Talk:Hawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Hawaii, or visit the project page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
	After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page.
WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks: To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii: edit  · history  · watch  · refresh Open tasks

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

	United States Portal This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Post a New Discussion Thread

Due to the aggressive growth of activity on this talk page and for the sake of efficiency of loading this page onto your computer, discussion threads considered "inactive" for a considerable amount of time have been moved to an archive page. If you would like to revive any of those inactive dicussions, please feel free start a new discussion thread on this active talk page. Also, before making any major changes to the Hawaii article, it is recommended that editors browse through the archives to accommodate specific concerns.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Contents 1 Objection to further blanking 2 Blanking of state name etymology 3 Etymology 4 Plantation owners and the overthrow 5 Hawaii Earthquake 6 History 7 'Ōlelo Hawai'i or Hawaiian (language)? 8 Animals 9 Hawaii-Photos link 10 6 Galleries! (if I'm counting right) 11 New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format 12 Fair and Unbiased? 13 European discovery 14 Hawaiian antiquity section 15 I would propose merge / Request for Discussion 16 Rows on demographics table do not add up to 100% 17 Ha-Vai-'I 18 Locator Map 19 Sovereignty and independence 20 Key Biscayne??? 21 Lead section too heavy? 22 Removed non-verified text

[edit] Objection to further blanking

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

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

[edit] Blanking of state name etymology

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

[edit] Etymology

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Plantation owners and the overthrow

Excerpt from http://hawaiimatters.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Blount Report notes the three major parties [1]. The Reform Party was composed of the people who enacted the 1887 constitution, including Thurston, Dole, and most of those involved in the overthrow, although the Liberal Party also had some supporters of the overthrow here and there. --JereKrischel 12:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Liliuokalani also refers to them as the "Reform Party" in her testimony in the Blount Report [2]. That looks like the most accurate way to describe the political organization that both enacted the 1887 Reform Constitution, and deposed the Queen when she tried to abrogate it. --JereKrischel 13:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Hawaii Earthquake

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

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

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

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

[edit] History

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

[edit] 'Ōlelo Hawai'i or Hawaiian (language)?

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Animals

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

[edit] Hawaii-Photos link

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

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

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

[edit] 6 Galleries! (if I'm counting right)

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

[edit] New Sports section added to updated Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. states format

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

[edit] Fair and Unbiased?

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

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

[edit] European discovery

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

[edit] Hawaiian antiquity section

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

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

[edit] I would propose merge / Request for Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Rows on demographics table do not add up to 100%

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

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

[edit] Ha-Vai-'I

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

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

[edit] Locator Map

This was also brought up at Talk:Alaska, but maybe it would be better to show a locator map which showed Hawaii's location in the Pacific, rather than an inset --Astrokey44 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereignty and independence

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

[edit] Key Biscayne???

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

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

[edit] Lead section too heavy?

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

[edit] Removed non-verified text

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

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

HOW DID THE VOLCANO DIAMOND HEAD GOT ITS NAME. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.157.8.205 (talk • contribs).

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