree with everything stated in the first comment in this section, many of the residents did in fact resist the takeover by the USA in various peaceful ways, in spite of the presence of a large warship in the harbor. One could indeed call this response, no matter how understandable and how harmless, as a "rebellion". Of course, this token rebellion is no justification for the takeover and later forced adoption as a U.S. state.

But this is my opinion, and there are other opinions. Therefore, I agree that the statements of reliable sources (WP:RS) are all that count.

The official government website (http://www.ehawaii.gov/dakine/search.html?tag=community) uses both spellings interchangeably. Waikiki has a private post office service (www.hawaii-post.com) which always uses the spelling Hawai'i. The Univeristy of Hawai'i officially uses the spelling Hawai'i (http://www.hawaii.edu/offices/eaur/styleguide.html). The National Park Service (U.S. Department of the Interior) states (in http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/pacn/monitoring/plan/PACN_MP_AppendixF_Geonames.pdf) authoritatively (as of 2004):

When Congress enacts legislation the place names are codified and entered into the GNIS. Recent legislation "corrected" the spellings of National Park Service units in Hawaii to include the special writing marks. One notable exception awaits amendment. The name of the state, Hawaii, is not written with an ‘okina between the two "i", because our Statehood Act in 1959 used the spelling "Hawaii." An Act of Congress is required to "correct" the name of the state to Hawai‘i. Thus, the name of the state is Hawaii, while the name of the island of the same name is Hawai‘i.

Based on my research, my opinion is that the article title and other references to the state should be titled Hawaii until Congress officially changes the name in the GNIS to Hawai'i. My opinion applies to other articles having Hawai'i or Hawaii in their titles as well, except where the reference is to the name of the largest island or the county, which has always been Hawai'i. Note that it is generally considered equivalent to use the characters ' or ʻ for the okina punctuation symbol. David spector (talk) 03:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

it's not a union jack!!

i wish people would stop calling it a union jack as it's only ever called that when it's being flown on a british royal navy ship, otherwise it's just called the union flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.45.65 (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong; that's a popular myth perpetuated by people who think it's a fact because they've heard it so much. It may be called a Union Jack when it is not being flown on a Royal Naval ship or establishment. End. Of. Story. 86.7.211.128 (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

hawaii report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.112.159 (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Sortable

Hi,
The sorting of section 5.3 (ancestral langage) is not good. It don't take in account the three digits number. — Riba ^(talk) 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Should work now. Removed the parens. W Nowicki (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

British Invasion of 1843

Isn't there anything in the Hawaii history section on the strange British invasion of 1843?

http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&PageID=286&returntoname=year%201843&returntopageid=127

216.107.194.166 (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well this artile should just include a brief summary. There already is some in History of Hawaii#The Paulet Affair (1843) and Kingdom of Hawaii#The Paulet Affair (1843) until I just added the article today Paulet Affair (1843). Need to clean up the summaries and links a bit, still. W Nowicki (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Zora's recent changes

I was looking at this article simply as a reference and discovered that someone had mangled the pre-contact history section. Someone who believed in Pa'ao, believed that the Kamehameha dynasty was descended from a chief from Tahiti, believed in something called a kapu kingdom, and believed in fixed stages of cultural evolution (tribalism before feudalism). All of this is odd, incoherent, and contrary to everything that historians, anthropologists, and archaeologists believe about Hawaiian history. No citations for any of it, either.

If someone wants to assemble an outline of what some Hawaiian sovereignty people believe about Hawaiian pre-history and support it with citations, then it would probably be worth putting into an article, or a section of the larger Hawaiian pre-history article. Any such outline should be honest in pointing out that there are various opinions within the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and that belief is not monolithic.

Such an outline might be useful for people encountering Hawaiian history for the first time and running into assertions that seem odd. It's helpful to know who believes those things and to see a summary of the arguments that they make. Zora (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. And I should reiterate that this article should mostly contain summaries (except perhaps for current demographics, etc.). Any details should be added to the linked articles, e.g. ancient Hawaii for example which could use some beefing up. With quality sources cited. W Nowicki (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think you're saying that the folk history should be treated distinctly from the anthro / social science analysis, which would definitely make sense. Thanks for your efforts on this. Arjuna (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Do not follow (or agree?) with above. Anything from the ancient period is oral history (with perhaps some archeological evidence), so no reason to be pejorative and call it "folk history". Of course all information should have cited reliable sources. What I was saying is that only a short summary goes in this article, put details (with citations) into the ancient Hawaii etc. articles. W Nowicki (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

In academic anthropology, "folk history" is not pejorative at all, simply descriptive to distinguish it from "academic" or "official" histories (the latter often politically motivated - although for that matter, all histories are political, but let's not go there). One subdiscipline of ethnobotany, for example, is "folk taxonomy". My regrets if you misapprehended the intent of my comment, but I assure you that it doesn't mean what you thought I meant. I'm not sure I agree, though, with your claim that "anything" from the ancient period - with some archeological input - should be based on "oral/folk" history. First, there are many different oral histories, so whose do you pick? Which perspective is valorized? This would open up a huge can of worms. Anthropological and archaeological evidence and analyses, which are inherently more verifiable, should be authoritative, not "oral/folk", although I agree that any article would be incomplete without including summarized versions of that information as well. My apologies if I am not understanding your position on this. In any event, this may all be moot, since I think we agree on the matter at hand here, which is to have a short summary, and the rest goes into the ancient Hawaii article. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I should perhaps add that current folk versions of Hawaiian history aren't necessarily the same as the folk versions that Kamakau, Malo, and other early 19th century Hawaiians wrote down. The long-running Hawaiian periodicals project, at Bishop Museum, will be invaluable in giving us more of a Hawaiian perspective on 19th century history and earlier. I wish my Hawaiian were more than rudimentary, so that I could help with the project and perhaps translate some of the more interesting newspaper articles. English-only historians have overlooked precious sources. Zora (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Geological age

There is no mention of the formation, geological age or long-term geological history of Hawaii. I understand that it is the youngest island in the Hawaiian Island chain - and that both this chain and the Midway Islands and the older connected Emperor seamounts are all formed by the movement of the Earth's crust over a single hot spot in the magma. See Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain. This gives an interesting overview. Could it be added? --Tediouspedant (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

As the article says several times, this is about the modern state. For geological information see Hawaiian Islands or the other related articles. That said, if the summary here is made smaller, it might then use a link or two to that one or Hawaii hotspot for example. There used to be a list of these in a "See also" section, but now it just goes to an "outline" article for some reason. So the hatnote needs to be fixed. W Nowicki (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Clarification

Please clarify this:

"There are also more than 100 small rocks and islets, such as Molokini, that are either volcanic, marine sedimentary or erosional in origin, totaling 130 or so across the archipelago."

130 what? What does "or so" mean? That's pretty vague. And if we're referring to the same thing (I can't tell), why is the first number "more than 100" and the second number "130 or so"? We should be consistent in our count, if we're referring to the same thing. Also, if there is no definite number, that's fine, but "approximately" sounds much more professional than "or so." I'm not sure on this one, so I'm going to leave it for someone who has time to fact check :). --Jp07 (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.173.245.234, 9 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hawiians Culture Is Made Up Different Races and Nationalities They Are Cultures That Are Mixed With Cherokee Indians, Somans, Africans, Philippians ,The United Kingdom of Great Britan And Other Native Americans.Hawaiians Are Pacific islanders Known As Polynesians

Category Cluture And Race 68.173.245.234 (talk) 22:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you implying that we should change? You need to say what we should change as well as how we should change it. Also, as per the policy at WP:CITE, you will need to provide a reference for your statements. Thank you. Chevymontecarlo. 04:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 129.82.217.84, 3 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Need to change the description of the health care law in Hawaii. It should be "Heavy regulation of insurance companies helps keep the cost to employers high."

129.82.217.84 (talk) 07:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to have a citation in the article to prove that heavy regulation keeps insurance costs down. However, everything I have read suggests that this IS the case. The request to change it may be motivated by political opposition to any state regulation at all. Suggest no change to be made unless anonymous user can produce evidence that he/she is correct. Zora (talk) 08:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Zora. Evidence suggests that the system works reasonably well and is very popular. Arjuna (talk) 10:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Update request

I think that this information should be add in the economic section at least a note on this article, Jones Act of 1920 cost to Hawaii, add a 22 percent on shipping cost as per the U.S. International Trade Commission. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii. In 2003, Hawaii residents had the highest state tax per capita at US$2,838. The $3,000 cost of the Jones Act of 1920 for every household in Hawaii is higher than the state tax per capita.

SENATOR JOHN McCAIN INTRODUCES OPEN AMERICA’S WATER ACT Merchant Marine Act of 1920 June 25, 2010

http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6f6b73f4-a9f3-8433-0472-f3bd97d2fa86&Region_id=&Issue_id=

“Today I am pleased to introduce legislation that would fully repeal the Jones Act, a 1920s law that hinders free trade and favors labor unions over consumers. Specifically, the Jones Act requires that all goods shipped between waterborne ports of the United States be carried by vessels built in the United States and owned and operated by Americans. This restriction only serves to raise shipping costs, thereby making U.S. farmers less competitive and increasing costs for American consumers.

“This was highlighted by a 1999 U.S. International Trade Commission economic study, which suggested that a repeal of the Jones Act would lower shipping costs by approximately 22 percent. Also, a 2002 economic study from the same Commission found that repealing the Jones Act would have an annual positive welfare effect of $656 million on the overall U.S. economy. Since these studies are the most recent statistics available, imagine the impact a repeal of the Jones Act would have today: far more than a $656 million annual positive welfare impact – maybe closer to $1 billion. These statistics demonstrate that a repeal of the Jones Act could prove to be a true stimulus to our economy in the midst of such difficult economic times.

“The Jones Act also adds a real, direct cost to consumers – particularly consumers in Hawaii and Alaska. A 1988 GAO report found that the Jones Act was costing Alaskan families between $1,921 and $4,821 annually for increased prices paid on goods shipped from the mainland. In 1997, a Hawaii government official asserted that ‘Hawaii residents pay an additional $1 billion per year in higher prices because of the Jones Act. This amounts to approximately $3,000 for every household in Hawaii.’” “This antiquated and protectionist law has been predominantly featured in the news as of late due to the Gulf Coast oil spill. Within a week of the explosion, 13 countries, including several European nations, offered assistance from vessels and crews with experience in removing oil spill debris, and as of June 21st, the State Department has acknowledged that overall ‘it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.’ However, due to the Jones Act, these vessels are not permitted in U.S. waters.

“The Administration has the ability to grant a waiver of the Jones Act to any vessel – just as the previous Administration did during Hurricane Katrina – to allow the international community to assist in recovery efforts. Unfortunately, this Administration has not done so.

“Therefore, some Senators have put forward legislation to waive the Jones Act during emergency situations, and I am proud to co-sponsor this legislation. However, the best course of action is to permanently repeal the Jones Act in order to boost the economy, saving consumers hundreds of millions of dollars. I hope my colleagues will join me in this effort to repeal this unnecessary, antiquated legislation in order to spur job creation and promote free trade.”

Reference: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=6f6b73f4-a9f3-8433-0472-f3bd97d2fa86&Region_id=&Issue_id=

View Bill

Reference: http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=244846c7-d436-4704-87fb-ccff411ebae7

--Seablade (talk) 01:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why Seablade posted this here. With no further elaboration, I will remove it as spam. Viriditas (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammar edit

The last sentence in the economy section, "As of January 2010, the states unemployment rate is 6.9%," needs to be changed for obvious reasons. My account is too new to let me do this. Heresybythought (talk) 04:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not totally obvious? I added an appostrophe, if that is what you meant, and changed to past tense. Was that it? W Nowicki (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if it sounded vague and thanks for editing! Heresybythought (talk) 23:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii v. Hawaiʻi

Why did someone change the usual English-language spelling Hawaii to Hawaiʻi? Can someone restore this? 98.221.121.72 (talk) 08:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it looks like it was User talk:Jeremiestrother back in May with the misleading edit summary "tidying up". You can look in the edit history. This happens every few months. The manual of style compromise is to spell the name of the island with the diacritic (as does the oficial GNIS) but not the US state, which this article is about. Will work on it. W Nowicki (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Federal government

It seems to me more encyclopedic for this section to describe Hawaii's representation in general terms, rather than naming the current representatives personally. Awien (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That may depend, e.g. in a comparison to Britannica, on whether you were looking at their Macropedia or their 2010 Yearbook supplement. As a web-based encyclopedia, not needing to worry as much about the cost and effort of releasing frequent updates, Wikipedia can combine both semi-permanent and more transient information in one place. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

First, or second?

"In 2010, the percentage of millionaires in the general population was the highest in the nation.[63]" where 63 says: "Second to California".

Well, which is it? First, as in the text? Or second, as in the footnote? (And what's the source for either?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed, since former source 64 was "Parade Magazine" which when I looked online at the article in question got to a celebrity gossip column. Hardly a reliable (or relevant) source. And not clear how it defines "millionaire" of course. In many paces it means "homeowner".

I did find this IRS publication which shows Connecticut as the highest at 2.6% but that is from 1998. W Nowicki (talk) 21:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii is pronounced Havawkey too

The article should mention that Hawaii can also be prnounced like "Havawkey" (Ha-VAW-key). I have heard this from several people including Barrack Obama's sister who is part Malayopolynesian herself and is a professor there. 69.46.168.129 (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard it pronounced like that (although I suppose that doesn't mean nobody says it like that). (I'm no expert in the language, but where does the "k" come from?) Although there are a bunch of sometimes obscure and seldom used pronunciations of states (Californ-eye-ay, Mississip, Ioway, Colo-ray-do, Illinoiz, Soudakota...), I don't think we should start listing every possible pronunciation unless they are widely used. AlexiusHoratius 14:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Well certainly one would need a good source to add it to the article. But not too hard to believe, from the little I know about the language. "W" is often pronounced as "V" in some dialects, and the glottal stop indicated by the ʻokina can be easily mis-heard as a "k", especially since linguists think many words that came from Tahitian used to have "k" where ʻokina are now. Typical example is "Tiki" in Tahiti is roughly "Kiʻi" in the Hawaiian language. The variation given with the v : [hɐˈvɐiʔi] seems close enough. W Nowicki (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that clears up the pronunciation thing. But like you said, I'd rather have a good source that this is a common alternate pronunciation (like Nevada or Oregon) beyond Obama's sister or something. AlexiusHoratius 20:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I've lived here for years and no one who is from here says "Havawkey". Also outside of politically correct academia no one says He-vei-i either. When someone uses that they are being totally pretentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.154.252 (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Map

The infobox map is an insult to academic integrity. It serves no purpose what so ever. Either put in a geographically accurate map or don't put one all. This isn't "American-centric encyclopedia". Slaja (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have talked about trying to get a more accurate map. I just used the county one for now, until someone who knows the technology can figure out an even better solution. You are welcome to help - the page protection is only against brand-new users and IP addresses. But I do think your comment was quite hyperbolic, if not meant to be sarcastic. This is, after all, an article about one of the US states. As it says in the hatnote, for geographic details see the geographic article. W Nowicki (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity

The current article states that Hawaii was the second minority-majority state (a ridiculous concept all together but beyond the scope of this page) and that both Hawaii and New Mexico have been minority-majority states since early in the 20th century. I'm fairly certain that Hawaii has always been a minority-majority state; a fact backed up by the "Minority-majority state" page So my question is why is Hawaii second and how is New Mexico's status as one of the four US states without a majority non-white population relevant? anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.239.70 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC) New Mexico, Texas and California have a white majority according to the U.S. Census (partly white of Hispanic origin)--79.150.186.73 (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but the fact that Hawaii is one of the four and that there's an extensive article covering the subject, my opinion would be that the topic is definitely notable. Whether or not it deserves more that a mention in this article, not my call. The probable reason for Hawaii being second is the fact that it become a state much later than New Mexico, and that at that time California and Texas were probably not minority-majority states. Just a guess. --Travis Thurston+ 22:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Then the issue is the statement "both Hawaii and New Mexico have been minority-majority states since early in the 20th century". If the chronology is based on statehood then Hawaii wasn't a minority-majority state until August of 1959, not "early in the 20th century". In addition, if one looks at the article on minority-majority states, New Mexico was estimated to have a white majority as late as 1940. Neither of these two dates would constitute "early"; I think a more appropriate term would be "Middle". I'm still not sure that the date on which non-hispanic whites became a minority in the state of New-Mexico is relevant to the state of Hawaii. I personally feel that the information is extraneous, but if it must be kept then the paragraph should either be amended to only list when Hawaii became a minority-majority state (i.e. statehood) or to give the dates for all four minority-majority states. (Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Texas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.232.229 (talk) 15:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Education/Public schools

Shouldn't this be amended former governor, or then-governor Lingle? 75.203.158.55 (talk) 12:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Added. Thanks. Sokolesq (talk) 08:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

2010 Census

The results for the 2010 census are published with a gain of 12.3% at 1,360,301. Moving up two positions to 40th in the nation.--Travis Thurston+ 20:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This should be updated in the article.Robert Moore 20:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Statistical Abstract of the United States, Table 13 (State Population), at http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s0013.pdf says that Hawaii's population as of July 1, 2009 was 42nd in the nation, up 6.9% from 2000. Population per square mile was 201.7. Sokolesq (talk) 08:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Religion

The section identifying percent of population in each religious category lists separate headers for "Christian" and "Mormon". Mormons (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) are Christian and are seen that way by most who self-report as Christian (Pew Foundation)RobinBishop (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

California

Can someone please add information about the distance between the california coast and Hawwaii? thanks 78.146.100.162 (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Semi Protection

Why has this article been closed to unregistered contributions for so many years? Weakopedia (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.172.93.224, 25 April 2011

Please spell DAYLIGHT SAVING time correctly 76.172.93.224 (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done (Hey, there was one each way; maybe an attempt at NPOV...) Fat&Happy (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Tee hee! Awien (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Coastline

This article gives the total shoreline of Hawaii as 750 miles and calls it the fourth longest. But the Chesapeake Bay article says the bay and its tributaries have over 11000 miles of shoreline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdjunkin (talk • contribs) 15:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Different term (coastline vs. shoreline), different definitions, different methodologies. See List of U.S. states by coastline. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The article should specify that it is referring to oceanic coastline. The state of Michigan has 3,224 miles of coast line (albeit fresh water). According to NOAA Office of Oceanic and Coastal Resource Management - http://coastalmanagement.noaa.gov/mystate/mi.html (Gille86 (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC))

Dubious assertion

The section "Other schools" asserts: "Hawaii educates more students in independent institutions of secondary education than any other state in the United States." I find that very dubious, and there is no citation given for the assertion. California, for example, has something like 30 times the population of Hawaii. Or is the sentence intended to say "per capita"? Duoduoduo (talk) 00:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking from intuition rather than knowledge, "a higher percentage per capita" sounds plausible. Awien (talk) 01:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What about sovereignty and independence movements?

Why can't we read about the sovereignty and independence movements in this article ??? There is no mention of the sovereignty and independence movements of Hawaii at all, as if these movements and efforts doesn't exist at all ? Unbelievable! Any explanation, any one ?--77.78.240.64 (talk) 14:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I just find out about existence of the Wikipedia article Hawaiian sovereignty movement, but not via this article nor through "See also" section, which is really cowardly, perfidious, irritating and absolutely despicable.--77.78.240.64 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you know this is a collaboration right? If you feel some things need to be added then be bold and add them yourself. --Travis Thurston+ 17:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I am reluctant to edit, article is protected (?!) and I have a feeling this issue is the reason.--77.78.240.64 (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a big conspiracy... Do you really think the collective of editors decided to protect the page so you can't add info on sovereignty movements? If you're going to go as far as to claim that lacking this info the editors are "cowardly, perfidious and despicable", then perhaps you should take the extra step and create an account. With a username you can add all you want, as long as it's sourced and follows some kind of agreed writing style. Until you get that up and running, I'll add Hawaiian sovereignty movement to the "see also" section. --Travis Thurston+ 18:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I removed the link. There are many ways to get to that article, including through the Index of Hawaii-related articles already in the seealso list. Sovereignty and independence movements don't seem to be a major force in Hawaii, so the emphasis of a special link is undue. Quigley (talk) 18:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

correct spelling of Hawai'i

according to its constitution and the Hawaiian language which is one of two state languages, it is correct to spell Hawai'i. The apostrophe called an "okina" is NOT punctuation, it is a letter in the Hawaiian alphabet. Its incorrect to drop a letter from the name, and its also offensive to the native population.

Yes, of coures. But it's not the way we spell it here because it isn't the usual English spelling. Dougweller (talk) 04:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

The state's constitution spells it "Hawaii". Kauffner (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

We have been having discussions on this issue for YEARS. The state constitution was written when Hawaiian was written with the old spelling, without 'okina and macrons. The new spelling, per Pukui and Elbert's dictionary, is now preferred. It is OK to spell Hawaii without the okina, but it is considered more polite, more educated, to add the 'okina. (Speaking as long-time Hawai'i resident, also copyeditor and proofreader specializing in Hawaiiana.) I would hope that WP editors would agree that polite and educated is the way to go. Zora (talk) 22:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Religion Section Inconsistencies

The first paragraph states that the "largest religions by adherants" are the RCC and the Mormon (LDS) church. Then below it lists some categories of religions and the number of adherants. The Mormon (LDS) church lists some 63k adherants, but there are other religions (Buddhism, for example) with more adherants. The first paragraph is misleading and should be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.80.214.250 (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Order of islands

the eight "main islands" are (from the northwest to southeast) Niʻihau, Kauaʻi, Oʻahu, Molokaʻi, Lānaʻi, Kahoʻolawe, Maui, and Hawaiʻi.

Except, that isn't how they are normally listed. They are listed based on their geological age and corresponding size from the southeast to the northwest, from the youngest to the oldest. After all, that is the direction that the Pacific plate is moving. There seems to be a bit of a cultural bias here, as if listing items from left to right was the correct way. Viriditas (talk) 06:33, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

But that's what we see when we look at a map. That act of looking is what the sentence assumes. Seems fine to me. Zora (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain how and why you see the tiny Niʻihau in the far east before you see the massive island of Hawaiʻi in the far west? If you were looking down from the International Space Station, your eye would not go from left to right, but from right to left, and it would start with Hawaiʻi based on size.[5] Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Except, that isn't how they are normally listed. They are listed based on..."

Not that I think this argument over trivia serves any useful purpose in improving the encyclopedia, but just for [kicks] 'n' giggles, do you have any reliable sources stating how they are "normally listed"? Fat&Happy (talk) 22:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I would prefer if you would tell me why they are listed this way instead. Zora says "that's what we see when we look at a map", but that assumes we are looking left to right. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Because this is the English-language Wikipedia (not the Arabic) we read left to right, and we would scan a map left to right. Zora (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume you were joking and let that pass.

Wasn't joking.Zora (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, but I am at a loss understanding it. Why would I read a map of San Francisco from left to right if I'm trying to find out how to go from the Presidio to San Jose? Obviously, I would read it from top to bottom, or bottom to top depending on the direction I wanted to go. So a map does not exist to be read in one direction but in a way that is determined by the presentation of information. In the example before us, the information is the Hawaiian Islands, "a chain of islands that stretches 1,500 mi (2,400 km) in a northwesterly direction from the southern tip of the island of Hawaiʻi." Clearly, when we are dealing with such information, we read from right to left. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

When we talk about the Hawaiian Islands, we talk about them stretching to the northwest. They are never discussed in terms of stretching to the southeast, or from "left to right". Always in terms of "right to left". This is how they evolved geologically, and a casual observer is forced to notice the larger islands first. This may also be the order of how they were originally populated by ocean navigators from afar, and also duplicates the adaptive radiation of other species, such as Hawaiian spiders for example, who spread their webs on the trade winds and "flew" from the southeast to the northwest, from island to island up the chain. In other words, the "right to left" movement is not just important to understanding the Hawaiian Islands, it is fundamental to its existence. Viriditas (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

My experience in local publishing leads me to believe that most island listings start with Kaua'i (or even more to the left) and end with the Big Island. I don't think I've seen any in the other order. Kaua'i to Big Island, small to large, old to new. The list ends with a thump instead of dribbling off. Hmmm .... just found an example. Place names of Hawai'i, book I have used extensively for copyediting and proofreading. THE reference book. Page 246 has an island list. Starts with the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and ends with the Big Island. Are you going to argue with Pukui, Elbert, and Mookini? Zora (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like both directions are used, however, it appears that the more generalist literature goes from left to right while the scientific journals go from right to left. For example, World of Earth Science (2007), a tertiary source published by Gale says "The Hawaiian archipelago is a group of 132 islands, reefs, and shoals in the North Pacific Ocean that extends about 1,525 miles (2,454 km) from Kure Atoll (29°N, 178°W) to the big island of Hawaii (19°N, 156°W)." However, journal articles published in Science and Copeia say the opposite: "The Hawaiian Islands extend almost 2,500 km from southeast to northwest;"[6] "The chain stretches west-northwest across the Pacific between 20[deg.]N and 29[deg.]N, from the island of Hawaii to Kure atoll, and contains eight high volcanic islands, five islets with broad banks, three atolls, two coral islands at sea level, and 25 drowned banks"[7] I'm more inclined to trust the scientific journals and to dismiss the generalist literature. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Undoing indent. It's not a question of trusting, as if there were only ONE right way. There are two styles, and, as you said, one is appropriate for general literature and one for science. The WP article is more on the order of general literature.

Oh, and as for styles ... this was something I had to learn when I started copyediting. While some grammatical usages or spellings are right or wrong everywhere (at this place and moment), others are less cut and dried. Publishing houses have house styles, that dictate whether their publications will use the serial comma (or not), whether an author's initials in a bibliography should be H.W. or H. W., and so on. There is no one right way, no matter what your 6th grade English teacher said. There is only the way that is appropriate for the context. Zora (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. Mary Kawena Pukui, Samuel Hoyt Elbert, and Esther T. Mookini were specialists on the subject of Native Hawaiian ethnology and linguistics. They were not experts on geography nor geology. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But why should geologists determine how we talk? Or list the islands? This is a question of language, not geomorphology. Zora (talk) 05:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia house style defaults to WP:SCIRS. Viriditas (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are incorrect here. That policy applies to SCIENCE articles. The main Hawai'i article is not a science article. Zora (talk) 07:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RS is a guideline. SCIRS is an essay illustrating best pracice. It applies to reliable sources used to support science-related content such as geography and geology. Viriditas (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

You are free to write an article about the geological history of the islands and put the islands in the order you prefer. That order is in fact the order used by the book Roadside Geology of Hawai'i; it's appropriate. However, the top-level article about Hawai'i is not a science article. It is an omnibus. I should add that I really don't see why you're so focused on this. Zora (talk) 08:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Why would we support a geological history written by ethnographers and linguists rather than geologists and Earth scientists? That contravenes the RS guideline and related recommendations and practices regarding the authoritativeness of a source and its relevance. Viriditas (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But this article is NOT a geological history. I should point out that in the course of the article, the islands are listed left to right, alphabetically, right to left, and sometimes in an order that makes no sense at all to me! But that's OK. Not necessary to standardize. I might also add that when I think about the islands in geologic terms, I think left to right, old to new. Forces of weathering contra volcanism. That makes just as much sense as new to old. In any case, your drive to impose geological standards on ANY listing of the islands still seems quixotic to me ... as much as declaring that we could no longer use the word "human" but must instead use "Homo sapiens sapiens". The Linnean term is more scientific, ne? Zora (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Some questions

1. Why are the Hawaiian Islands described from left to right or from right to left? What are the advantages and disadvantages of both?
2. How do we read maps? How do we describe visual information in maps in terms of prose?
3. How does each direction (L-R, R-L) benefit or detract from the experience of the reader? Is there a good reason to prefer one way or the other?
4. How do we apply the reliable source guideline when we are dealing with sources outside their expertise? Should we favor authoritativeness and relevance?

Feel free to add your own. Viriditas (talk) 09:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just my two cents, it seems for the general reader (myself included) left to right would be more intuitive. However, I don't see that it makes a lot of difference, as long as the context makes it clear - as the parenthetical "(from the northwest to southeast)" does.Gr8white (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Go to our article on the Hawaiian Islands and look at all the images. It is intuitive to describe them from right to left based on their size. You can barely make out the islands from left to right so it would not make sense to describe them that way. Most importantly, describing them from right to left reflects the more recent research on plate tectonics and hotspot theory that was not used or accessible by the older sources Zora is using. In fact, the sources Zora is using are out of date. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii has the 5th largest coastline

In regards to the quote written, "Hawaii's coastline is approximately 750 miles (1,210 km) long, which is fourth in the United States after Alaska, Florida, and California." Is incorrect from the standpoint that Merriam-Webster dictionary defines coastline as: "A line that forms the boundary between the land and the ocean or a lake." From this perspective, Hawaii has the fifth largest coastline behind Alaska, Michigan, Florida, and California; not the fourth. Andycorts (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

See List of U.S. states by coastline. Viriditas (talk) 02:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Silversword

A quick note on something that needs a simple fix. The caption for the silversword plant (sec. 2.4 - protected areas) incorrectly links to an article about a video game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silversword). It should link here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haleakalā_Silversword).

The article is semi-protected and I am not a registered user, so I cannot change it. Can someone qualified please take care of it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.171.7 (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Grandpallama (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Economy section is pretty thin

The Hawaii County page has a nice breakdown of top 10 employers on the Big Island. Can we get a table like that for the whole State of Hawaii and Oahu? Also the Tax information is pretty out of date. http://taxfoundation.org/state-tax-climate/hawaii — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.236.91 (talk) 05:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Spanish discovery

It's almost always possible to find sources that can credit or discredit the most common apprehensions (or opinions) of all types of historical issues. F.i. there are quite a few people who do not belive that man has landed on the moon, and "sources" of that kind can be found at the internet and sometimes even in books. An other exaple is authors that try to deny the holocaust during the second world war. In this case the matter is doubts of the spanish finding of the Hawaii islands about 200 years earlier. Of course it seemed a bit strange for both brittons and others when the spanish sources were exposed to the world long after James Cook was killed. At the time of the exposing. But today no (or very very few) serious historians do doubt the old spanish archives. And the fact that the spanish kept their discovery secret in the 16:th century makes it even more trustworthy. I do suggest that the "doubt"-part will be removed, although "sources" exists. And I sure hope that no nationality-pride is hurt by my suggestion -or involved in the article. I'm from Scania (southernmost of Sweden) and I'm absolutelly neutral reguarding Britain vs Spain world discovery. I do though strongly "doubt the doubters". Boeing720 (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

please tell me this is a mistake…..

this is a mistake, right? "The treaty was never ratified by the U.S. Senate. Instead, the Newlands Resolution by both houses of Congress annexed the Republic to the United States and it became the Territory of Hawaii." kmmnderkoala 22:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmmnderkoala (talk • contribs)

Sorry, quite true. One presumably reliable source: "Teaching With Documents: The 1897 Petition Against the Annexation of Hawaii", National Archives and Records Administration. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no mention of Hawai'i's declaration of independence from all foreign powers dated July 15, 2003. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.196.115 (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Because it's a half-fantasy done by a Hawaiian separatist group that is not recognized as the legal government of Hawaii by anyone, and that only a small number of native Hawaiians support. There are dozens of such groups, and several chief ones that often grab headlines. Some advocate independence, others for a special status akin to the tribal status afforded Native American groups. There are differences and disputes among the various groups, and none command significant support among native Hawaiians, although the 'special status' concept has been floated from time to time with some popularity. There is a speparate wiki entry that details the various groups and historic efforts to create a widespread nativist movement. As mentioned, not even a majority of natives support these effort now, and support from white, Asian, and multiracial populations in Hawaii is negligible; no offense to the supporters of such organizations intended, but that's the situation now, they are rather anachronistic.222.230.88.145 (talk) 08:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Vainamoinen

Humbleness

I'd like the order of Chinese, Japanese, and Filipino in the parentheses in the Demographics section to be in order of their population size. Filipinos are the largest Asian ancestry, followed by Japanese. Chinese is a distant third, and you might as well add Korean to the list and have four ancestries. Angrytimes (talk) 06:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, the GDP per capita in the Economy section is almost a decade old. The Wikipedia page ranking states by their per capita GDP states Hawaii's per capita income was around $49,000 in 2010. It's not like more recent data aren't readily available. Angrytimes (talk) 06:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 August 2012

Please review this information it is peer reviewed documented and factual, the counter party "state of hawaii" has no legal or historical evidence to disprove this evidence and this evidence in fact proves the counter party to exist only as "illegal occupiers". take your time absorb the information, court cases are now being fought citing keanu sai's dissertation to disprove the courts jurisdiction.

http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/index.html http://vimeo.com/39971385 http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/pdf/Dissertation(Sai).pdf Manupupule (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I.e. Obama is not a U.S. citizen. Gotcha. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Inadequate sourcing for offbeat claim. -- Dianna (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency in spelling?

There seems to be some inconsistency here: the lead paragraph states that the spelling in Hawaiian is Hawaiʻi (with ʻokina), however the "spelling of state name" states that "the exact spelling of the state's name, which in the islands' language is Hawai'i (the apostrophe marking a Hawaiian consonant...)" - using an apostrophe (and indeed describing the symbol as such). Which should it be? 46.126.76.193 (talk) 17:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The short answer is that the incorrect spelling without diacritics has stuck as the "official" spelling, whereas there is a steady movement on the part of cities, parks, schools etc. towards using the diacritics (which are essential to knowing how to pronounce the names of streets, parks, etc. etc.). The present usage in WP articles represents a consensus hammered out in lengthy discussions a few years ago now. Awien (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not asking about whether or not to use the diacritic, which is a separate issue. I'm asking what the spelling with the diacritics is - should it be with the ʻokina or with the apostrophe? It is somewhat odd for the article to give the Hawaiian spelling as Hawaiʻi (with ʻokina) and then later state that the "exact spelling" is Hawai'i with an apostrophe. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. Ideally it should be an 'okina, of course, but for everyday purposes the apostrophe symbol is often used to stand in for it. That doesn't make it an apostrophe in function, so I'm off now to try to clean up that wording. Awien (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully that's clearer now? Awien (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. It isn't a language whose orthography I am familiar with so this certainly clears it up. 46.126.76.193 (talk) 20:23, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No Picture of a Beach?

Why isn't there a single Picture of a Beach in the main article of Hawaii? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakilon (talk • contribs) 14:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Caste system, non-Hispanic whites "involved"

Tobby hi my name is John Adams, I'm not sure that you could call ancient Hawaiian society a caste system. There was one group resembling a caste: the kauwa, who were war captives and targeted for human sacrifice. Some say that the captive's children were considered kauwa also; I'd have to check that. The society was certainly hierarchical, but families could move up the hierarchy, through success in warfare and strategic marriages. And I'm Dog

Perhaps I should have edited your addition re children under one year of age, but the wording was unfortunate. Why would you say that non-Hispanic whites were "involved" in a birth? I think you mean birth parents, but "involved" sounds sleazy, as in "involved in a crime." Also, I would want to look at the reference (I didn't, sorry) to see if it is well-founded. Zora (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Americans are going to have to rethink "minority"

I removed a newly-added factoid that asserted that 85% of Hawai'i children younger than one year were "minorities". How can 85% of a population be a minority? That assumes that white is the majority (even if that isn't true) and everyone else is a minority. The assumption is biased. Zora (talk) 18:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you but just to play devil's advocate, you could argue the non-whites are still minorities in the context of the entire country. Just like a particular migrant ethnic group becoming a majority in a suburb may still be a small minority within the whole metropolitan area. But yeah, these terms "majority" and "minority" shouldn't really be used unless absolutely necessary. They tend to be subtly used to push an ideology or controversy rather than assist the person reading the article. Gizza^{Talk ©} 02:12, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii as a "Sinkhole State" according to non-partisan org

Not sure of it's natural place on this wiki page but I've been placing them in the other 5 "sinkhole" states Economy section. Hawaii is one of the most indebted states and I felt that including this info was valuable and timely. Feel free to revise/amend as you see fit. StickerMug (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Political (despite name of group), controversial. Removing the supposed info was the right thing to do. Zora (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hawai'i 50th state

Hawai'i is NOT the 50th state! The Hawaiian Kingdom still exists today with an acting government in place. Hawai'i is recognized by 170+ member nations of the United Nations, as recently as Aug. 20, 2012. Peter Knopfler lived in Hawaii during the 70's War crimes have been reported and ACCEPTED by the United Nations Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Aloha— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.226.207 (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Bulls hit. Even the nationalists' website admits, "The Hawaiian Kingdom is a non-Member State of the United Nations." And when they tried to raise hell about it at the Hague, the respected international court expressed this legal opinion on 5 February 2001:

"Gwan, BEAT it! GTF outta here!"

Specifically,

"There is also a more fundamental problem... the Tribunal was impressed by the obvious sincerity with which this position was advanced... However, as it has already stated... the Tribunal can neither decide that Hawaii is not part of the USA, nor proceed on the assumption that it is not. To take either course would be to disregard a principle which goes to heart of the arbitral function in international law."

Unquote.

You're welcome. Dave Bowman - Discovery Won (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Aloha and thank you Mr. Bowman. Your quote " The Hawaiian Kingdom is a non-Member State of the United Nations" is precisely the point. Hawai'i is recognized as a nation state not a US state by 170+ members of the United Nations. I should have made that more clear. Ruwanda offered their assistance in 2001 to proceed with the restoration process, but their help was graciously declined as the people of Hawai'i still do not know this information and need to be educated. Please see hawaiiankingdom.org for a more complete legal and political history of Hawai'i. Mahalo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.199.232.94 (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 February 2013

This article claims in the fifth paragraph of it's introduction that Hawaii is the only state with an Asian majority. However, as Hawaii's Asian population is, according to the article, 38.6% of its total and less than 50%, it's Asian population cannot be called a majority. The article should read "Hawaii is the only state with an Asian plurality." or "Hawaii is the only state in which Asians comprise the largest racial group." 108.45.46.88 (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Done  — daranz [ t ] 06:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved per unanimous consensus and the common names policy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Hawaii → Hawaiʻi – Spelling Hawaii with a "ʻ" seems to be pretty common here on Wikipidia. I've seen quite a number of articles using that spelling for no apparent reason, so let's figure this out. Do we or do we not want to spell Hawaii with a "ʻ"? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose move. "Hawaii" is both the official name of the state and the most common name in English, and the most recent move discussion overwhelmingly supported the current spelling. If this is a backdoor complaint about the use of the Hawaiian-language spelling, best take it up where you see that spelling used. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • This is no more a complaint about the presence of the ʻ then it is a complaint about it's absence. I can't simply take it up where the spelling is used, it's uesd all over the place, and the whole point of this is to form a consensus on what spelling is preferred in general, not to form some WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on some random Hawaii article. Also see my response to In ictu oculi in the "Point of above RM?" subsection. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. "the word "Hawai'i" has what looks like an apostrophe between the last 2 letters. This is the correct spelling in the Hawaiian language"[8] I am pretty sure that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Hawaiian Wikipeda. Apteva (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that both are English spellings (tough "Hawai'i" is of course also the Hawaiian language spelling). I've seen both used plenty of times in English, and you made my point for me, that's an English language webpage you linked to, yet is uses the "Hawai'i" spelling. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

That is correct. English has many borrow words, and Hawaii can be spelled Hawai'i in English, even though it is actually the Hawaiian spelling. Although I guess the apostrophe is actually something else. Certainly in English it can be spelled either with an apostrophe or a backwards apostrophe. I am sure I cut and pasted both of the above, Hawai'i from the Hawaii Post website and Hawai‘i from our Hawaiian wiki. Apteva (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The name is overwhelmingly spelled Hawaii in English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME (use common names) and WP:UE (use English). My opinion also applies to all other articles where "Hawaii" is the common English name. —  AjaxSmack  00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, per this Ngram and "The Constitution of the State of Hawaii". See also the site of the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and the Official website of the State of Hawaii. Kauffner (talk) 01:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Why we would spell the state's name differently to the way the state spells its name? This makes no sense. Obviously WP:COMMONNAME applies here and to other related articles. Dougweller (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - while I prefer using the Hawai'i spelling myself, debating between the two seems to be as pointless an exercise debate as whether to spell it honor or honour. If the state officially uses Hawaii and the article mentions that it's alternatively transliterated as Hawai'i from Hawai'ian, what's the big deal? --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. While it can be viewed as more correct it is not the common name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per above. We don't use {{okina}} in all English languages. ApprenticeFan ^work 11:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Point of above RM?

I start this in a separate section so as not to derail the RM, but Question : how will having a discussion on the article title affect what happens in articles? A quick look at Google Books shows 5:1 proportion in favour of the spelling without the glottal stop, so it's unlikely that the title will change. But articles about Hawai'ian culture should be free to use the 'okina in the text. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Simple, if the title of this page is going to be "Hawaii" then articles should use the "Hawaii" spelling (unless there were some reason not to). Conversely if the title will be "Hawaiʻi" then that's the spelling that articles should use. The point of this RM is to decide which spelling is preferred on WP.

Also why would articles about Hawai'i's culture use a ', as opposed to say articles about Hawai'i's economy or geography. "Hawai'i" doesn't mean "culture of Hawai'i", Hawai'i means Hawaii, and there's no prescient for articles about the culture of a country/territory using a different spelling of that country/territory then the other articles about that country/territory. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) You say "simple" but can you give any other example on wp of where spelling in other articles should follow an article title? (2) Because sources will differ. Do you support the RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I can. For example, Wikipedia articles dealing with Burma use "Burma" unless as specific entity can be shown to use "Myanmar" in its name (e.g., town disambiguators such as in Magway, Burma and Ngweduang, Burma, not Magway, Myanmar and Ngweduang, Myanmar). Wikipedia uses Culture of Burma, not Culture of Myanmar, under a decision made about the main article. —  AjaxSmack  00:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks AjaxSmack. This perhaps affects all the Hawaiian Islands except Maui. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC

Some sources will use the "Hawaii" spelling, others will use the "Hawai'i" spelling, but I seriously doubt that any sources would define "Hawai'i" as "culture of Hawaii". "Hawai'i" = "alternate spelling of Hawaii", not "culture of Hawaii". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Emmette - as I said, (2) Because sources will differ. Do you support your RM? In ictu oculi (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes of coerce sources will differ. There are two spellings and some sources will use one spelling, others will use another, but the difference is just that: spelling. You seem to want to define "Hawai'i" as "culture of Hawaii". That is simply not what "Hawai'i" means, "Hawai'i" means "Hawaii". Can you cite any source that "Hawai'i" means "culture of Hawaii" Can you cite any president for culture articles using an alternate spelling of the country/territory they are about, such as Culture of Egypt being titled Culture of Ægypt. Despite Egypt (for example) having an alternate spelling, and sources presumably differing because of the existence that alternate spelling, we do not use "Ægypt" or some other alternate spelling of that word to mean "Culture of Egypt", nor is Culture of Burma titled Culture of Myanmar.

As for my position on the RM, I don't have one: the point of this RM is to form a consensus on what spelling is preferred on WP sense the "Hawai'i" spelling seems to be used all over the place, for no apparent reason. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 04:47, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Emmette,

Well maybe it's just me but I don't recall having seen WP:RM used in this manner before as a substitute for an RfC on a MOS issue, and in any case it can't be used in this manner since en.wp has a WP:COMMONNAME policy for titles while en.wp does not have any such rule for article content. That distinction between article title and article text is apparently considered by many editors to be a valid distinction, or it wouldn't be policy, which pretty much voids any value in participating in the WP:RM above. If others want to object to an RM that the proposer doesn't support, that's fine too.

re. "You seem to want to define "Hawai'i" as "culture of Hawaii". No, and I don't really understand how you could have inferred that from "But articles about Hawai'ian culture should be free to use the 'okina in the text." but I'm happy to restate: "(2) Because sources will differ." - meaning: "But articles about Hawai'ian culture should be free to use the 'okina in the text, because sources will differ."

By way of example; if anyone takes a browse through the first 5 pages of Google Books results for the use of the glottal stop in the 20% of English texts which use it, and then compares that with the first 5 pages of the 80% of English texts which do not use the glottal stop, they may see a difference in the sort of areas covered by the 20% which use it compared to the 80% which don't. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I honestly have no problem with anyone using Hawai‘i or Hawai'i in an article, but it is best to be consistent within that article. Apteva (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Grammar fix needed (subject-verb agreement)

This is a very good article; unfortunately, it is marred by grammatical errors in the first paragraph. I'm writing this in the hope that we can reach a mutually acceptable agreement to correct these errors.

In the first sentence of the final paragraph of the introduction, the verb "do" should be replaced by "does." "Hawaii" is the subject of the sentence. The phrase "of two states" is a prepositional phrase, with the word "states" as the object of the preposition. The object of a preposition -- in this case "states" -- can never be the subject of a sentence. This is a hard-and-fast rule of English grammar, not a matter of opinion. Since the verb must agree in number with the subject, and the subject (Hawaii) is singular, the singular form of the verb "to do" must be used. "Does" is the singular form; "do" is the plural. For correct subject-verb agreement, the sentence should read, "Hawaii is one of two states that does not observe daylight saving time." If the verb "do" is used, it is the same as writing "Hawaii is one that do not observe daylight saving time."

In the second sentence, "It" is the subject and "states" is also the object of the preposition and cannot be a sentence subject. For grammatical correctness, the sentence should read, "It is also one of two states that is not in the Contiguous United States." Using the plural form "are" is the same as writing, "It is also one that are not in the Contiguous United States." My understanding of these grammatical rules is based on the following: 1) a PhD in English from the University of Michigan; 2) fifteen years teaching traditional English grammar and advanced linguistics at the university level; 3) seven years working as an editor in print production for one of the largest advertising firms in the country, Young & Rubicam; 4) a life-long love of reading and studying English grammar.

Here's one way of correcting the agreement errors: Hawaii and Arizona are the only states that do not observe daylight saving time. Hawaii and Alaska are the only states not in the Contiguous United States. This is a bit repetitive, but it is also concise, eliminates the awkward and troublesome prepositional phrase, moves the other state names (Arizona and Alaska) into the subject position, and resolves the subject-verb agreement error. User:EnglishTea4me (talk)06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I took this to a copyeditors' mailing list. EVERY SINGLE EDITOR agreed that the verbs in question should agree with "two states" and not with Hawai‘i. Amy Einsohn, who wrote The Copyeditor's Handbook, concurs. Your proposed fix is inelegant -- though the sentences that so offend you are somewhat clunky and could stand a rewrite. Please cease your edit war. Zora (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2013

Under "Climate", the parenthesis "(making it tied with Alaska as the lowest high temperature recorded in a U.S. state)" makes absolutely no sense. Apart from being unparseable, you can't compare records in high vs. low temperature. It doesn't make sense, and it breaks if you change the unit (C or F).

It has been in the article since http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hawaii&oldid=482073601#Climate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.158.203 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Coastline

QUESTION: Not sure how to do this, but here goes. The article states Hawaii has the 4th longest coastline, behind California, Florida, etc. This is not true. Michigan has a 5X longer coastline than Hawaii due to the Great Lakes. Suggest changing the article to Ocean Coastline, or remove/change statement.173.174.157.250 (talk) 03:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Economy Section

I've been adding "Taxpayer Burden" stats to each of the 50 states — the stat compares each state's unfunded liabilities divided by the amount of taxpayers within the state — it's a way to measure of true state fiscal debt. It was removed from Hawaii's page yesterday by user:Zora citing "politically motivated edit and link to rightwing website." While I appreciate Wiki editors' vigilance in keeping these pages neutral, I want to clarify that the addition was not politically motivated, nor is the organization cited "right wing" in any way. The org cited — Institute for Truth in Accounting — is a 501c3 non-profit, which, by definition, is unaffiliated to any political party, left or right wing. It advocates national and federal budget transparency. Please let me know how I can include this stat without it coming off as "politically motivated" because it is truly not. Thanks. StickerMug (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The site regards "entitlements" (itself a politically-loaded term) as unfunded liabilities, thereby inflating the claimed taxpayer "burden" (another loaded term, evoking taxpayers struggling under an enormous load). I don't monitor the web pages for all fifty states, but if you're doing this to all those pages, you're trying to nudge political conversation in a rightwing direction (taxes too high! all due to entitlements! cut taxes and entitlements!). Please stop. Zora (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Hawaiian Langauge

First off, the "Hawaiian language" is called ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi. That should be noted. Secondly, this article refers to the language as having "long and short vowels" which are noted by diacritical marks. This is incorrect. All 5 vowels have only one consistent pronunciation throughout the language. Long and short vowels refer to, in English, the ways in which (for example)the letter a can sometimes "say ah" and sometimes "say its name." The vowels in the Hawaiian language always make the same sound, as they do in Spanish. The diacritical marks are very recent additions to the language, and are used primarily to help nonnative speakers pronounce works with the correct INFLECTION, not have anything to do with long or short vowel sounds which, as I've stated, do not exist in ʻŌlelo Hawaiʻi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.184.66 (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

ʻŌlelo just means language or word, so it is the same thing whether I say Hawaiian language (English translation) or ʻōlelo Hawaiʻi (Hawaiian version). Who are you that you can tell the rest of us how to speak?

And as for long and short vowels ... I speak Tongan, I've studied Hawaiian, and there IS a difference in vowel length between, say, mana, māna, and mānā. In Hawaiian, the short a has a slight uh inflection, which the long a doesn't. My kumu had to drill me on this, because I tended to pronounce Hawaiian like Tongan. Still, there is also a difference in length; you hold the ā just one beat longer. Again, who are you to gainsay Pukui and Elbert? Or my kumu? Zora (talk) 01:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 1 May 2013

Wouldn't it be better to write "chiefs often fought for power" instead of "chiefs were often fighting for power"? Cranium (talk) 17:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Agreed, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 19:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Israel Kamakawiwoʻole

I suggest an internal link for Israel Kamakawiwoʻole in the Hawaii#Race_and_ethnicity section. It's the only location he's mentioned in this article. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Done Fat&Happy (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted section re Polynesian Cultural Center

I have not read the whole article in a long time. A recent edit called my attention to this blurb for a tourist attraction. It unfairly promotes one tourist attraction as representing Polynesian culture. If we let this stay, we would have to have sections for all the fake luaus and tacky stage shows that purport to teach tourists about Polynesia or Hawai‘i.

I have not been to the PCC in a long time, but do not believe that the experience is any more informative than it was when I visited: inaccurate info purveyed by student demonstrators and a stage show that rejected the generally accepted version of Polynesian migration (migration from Southeast Asia) and presented a vague version that would be acceptable to LDS members. LDS doctrine says that Polynesians are Nephites who migrated here from the Americas (the Nephites in turn being Jews who migrated from Israel in a submarine). So, Polynesians are Jews. The stage show just said that the Polynesians voyaged to the islands and didn't say from WHERE.

I studied anthropology at Berkeley and U of Chicago, did fieldwork in Tonga, speak Tongan and some Hawaiian, and I was upset and angry at the travesty of Polynesian culture presented at the PCC. I do not think that this religiously-biased showbiz version should be promoted by Wikipedia. Yes, the PCC should have its own article, as it does. It does not deserve advertising space on the main Hawai‘i page. Zora (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not remember any stage shows that said anything about the migration into Polynesia from anywhere. Which "stage show" are you referring to? There was a side hut that had a map with arrows on it which was occasionally tended by someone that answered questions, but in no way was it a main attraction. That map had arrows coming from all over the pacific pointing into Polynesia, not just the Americas. Polynesia had influence from all over, including the Americas but to think anyone is trying to say Polynesians are Jewish who populated the islands from the East only is mistaken. Anyone I talked to at PCC will acknowledge that the main bulk of the population came from the West, from SE Asia, through Tonga and into the rest of the islands. Not even the church teaches that the Polynesian islands were populated from the Americas by the Nephites. I am not sure where you got THAT piece of information, I would love to see it since I never heard it the whole time I was growing up there. And if it is doctrine as you say it shouldn't be hard to find. As the son of and anthropologist who moved to Hawaii to study Polynesia, I am one to take anthropological evidence over "church doctrine" anytime I see it and paid special attention when someone mentioned the boats from America. There are people that speculate that one of the ships that left from America and was never heard from again might have landed in Polynesia, but this would have been such a smaller influence than those who populated the islands from the SE Asia route, and NEVER taught as doctrine. Basing your decision to delete a section on a misinterpretation of what you might have heard is not very professional. If there was actual religious bias in any of the actual shows then it would be another matter, but seeing that this was based on a map that never states that the bulk of the migration came from the Americas or ever mentions Nephites or the church in anyway, I suggest there wasn't enough of a reason to remove the section. (Do you really think they could teach that stuff since the 1960s with millions of people visiting each year and no one would know enough about Polynesia to question it before?)

Someone at some point felt that it was important enough to include the PCC in the article at one point and enough people felt that it should stay there for quite some time. From what I remember, the PCC is the largest Polynesian themed attraction in Hawaii if not the world (I think there is another one in New Zealand that might be bigger, if that is important I can find out). The majority of the people working in the villages are from the country they represent. For example, the master carver in the New Zealand village is from New Zealand and was taught carving from his father who was taught carving from his father back in New Zealand. Up until her death a few years ago, the lead choreographer for the Maori dances (and some of the others as well) was a woman who grew up speaking Maori (didn't learn English until she went to school) and learned the traditional dance from her grandmother who still had a moko on her chin and lips. You will be hard pressed to find more authentic representation of Polynesian culture anywhere else (not saying that it is 100% authentic in anyway, but it is not straight Hollywood tripe like you see other places).

Seeing that the deletion was solely based on one person's interpretation of what they thought they heard, and the fact that the PCC isn't just some random Waikiki fake luau that comes and goes every other year but the largest Polynesian attraction in the state gives it a good reason to be in the Hawaii article. I will leave this here for a while and if there is no greater reason to keep it off the page, I will put it back in. (I read your "fake luau" as "fah-keh luau" the first time ;-) -- Billy Nair (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

PS, I have no allegiance to PCC but I do know quite a bit about it. My argument to keep it in the article is based on the significance of the attraction to Hawaii. Sadly, I am also too aware of the politics that often creeps into decisions that go into PCC, often not made by any Polynesians, and if policy has changed since 1995 to include church doctrine, I would be pissed, but not shocked. And although my dad taught at BYU-Hawaii for 40 years, his allegiance to them would not stop him from getting on the next plane and protesting violently against merging the church with Polynesian culture. If they have in fact injected church doctrine into their stage shows enough to warrant a deletion from Wikipedia, there should be sufficient documentation and citation to back up the claims (keeping in mind that personal research is not sufficient). If they have changed their policy, I have no problem with the deletion. If there is no evidence of this, I propose the reinstantiation of it into the article. -- Billy Nair (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

No guide map

Wouldn't it be nice to place a simple (even contour) map with the names of all the respective islands, somewhere near the beginning of the article? Like it's done, say, here. Now there's no such map even in the 'Geography' section. 46.186.36.102 (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Samoans vs. Samoan Americans

I am so confused. I was editing the "Ancestry groups" category under "Demographics" section, but I didn't know how to label the people of America Samoa. First I labeled them as Samoan Americans, then American Nationals then Samoans. The people of America Samoa are not American citizens unless one of their parents is a U.S. citizen...but Samoan Americans are American citizens of Samoan origin. Samoans are split between Samoa, American Samoa and the US, so I guess someone with more knowledge should fix my "population of Hawaii" chart edit to reflect the proper label. Chic3z (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw there was a "Samoan American" listed in the paragraph where they also list "Japanese American", but then just "Samoan" in the side box. Which part are you referring to? If someone has Samoan ancestry they are Samoan regardless of if it was from American or [Western] Samoa (it would be kind of weird to say "American Samoan American", political correctness isn't known for its ease of use.) If "Samoan American" is referring to a citizen, meaning someone who can vote, then it doesn't matter which Samoa they came from. If you are referring to anyone who has Samoan ancestry regardless of nationality then it is just "Samoan". If you are trying to also include those from American Samoa who are American nationals but can't vote, you would most likely refer to them the same you would someone from China who is a permanent legal resident but still not a citizen. Are they Chinese or Chinese Americans? I am guessing that if you find out how those people who answered the survey were told to answer you might find how it should be listed.

Please sign all posts with 4 ~ in a row. Anyway, they are all listed as "something"-American, but the Samoan one is very confusing. It is up to someone with more knowledge than me to correct the table or leave it as is. Chic3z (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request

Hawaii is NOT the only US state which grows coffee. Even if we ignore the idea that a State grows coffee, rather than coffee grows in a state... Coffee is grown in many states; in green houses. A LLC is developing 1000 plants (they are growing NOW) for commercial harvest in 2014 in Georgia. Since I do not know the extent of the Hawaiian crop, I can not suggest the correct way to phrase a claim. I have not researched extensively, but a claim of "only" for a crop should really be used cautiously, if at all, IMHO. Please either remove or qualify with "commercially significant amounts" or some such obfuscation.173.189.78.18 (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ka'ula not Ka'ala.

Under Topography - "Kaʻala is a small island near Niʻihau that is often overlooked." should read "Kaʻula is a small island near Niʻihau that is often overlooked." Ka'ala is a mountain on Oahu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.157.239 (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fat&Happy (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Governance?

That's not a really correct (US) usage. I vote for "Government" and I will change it in a couple of days unless I see push-back here. Kortoso (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

State holidays

Where would these fit? March 26: Prince Kuhio Day June 11: King Kamehameha Day August 16: Statehood Day — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kortoso (talk • contribs) 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 August 2013

Hawaii was discovered by the spaniards. Here is a map from 1752, you can see the islands as La Mesa, La Desgraciada, etc. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/1750_Anson_Map_of_Baja_California_and_the_Pacific_w-_Trade_Routes_from_Acapulco_to_Manila_-_Geographicus_-_MerDuSud-anson-1750.jpg

Not done: The (possible) discovery of Hawaii is mentioned in this section. If you have any other requests, please mark this as unanswered and request in a "please change x to y" format. Thanks -Ryan 05:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Demographics Update?

The demographics section is primarily based on 2005 data, not recent 2010 census data, and needs to be updated, especially the paragraph on population density. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contributor tom (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

"Lānaʻi" is misspelled in the Topography section

In the fourth paragraph, "Lānaʻi" is misspelled as "Lanaʻi". Please fix this. Mahalo nui loa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.195.252 (talk) 04:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Mention of the first immigrants from Japan (1885) is misplaced in "Overthrow of 1893—the Republic of Hawaii (1894–1898)"

The last sentence of the section "Overthrow of 1893—the Republic of Hawaii (1894–1898)" mentions that the first immigrants to arrive from Japan came in 1885. This is somewhat correct (my family came to Hawaiʻi legally in 1885 from Japan, but others came illegally in 1868), but appears to be mentioned in the wrong place. Please clarify and move this to a more appropriate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.195.252 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing / removal of material from the Cost of living section

There has been an editor that has removed material with reliable sources from Cost of living. This editor has left summary remarks that state "Sources are not credible or reliable," "Please cite references from reliable sources," & "This is political propaganda disseminated by a fringe political group," even though the sources include Hawaii Business Magazine, Bloomberg Businessweek, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, & the Hawaii State Legislature. I have left a note pointing the editor to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy & the information suppression section of the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial. As of the time of this comment, that editor has fallen afoul of the three-revert rule. Please monitor the Cost of living section & revert any further disruptive editing. If deletion of properly sourced material continues to be a problem & you see evidence of Wikipedia:Edit warring, please consider placing the {{subst:an3-notice}} to warn the editor & using the edit warring noticeboard. Peaceray (talk) 20:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone figure out what the editor was objecting to in the original set of edits? It's possible there may be an error somewhere, as reliable sources are never perfect. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Two of the edit summaries reverting this editor's edits stated "take this to the talk page please" & "Please discuss on the talk page before making a major change to a section." There is also an invitation on the user's talk page to join this discussion. Hopefully the editor will explain here the reasoning for the deletions once the 72 hour edit block has expired. Some insight may be inferred from a related article's talk page, Talk:Merchant Marine Act of 1920: here & here. Peaceray (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a returning user. A while back we had an editor do the same thing on another set of Hawaii-related articles. I'll see if I can dig those up. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I think CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz also has a sockpuppet, JubilationC.Cornpone (talk · contribs). Probably the same person as Wrongwaypeachfuzz (talk · contribs), possibly Admirable5 (talk · contribs). I can understand that protectionist legislation breeds strong feelings on both sides, but we have to stick with what the most reliable sources say, which may diverge significantly from politicians' soundbites about protecting a sector of industry &c. bobrayner (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to address my issues with the Hawaii, Cost of Living section. The Third paragraph as follows:"One of the most significant contributors to the high cost of living in Hawaii is the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 (also known as the Jones Act), which prevents foreign-flagged ships from carrying cargo between two American ports (a practice known as cabotage). Most U.S. consumer goods are manufactured in East Asia at present, but because of the Jones Act, foreign ships inbound with those goods cannot stop in Honolulu, offload Hawaii-bound goods, load mainland-bound Hawaii-manufactured goods, and continue to West Coast ports. Instead, they must proceed directly to the West Coast, where distributors break bulk and send Hawaiian-bound Asian-manufactured goods back west across the ocean by U.S.-flagged ships.[129][130]" I object to the labeling of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 as one of the most significant contributors to the high cost of living in Hawaii. The related contributing factor that out weighs all others is that Hawaii is over 2000 miles from the nearest U.S. major ports on the west coast. If you were to remove the Jones Act entirely that would not change the geography of the State of Hawaii. I would also point out that Hawaii has very few exports for Asia and the largest export of Hawaii is U.S. Military Equipment and the transfer of personal goods and vehicles from both military and civilians leaving the Islands for the U.S. Mainland. I would hope for a more unbiased and objective statement possibly as follows: "Shipping and Transportation are the most significant contributors to the high cost of living in Hawaii." Reference 129 refers to the statements of Mike Hansen a paid lobbyist for the Hawaii Shippers Council. His statements should not be taken as the gospel unless they are also presented with facts and arguments of equal weight by those that oppose his point of view. Mr. Hansen is not NEUTRAL in his presentation of information related to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. One more issue I would like to address is that in recent years those with anti-protectionist ideas would confuse all the arguments of that view point with addressing a law that has great support in the United States. I would like to point to Adam Smith in "The Wealth of Nations" Most countries enact cabotage laws for reasons of economic protectionism, national security, or public safety. Renowned economist Adam Smith noted in chapter two of An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations that “when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defence of the country” then it will “generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic industry,” citing specifically to England’s acts of navigation, which “very properly endeavour to give the sailors and shipping of Great Britain the monopoly of the trade of their own country.” “As defence, however, is of much more importance than opulence, the act of navigation is, perhaps, the wisest of all the commercial regulations in England,” said Smith in Wealth of Nations. In closing I would say I realize the "Jones Act" is protectionist in nature but many of the claims of exorbitant shipping costs in the Hawaii trade are unproven by reliable studies and GAO studies related to the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 are possibly the most dependable for facts and statistics. I was invited to this talk forum to explain my edits. I hope I have put this in the proper forum. Thanks for allowing me to express my reason for the edits.CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk) 13:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz 1318 UCT 3/18/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk • contribs) 13:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You don't get to remove large reasonably-sourced sections that you don't like. On the other hand, it's fine to include counterpoinrts, some of which can be found in the Hawaii Business article. The same goes for the dedicated article on the Jones Act. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Reference(132) mentions Sam Slom as a Senator that introduced SR11. Sam Slom is the minority leader in the State Senate of Hawaii.The resolution received no support in the Senate. This resolution died in conference. CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz

P.S. I get it. I will try to resolve disputes in article talk section. :) CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz 17:34 3/18/2014 Sorry for the disruption.

First, just because a reference cites a report a bill that did not progress, does not mean that there was not some validity in the proposal. Rather, its failure was probably due to the paucity of Republicans in the Hawaii State Legislature.

Second, my count indicates that there are five people making statements for & against the Jones Act. You cherry pick when you only mention Michael Hansen. The article duly notes his role in the Hawaii Shippers Council.

Third there is no shortage of news articles containing arguments against (or for, for that matter) the Jones Act. Here are a few, which I plan to incorporate in the next week or so.

• "Alaska, Hawaii work for changes in near-century-old shipping law". 2014-03-13. Retrieved 2014-03-18.
• "Salt or sailors: Old law and big money". 2014-02-22. Retrieved 2014-03-18.
• "U.S. Law Restricting Foreign Ships Leads to Higher Gas Prices". 2013-12-12. Retrieved 2014-03-18.
• "Shipping fees: Federal law increases transport costs tenfold". 2013-11-28. Retrieved 2014-03-18.
• "Should Hawaii Be Exempted From The Jones Act? Lawsuit Says Yes". 2013-05-28. Retrieved 2014-03-18.

Anyone is welcome to introduce additional text countering the argument that the Jones Act increases shipping costs to Hawaii, as long as they reliably source & cite the information, & present it in an unbiased tone. On a personal logical note, & as a resident of Hawaiʻi, I cannot believe that the Jones Act does not cause de facto higher shipping rates. Most of the goods bound from Asia to Hawaiʻi go to & from Los Angeles first. The Port of Los Angeles charges a fee coming & going, that would not be a factor if foreign-flagged vessels could stop in Hawaiʻi first.

Peaceray (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Jones Act" may cause minimal increase in shipping costs to consumers however the articles you site are mostly focused on Propaganda an example is the failed lawsuit of John Carroll. That was dismissed for lack of standing on the part of the John Carroll. The headline is sensationalized to make it sound as if it had merit. The Hawaii, Alaska team up headline is more propaganda attributed to Mike Hansen. The video conference was not a public event because there is very little public support. This was closed to most of the public with the reason given as lack of seating. So a couple of lobbyist from Hawaii video conference with a couple of lobbyist in Alaska and it portrays it as two states working together. It in fact is a nothing more than a few publicity craving lobbyist making a mountain out of a mole hill. Many of the Statements like the headline heralding a tenfold increase in shipping prices blaming the "Jones Act" in the article by Malia Zimmerman are just outright yellow journalism. The Hawaii Reporter along with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii show a disregard for facts and substance in their reporting that boggles the mind. One made up story after another put out by the Hawaii Reporter will be picked up by one news agency after the other with few or none verifying or vetting facts. Tell a lie enough times and it doesn't matter what the truth is.CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz— Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

What are your objections to Hawaii Business Magazine, Bloomberg Businessweek, Honolulu Star-Bulletin, & the CNBC channel? It may be true that they generally represent the business view, but they are all respected sources.

I place the Hawaii Reporter (& yes, I am familiar with their association with Grassroot Institute of Hawaii) in the same category as Fox News. I usually disagree with their viewpoints, but I will include them as citations, often as an opposing viewpoint.

Reliable sources support an argument that the Jones Act adversely affects the cost of living in Hawaii. I get by your tone that you vehemently opposed what those sources say. However, to remove them would be at best self-censorship.

Rather than spending time arguing why valid sources are wrong, I respectfullly ask you to acquiesce to freedom of speech, even for those who oppose your viewpoint, & to introduce instead additional text countering the argument that the Jones Act increases shipping costs to Hawaii, as long as you reliably source & cite the information, & present it in an unbiased tone. I believe that would be the best way to improve the article, although if it gets lengthy we may need to separate it out into its own article, Impact of the Jones Act on Hawaii.

Peaceray (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

User:CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz, I often like to argue positions other than my own in order to improve our articles. I am willing to argue yo≥ur case if I can at least understand it better. Could you try to think about the problem in a different way, such that you can communicate it effectively to people who may not see things from your POV? For starters, if you can keep your comments brief and to the point, we may be able to make some progress. Start with the most pressing problem, explain it in 50 words or less, and offer us a solution you would like to see implemented. That way we can move forward and get back to improving Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In 50 words or less I will try to explain: Claims that blame the "Jones Act" for exorbitant costs should be checked and verified by government statistics and studies such as the studies by the GAO (Government Accountability Office). Many of the costs associated with transport and shipping to Hawaii with its remote geographic location are blamed on the "Jones Act". In fact Hawaii's small population and isolation combined with a lack of export commodities and manufacturing make Hawaii a poor candidate for a transport hub in the Pacific. Guam has an exemption and they have not realized the promises of drastically reduced shipping costs in spite of their closer proximity to China,India, Japan and the far eastern economic powers. The speculation regarding the benefits of repeal of the "Jones Act" are not based in fact or reliable U.S. Government studies. In addition National Security issues and loss of manufacturing capabilities related to security would be very difficult to replace once they are gone. Tens of thousands of U.S jobs performed by highly trained maritime workers would be lost forever. Training schools and facilities related to ship building and operation would close.CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz

I'm not sure that really addressed my question, but it is certainly a start. Remember, we want to address sources, specifically. I'm curious about your statement, "Hawaii's small population and isolation combined with a lack of export commodities and manufacturing make Hawaii a poor candidate for a transport hub in the Pacific". How do you explain the fact that Hawaii was a transport hub in the Pacific in the 19th century with a large export industry? And why has that changed? Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

While I sympathize with CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz's statement that "costs should be checked and verified by government statistics and studies such as the studies by the GAO", one cannot count on governments to be correct in all matters. "Figures don't lie, liars figure." That is part of the reasoning behind the need for a free press, to question authority & to point out when the emperor has no clothes.

The requirements for including information in an article are to verify by using reliable sources. The Wikipedia policy on neutral point of view also applies here, & I recommend reading the advice expressed at verifiability, not truth, which opines that editors "... may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them."

It would be prudent in this case to add the GAO figures with appropriate text to show that the Jones Act has a negligible effect on Hawaii. Then let the reader decide.

P.S. CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz, please sign your posts instead of relying on User:SineBot.

Peaceray (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes a transport hub in the 19th century days of sail does not necessarily constitute the modern transport hub in the 21st century. Hawaii has Pearl Harbor that serves the United States Military both Army and Navy since 1911. The innovation of steam ships over sail. The advent of WWI and WWII. Air Travel serves most of the tourist industy now. Cost of fuel is a major factor with Fuel at over $100 dollars per barrel. The increase in cargo capacity of modern vessels. If you look at the amount of cargo carried by sail ships compared to modern diesel ships and figure the increase in productivity related to tons of cargo and seaman required to move cargo safely. One modern diesel vessel carries more cargo now than a harbor full of sail vessels 200 years ago. With a large increase in productivity by maritime workers to operate modern vessels and load and discharge cargo. Industries like pineapple and sugar cane have been outsourced to the Philippines, Central America and South America still in many cases operated by the same companies but with cheaper land and labor cost associated with agriculture. The availability of both land with the cost of land being a significant factor. Hawaii has limited land resources for agriculture compared to Brazil, China and India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk • contribs) 11:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Limited land resources? You mean like 100 sq mi. on the island of Lanai sitting fallow? Come on, you can't be serious. There's enough land in Hawaii to grow food for millions of people. It's either being wasted or lying fallow...for no good reason. Viriditas (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Lanai is 98% privately owned by Larry Ellison of "Oracle" at present. It use to grow pineapples. Dole pineapples used to have a large plantation operation there. They closed up and moved. Population of Lanai is about 3000 people now. Dole used to run a small tug and barge operation to transport the pineapples. They do not export much now. Land development would make the property much more valuable than agriculture. I think Mr. Ellison may very well go into agriculture. I have only read about his plans. Organic farms would certainly help the price of food in Hawaii. At present there isn't much produce being exported that I am aware of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk • contribs) 13:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

References

References 75 and 76 are attached to and support the following section of the main page:
On June 27 of that year, a referendum asked residents of Hawaii to vote on the statehood bill. Hawaii voted by a ratio of 17 to 1 to accept. The choices were to accept the Act or to remain a territory, without the option of independence
For starters, I looked and don't see any specific information in either of those references that actually say anything about the text - no 17:1 info anywhere, no comment on which choices were available in the referendum. Perhaps I missed it and someone can point it out? Also, at least one, and really both references aren't even close to what could be considered either neutral or third party references. The statements in the article are very factual and apparently non-controversial - isn't there a better reference to support that info?96.241.60.132 (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC)mjd

Thank you for pointing this out this oversight. The references that you mentioned pertain to the statement that The choices were to accept the Act or to remain a territory, without the option of independence. The ratio of 17 for to 1 against was unsupported by a citation in that version of the article. I changed the statment from Hawaii voted by a ratio of 17 to 1 to accept. to The Hawaii electorate voted 94.3% "yes for statehood" to 5.7% "no". I also added a thumbnail of the Certification of the Hawaii vote for Statehood & this "celebrating-50-years-of-statehood" reference: "Commemorating 50 Years of Statehood". archive.lingle.hawaii.gov. State of Hawaii. 2009-03-18. Retrieved 2014-03-21. On June 27, 1959, a plebiscite was held to allow Hawai`i residents to ratify the congressional vote for statehood. The 'yes for statehood' garnered 94.3 percent (132,773 votes) while the 'no' ballots totaled 5.7 percent (7,971 votes).

I found other references, but this seemed to be more authoritative, coming from a Hawaii governor on a state web site. Peaceray (talk) 05:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this improves the article...96.241.60.132 (talk)mjd — Preceding undated comment added 02:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2014

Provide link to Main Article "Climate of Hawaii" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Hawaii in head of "Climate" section. Thanks. Wvanbusk (talk) 23:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Done thanks. Cannolis (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Can I request an edit then? The section "Overthrow of 1893—the Republic of Hawaii (1894–1898)" includes a line about Japanese immigrants in 1885 - can this be moved to an earlier section where the chronology would be correct - assuming the date given is correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.84.195 (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Japan has higher taxes?

The article gives an example "(like Japan)" as a example where "West Coast ports as a shopping destination for tourists from home countries with much higher taxes (like Japan)." Neither referenced source mentions Japan, and I find it extremely hard to believe. Until April 2014, Japan's consumption (sales) tax was 5%. It is now 8%, but this is still very similar or even less than the 7.5% to 10% sales tax found in California. If tourists from Japan do shop for Asian-manufactured goods in California, I guess it would be non-Japanese goods and that difference might have something to do with import duties, market forces, etc. but probably not sales/consumption tax. Computermacgyver (talk) 09:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2014

Under the demographics section it says that hawaii's population was 400,000 and the description says captain hooks crew... i think that is wrong. I tryed to change it but i don't know the real numbers so i just left it. 75.165.3.201 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks clearly inaccurate, probably missed vandalism if it is. Does anyone have a better estimate? Scarlettail (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: This may need some more digging into, I've removed the "Captain Cook's crew" wording, but need to find out how many, if any, were there in 1778 (the whole line might be made up). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Religious makeup

Currently the first part of the section "religion" gives the following numbers:

According to data provided by religious establishments, religion in Hawaiʻi in 2000 was distributed as follows: Christianity: 351,000 (28.9%), Buddhism: 110,000 (9%), Judaism: 10,000 (0.8%), Other: 100,000 (10%)*, Unaffiliated: 650,000 (51.1%)**

The source provided is the State of Hawaii Data Book 2000, Section 1 Population, Table 1.47. However, I couldn't find any of these figures [9]. Am I missing something? Gugganij (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Spaniards before Cook

The conventional wisdom that Capt. James Cook was the first European to “discover” Hawaii in 1778 is wrong. The debate over which Western nation first came to our shores was mentioned as early as 1899 when the book, “Our Islands and Their People — As Seen With Camera and Pencil” asserted that “Gaetano, a Spanish navigator, first recorded the discovery of these islands in 1542.” Others have dismissed that conclusion. But new evidence I discovered in Amsterdam this summer confirms that Captain Cook was preceded by the Spanish. But first, here is some of the evidence advanced to date that the Spanish arrived here first: >> For 223 years before Cook, Spanish galleons sailed each year between Acapulco and Manila. Because Hawaii lies along the route, it defies logic that Spanish navigators consistently missed our islands. >> In 1743, British Commodore George Anson captured a Spanish galleon near Acapulco which had a chart depicting several islands — “Groupe de la Mesa” and “Los Monges” — in the general location and exact latitude of Hawaii. >> Captain Cook’s own navigational chart of the Pacific included the Sandwich Islands (Hawaii) and, to the east, seven islands called “Los Mejos.” >> In 1786, French explorer la Perouse searched to the east of Hawaii in vain for the “Los Mejos” islands, concluding they were in fact Hawaii. >> The late Hawaiian artist Herb Kawainui Kane’s book, “Voyagers,” references a 1613 globe in England’s National Maritime Museum that illustrates a “cluster of small islands” roughly where Hawaii ought to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.122.175.50 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Already covered at Manila galleon#Possible discovery of Hawaii. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2014

Under External Links - Fix the broken link to the Hawaii State Fact Sheets From USDA . The correct link should be: http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=15&StateName=Hawaii#.U8PzP_ldUeo

Parker ts (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for finding the updated link. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)