Talk:Hawaii/Archive 1

message: The "state locator" map really does not tell us anything useful about the location of the state, since it is squirrelled off in a little box. Would it be helpful to prepare a non-standard state locator map, with Hawaii in its actual location relative to the mainland? - Montréalais 06:33, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: So I went ahead and did it. - Montréalais 05:39, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that better! Thanks! - Marshman 17:35, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: I have put in the second paragraph a brief mention of how Hawaii was established as a State.  This was in the history section but i thought it was important to put it at the front. We should not whitewash history -- the US forcibly annexed Hawaii, and that should be told.
: Sadly or fortunately, history whitewashes itself; while there's a lot to your concern, it's a very, very small part of what Hawai'i is about in 2004.  I'll check to see if there's anything new in your edit, after reverting to the previous version, but your resentment is not the top story, and 'graph 2 is not the place for it.  Thanks for your contribution; our collaborative editing process should be able to figure out how to use it. --Jerzy 05:24, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
:I agree with Jerzy and I live in Hawai'i and work on Hawaiian issues.  But putting the history/politics of the annexation at the top of the page has nothing to do with whitewashing anything - it is just being POV, implying this is some kind of over-riding issue in Hawai'i. It is not. Important, serious, yes, but not at all appropriate in the "introduction" to the state -- Marshman 19:31, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Settler Revolution 

message: Hawaii now has 
: The Hawaiian islands were first populated by Polynesians some 2500 years ago.
It used to have (until last month) what History of Hawaii does,
: The islands were first settled by Polynesians, probably from the Marquesas, sometime between 200 and 600 AD. 
(Is this a reflection of the new DNA-analysis research? If so, IMO noting the refinement and the old number would be valuable.)
Unless someone acknowledges one as their typo or clerical error, IMO we need at least one supporting reference in both of the two talk pages, and of course at least one edit to harmonize or admit uncertainty.  --Jerzy 20:38, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)
:The dates are based on archeological reasearch and dating of settlement sites.  2500 ybp is probably pushing things back a bit and not necessarily woidely accepted.  Perhaps 2000 is a better number. I'll get some references to back up, or change to best accepted value. - Marshman 06:35, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marquesan Settlement 

message: I have changed all the simple apostrophies in the article to ‘okina, formatted as ‘.  It is the correct formatting of the letter adhering to the Hawaiian language standard, and is thus NPOV. - Gilgamesh 21:14, 23 June 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: &lsquo;Okina

message: What continent is Alaska in?  In what way is it "non-continental"?  I am perhaps unfamilar with common US-usage but it would be better were Alaska and Hawaii described as non-contiguous. Paul Beardsell 22:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what you are reading, but of course, both states are what U.S.ers call non-contiguous. Non-continental (made up term?) could refer to Hawaii, but certainly not Alaska - Marshman 00:11, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-continental?

message: Aloha all, 
I was looking at the list of Famous People and was doing some research on Google so I could at least write stubs for each of the people on the list.  I'm finding a couple of things: (1) that there's a dearth of information on some of the people listed (Kawaipuna Prejean, for instance; I'm having trouble finding his exact dates), and (2) for a few, it's not really clear to me that they're really "from Hawaii" (looking up Claus Spreckels, for instance, it's clear that he made his fortune from Hawaii sugar, but it's not clear to me that he ever intended to reside in Hawaii permanently; he seems to be better known in California than here).
So I was wondering whether there was any consensus as to what should qualify someone to be listed on the Famous People from Hawaii list.  I'm thinking that, at minimum, they should have resided in Hawaii on at least a semi-permanent basis, if they weren't born or raised here.  Also, how well-known should they be to be included?  I'd never heard of Jean Erdman, Kawaipuna Prejean, George Lathrop, or Merlin Tuttle before Wikipedia, let alone know that they were from (or lived in) Hawaii.
Any thoughts?  Mahalo, KeithH 07:24, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you are saying Keith.  I've not heard of some of the people either, and it seems that the first requesite of entry should be life-long (or at least adult life) residency in Hawai'i. To me the only point of such a list (beyond some chest beating) is to say "look how Hawaii influenced the lives of these people that (may) have influenced you".  Having said that, it does become difficult to decise who stays and who goes.  Of the list you are having trouble with, maybe Claus is better off the list. The other 4 — I've heard of 2: Prejean and Tuttle. Do not kow who Prejean is and (although I am a biologist in Hawaii) did not know Tuttle was "famous" - Marshman 17:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps Tuttle could be dropped too, as he lived in the islands only until he was about 5.  (His specialty was bats.)  I'm not sure if I'd require "life-long" residency in Hawaii, though.  I recognize that a lot of folks had to leave the Islands to become famous (Benny Agbayani, for instance, or Tia Carrere).  That's why I qualified my statement with "...if they weren't born or raised here."  On the other hand, a lot of folks became well known here after coming here from somewhere else.  So as far as residency goes, it should be for a substantial part of one's childhood, adolescence, or adult life, long enough to develop a tie.  But I guess in the end, the best test would be whether Kimo Q. Islander would claim that person as being theirs, and whether James Q. Mainlander would even be interested.  What do you think?  KeithH 02:17, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean.  I was thinking more of people NOT born here. Yes, someone that was born in Hawaii and grew up here, even though they moved away and became famous - hey, they're from Hawaii! People that moved here as a child and stayed long enough to become famous here - they're from Hawaii! A person born elsewhere, that really spent little of their adult life here, well they would probably be claimed by their native place anyway - off the list! Born elsewhere (like me), lived most all of my adult life in Hawaii, my native state Colorado has no real reason to claim me as a product of it's anything (left at 6 mos age). I'm most comfortable being a famous (infamous) or not famous Hawaiian. - Marshman 03:00, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: The list seems to be getting really long. I think we should list only the most notable Hawaii residents and link to a longer list which may include those less major celebrities like Jean Erdman, Jasmine Trias and what not.  --Gerald Farinas 23:53, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that.  I think Hawaii is justifiably proud of Jasmine, but there might be a test of time criterion for the "front page" list - Marshman 00:29, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Famous Island People list: Guidelines?

message: I always hate to delete material that someone has added in good faith, but the section titled "Important Urbanized Areas" recently added was redundant in that all of the discussion and list are given better elsewhere in the article (town listings are given under each county). Improving these existing parts of the text would be preferred, unless the new approach was somehow superior. It was not. Indeed, it listed Kailua on Oahu as having a population >100,000 (it is closer to 35,000) and did not list many larger towns on Oahu in the greater >10,000 column, while including many small towns that are pretty insignificant by comparison. The tabel added was:
Population > 100,000
* Honolulu
* Kailua (Oahu)
Population > 10,000
* Hilo
* Kahului
* Pukalani
* Kihei
* Kailua (big island)
* Lahaina
* Kapaa
* Pupukea
* Kalaheo
* Lihue
* Laie
Sorry. Not trying to be overbearing here. Just saw lots of work to try and fix something that is already included in the articles on Hawai'i - Marshman 17:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important Urbanized Areas 

message: The Hawaiian history section struck me as too short and rather biased towards Hawaiian sovereignty issues. I spent some time this morning redoing it. I think it's still less-than-neutral on some issues and may go back to it to tone it down. If anyone else can do so in a graceful way, it would be appreciated. 
I wrote it in a white heat without checking any references. Exact dates of missionary arrival, French annexation, Lord Paulet's visit, etc. to be inserted later. Possibly also something re the Great Mahele and a list of Hawaiian monarchs. 
-- 
Zora
:Your additions look good. But do not miss the link to History of Hawaii. The subsection here should just reflect the basic course of history. There aree several "deeper" articles for the details. - Marshman 16:42, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Marshman here.  Perhaps some of the additions here can be off-loaded to History of Hawaii...right now the History subsection is longer than the "main article" itself, or so it seems.  :) - KeithH 00:14, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've looked at it briefly. What needs to be done is to move it whole hog to the various sub articles, but leave behind just a summary—more than an outline, but not much more that that.  Details should go in the History of Hawaii article or appropriate sub-articles under History of Hawaii - Marshman 00:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK guys. It hurts less when I perform major surgery on myself, so I did. The history section on the main Hawaii page is now amputated. I'll put the missing limbs in the various Hawaiian history articles. Sigh. Zora 04:37, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And looks like a good job. Now we can smooth out the History section here (which is a proper length), and details can be expanded in the other articles. Thanks Zora - Marshman 16:39, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive revision of Hawaiian history section 

message: Re restoration of word "agitated":
I don't claim to know what kind of political activity took place, but the opinion (however humbly expressed) that "agitated" implies "violent protest" is not only an opinion (PoV) but also utter nonsense, while the accepted meaning is a fact.  To lobby is to visit a politician and say "you should adopt this policy because it would have good results" or "... because your doing so would win you votes, bribes, influence, or other selfish benefits."  To agitate, in the two most relevant senses of my Third International, means
* "to stir up public discussion of [...]"
* "to attempt to arouse public feeling [e.g.] <agitated for better schools>"
which is not inherantly violent, and far from being necessarily an incitement to violence, and quite different from lobbying.
"Agitated" may not capture everything worth saying about this political activity, but that bad understanding of the word "agitated" is untenable as a reason for changing it. 
--Jerzy(t) 13:52, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)
:Keith. I think Jerzy is right. "Agitated" (in my understanding) means or implies "to lobby or stir things up in a public way", NOT a violent way - Marshman 16:53, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I accept those arguments.  It's probably just the picture I have in my mind of the word "agitate" (to be honest, the first impression I have of "agitate" is the water in my washing machine...LOL).  I'm pretty sure that the activity was not that much different from the political process today...both meeting with politicians and gathering public support.  I'm willing to let "agitated" stand, but I still feel that there's a better word out there.  I'd offer, "They launched a grass-roots effort..." but perhaps that's too idiomatic...  Anyone got a copy of Roget's sitting around?  KeithH 05:46, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt there is another word, perhaps several; but that does not mean there are "better" words. I think it is just the context you are used to vs. what others may be used to. Thus, this term conjurs up a different image for you.  But anyone actively promoting an idea through a political process is agitating for that idea. Really no violence implied. - Marshman 17:18, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agitated 

message: Many businesses got their start in Hawaii or had a longtime presence here (e.g., the Long's drugstore chain).  It certainly wasn't my intention to promote Hawaiian Sun but there was no entry for that company so when I started the business subsection I mentioned Hawaiian Sun, and I intended to list other major businesses, such as C. Brewer (which, as far as I know, has no Wikipedia page).  I hope this clears things up. BKH2007, Mon. July 12, 2004
:It was not I who deleted your entry.  I saw it, and thought it was close to the "line", mainly because it did seem to be heading toward a Hawaiian Sun promotional article; but I left it alone because the intent was not entirely clear. However, for now, I would say use the link I put in there to develop such articles on businesses in Hawaii. You are right, there is a need to expand on the Big Five discussion and articles, but companies like Longs are not unique to Hawaii and did not start in Hawaii (Longs started in California, I believe). Others, like Hawaiian Sun, may have started here, but that list would be endless. However, "list endlessness" is no reason to avoid doing articles on these subjects. I think the text, at that level, just needs to be somewhere other than on the Hawaii page; and it is in that respect that I agreed with User:Zora. - Marshman 19:16, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I Added the Business Subsection 

message: Note:  I was BKH2007 but I lost my password so I signed in as BKHal2007.
--BKHal2007 19:19, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks for Adding the Category:  Hawaii Business 

message: Just an afterthought to the whole Hawaii/Hawai'i thing. I find it utterly charming the way most local folks pronounce Hawaiian place and street names correctly, even if they're only familiar with kahako and 'okina-less spellings. They say Kai-mu-KII, with the emphasis on the long vowel at the end, instead of Kai-MU-ki.
:You chose a bad example there. That is one of those almost mangled place names: it is Ka-imu-Kī – the oven (of) stone, but mispronounced by just about everyone, except emphasis is still on last syllable. - Marshman 23:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes if you call someone an 'okole, it could well mean that or "butthole" or similar, but it is still a perfectly good word for the buttocks or the bottom of some things: "Ehh Brah, I broke my 'okole fo get fo you." - Marshman 23:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling and pronouncing Hawaiian words