Talk:Haole

Use of word section

Creating this to start some discussion about the pejorative use content. Wikipedia requires all content to have sources, and be verifiable. Our personal experience and knowledge as editors is entirely irrelevant to what goes into articles. I've been reverting these additions over the last few days because at the moment, we only have one source about pejorative use and we have to base the content on what that source says. That source cites multiple instances of non-white ethnic groups using "Haole" as a racial slur or insult. I do not have any strong feelings about this specific line, but if it's going to be changed, there have to be other reliable sources that we can add to back up the changes. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for understanding! The point im trying to make is that its highly problematic and hardly neutral to call Haole a racial slur, and link articles that smear Haunani Kay Trask or other indigenous peoples over the use of their own word. Its frustrating and unfair. Especially given the context of white people, colonialism and white institutional and systemic racism in Hawaii, Polynesia and the rest of the world. While researching, i found the creator of the "haole is a racial slur" myth was undergraduate student and racist Joey Carter, a white man from the south who HKT shut down on many occasions.. (HKT also goes quite into detail regarding the origin of "haole is offensive" debate in this speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltaYNSyhodo among others that are on youtube and in newspapers/articles.) Joey Carter even goes so far as to compare it to the N word, which really shows the racism and lack of understanding thinly veiled in his argument; a harmful argument reinforced by the way this wiki article is sourced and worded. The problems with the (only) source linked regarding alleged "white hate crimes in hawaii" are many; For one it ignores the political and historical climate, therefore is misleading; and causes readers to potentially believe the oppressed are the oppressors when in reality the natives of Hawaii and other POC are exercising self-protection, self-defense and a smart political sense. Given this, their emotions and feelings cannot be disregarded and painted in the same light as actual white supremacist slurs born out of a colonial hatred for all people nonwhite. It's an unfair situation; in this case colonized and colonizer. Another thing i noticed while reading the sourced article is that it's intentionally misleading, the white man only gets hurt when the parent of the child who yelled Haole (descriptive, resistant and understandable in this situation) stepped in...probably because a grown man was in an altercation with his young daughter. There's a lot of context intentionally left out and nowhere does it suggest the father beat him up because he's white, that's just unrealistic. A lot of this just adds to a history of what Joey Carter started: The colonizer playing victim. Its dangerous to have it be the only sourced article. Another thing i find interesting is that when i google "Hawaii hate crimes" almost none of them are crimes targeting white people. Kill Haoli day should not be regarded as racism, but resistance because this is the historical context and, ultimately, why kill haoli day is (was?) allegedly a thing in the first place. That article is isolated and out of touch from reality. And so "Some from other ethnic groups have used the word "Haole" as a racial slur or insult in incidents of harassment and physical assault towards white people in Hawaii" should be rephrased neutrally and with skepticism or removed entirely. The historical weight of a racial slur outweighs that of the descriptive native Hawaiian term 'Haole', which should not be stripped of it's context of resistance and description.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.123.173 (talk) 15:45 11 July 2021 (UTC)

References

I'm typing out a response here, but please stop making the same edits to the article over and over again. For the reasons I'll explain, they violate various Wikipedia policies. Give me a few minutes. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Ok, as I said earlier, Wikipedia relies on various principles to ensure that what is on the site is accurate and verifiable. What we cannot do is use wikipedia as a platform for certain points of view that we prefer. As much as I admire HKT, turning this article into a piece about her ideas would not be neutral, and would fail the core policies of Wikipedia. We can present what she said, properly accredited, but you cannot just add what she said as ultimate truth. Please stop treating this article as your personal WP:soapbox.

Now, in response to specific things here: I'm fine with removing the word "slur" in favor of something else, like "racial pejorative". However, you can't simply blank out that section because you disagree with it when there are plenty of sources (SPLC, individual incidents like this, chapter 3 of Judy Rohrer's Haoles in Hawaii, etc) discussing the word's appearance in conflicts between different ethnic groups. You talk all about the history of the word, which I'm quite familiar with and indeed requires extensive context to fully understand (again, I recommend Rohrer's book if you can get access to the full thing) but that doesn't change the requirement on this article to fairly and accurate represent what is said about the word haole in reliable sources. I do have my own issues with the SPLC article--for example, there's basically no evidence that Kill Haole Day is a real thing like...at all--but the SPLC is an accepted source on Wikipedia that represents one side of the debate about the word. Right now, the sentence in the article only says that the word has been used in incidents of harassment, not that this context is the core meaning of the word. It is an acknowledged fact that the word has been used in racially-charged incidents between locals and white people. Everything you said about the context of the word--which I fully agree with--does not change that. You're welcome to add more context to that fact, sure!

Final note: right now, this is one sentence at the very end of the article, with a HKT quote immediately after it adding an opposing point of view. It's not like this pejorative use stuff is the core or the article, or even a hefty percentage. It would be all but impossible to dedicate fewer words to this topic, so again, since we're talking about factual history backed up by reliable sources, I ask you to stop removing the section wholecloth. Talk here about specific edits you want to make or words you want to change. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

This isnt just about personal opinions; Haole literally isnt a slur and has never been used pejoratively. I wont edit it further so ill rely on you, however just because that article is an accepted source, doesn't mean it should be sourced! It's obviously racist fear mongering riddled with misinformation. The new source you added (which itself states that Haole is not a slur, interestingly) can take its place, it doesnt seem productive keeping both, especially when the first one is clearly harmful. Verifiability IS an article policy, after all, and it breaks both that and the neutrality policy.

Haole literally isnt a slur -- As I said, I was ok with removing the word "slur" as part of the definition and that word has now been replaced. has never been used pejoratively -- this is flatly incorrect and I've now provided three different sources saying so. I'm making a difference between what the word is and how it's used: I'm not arguing the word is a pejorative, but I am saying it has been used as part of a pejorative (e.g., "fucking haole"). If you truly wish to claim it has never been used pejoratively--rather than distinguishing the history in which any pejorative use should be understood under--then you need to provide sources backing that up. I'm actively encouraging you to find more sources and add those to the article to add more context, but simply removing the current properly sourced content isn't the right answer. just because that article is an accepted source, doesn't mean it should be sourced -- just because something is used as a source doesn't mean that all of its content is somehow incorporated or endorsed in the wikipedia article. Right now, the SPLC article is only used to source the idea that the word "haole" has been used as part of a pejorative in various documented incidents between ethnic groups in Hawaii. Nothing more than that. If you dispute that use or want to find other wording, you can suggest something, but again, you keep just removing content in order to push a certain point-of-view about racial dynamics in Hawaii. This edit continues to push the idea that the word haole has never even been used as part of a racial pejorative, which entirely contradicts the available sourcing. Alyo (chat·edits) 02:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

I thought it would be common sense that words cannot be used pejoratively (its 2 my knowledge that that words is basically the more academic way of saying slur) towards a group of people who created racism in the first place. Something about power dynamics and all that. Its obviously not a *slur*, nevermind 'pejorative', which you corrected in the article earlier and thank you for that. Right now the issue is that one of the two sources is basically fanfiction, why keep it when you already found a more credible source? When taken at face value it really seeds the idea that racism is somehow this thing stripped of historical context, white supremacy and power dynamics. Some reader's who come here and check the source wont know to fact check it and will really think "Kill Haole Day" is real or that white people are getting beat up the way they beat minorities, simply because of the color of their skin, but that structure doesn't exist in any society and that's clearly not the reason. The SPLC article breaks not one, but two article policies. Its racist fear mongering and it really should be removed; Its irresponsible to keep it up. You already found an actual reliable source in it's place but if you want me to find another to replace SPLC simply tell me what to look for and ill gladly do it. Thanks!

the SPLC article is the issue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.123.173 (talk) 06:39 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Saying "it's obviously not X" is you stating your opinion, which is irrelevant for determining Wikipedia content. As is your opinion about the SPLC article. Some reader's who come here and check the source wont know to fact check it and will really think "Kill Haole Day" is real -- I assure you this is far less of a problem than you think it is. And I broadly disagree that the AP News story, which is a single incident, is more reliable as a source for that sentence than the Southern Poverty Law Center, which is basically the acknowledged expert source on hate crimes and similar violence. So no, I don't agree with removing that source at the moment. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

You, me and anyone rational who looks at the SPLC article can spot that its fear mongering blown out of proportion and that's not an opinion; that's a fact. Nothing against SPLC but the writer of that article, Larry Keller, is a freelance writer and hardly the spokesperson for SPLC. There's clear bias in that article so i think its best to source something more accurate, maybe with less fear mongering this time. You're being gradual and neutral to a fault. Its irresponsible for a wiki page to source it (especially given that it breaks two article policies!). I ask again: what should i be looking 4 2 source instead (i agree that one incident is not enough, and i may be blowing this out of proportion... but the article is undeniably unfair and you are being too lenient with it) Googling "haole hate crimes" or "white hate crimes" in Hawaii turns up nothing but one isolated incident (probably because its not a pattern to begin with hmm) and i certainly didnt come across any of the things stated in the fear mongering article written by Larry. I thank you for helping out up until this point but i urge you to please not be stubborn with removing it, agree or not it breaks two wiki policies. Not to mention it's intentionally vague and flat out untrue i.e 'kill haoli day' and the case with the father. It's basically fiction. That is not an opinion, its a fact.

Rereading this article and it's so obviously white supremacist fear mongering, my goodness. Every single incident listed is an unrelated altercation , whether a road rage fight or a bunch of kids defending a kid from a 68 year old man. Just because the term Haole is allegedly thrown around does not make it a hatecrime. Regardless of opinion this does not seem neutral or substantial. Larry also goes to great lengths to mention that the white "victims" had blonde hair...as if that's relevant at all? He just sounds like a white supremacist if we're being honest with each other. Further proof of this is that it paints a racist "anti hawaiian sovereignty" colonizer, Kenneth Conklin, as the victim fighting against alleged white prejudice because indigenous people, on their on land, wanted the trustees of the Office of Hawaiian Affairs — OHA — be of Native Hawaiian descent. Boohoo. A blank page would be a better, more accurate (and less opinionated) source. I understand that you're trying to corroborate that Haole was used in fights (which after all this, seems irrelevant to state, given how unreliable the SPLC article is) But keep in mind that, prior to our edits, the WP article very falsely stated that white people are victims of "racially charged hatecrimes" based purely on the SPLC article...in which it states that most cases were roadrage incidents, school bullying or angry 68 year old men harassing children; NONE of which relates to the world Haole and certainly not to any white targeted "racist" hatecrimes. Please consider this, if you didnt already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.123.173 (talk) 19:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There's a point at which you're just fundamentally misunderstanding me and ascribing much larger conclusions to the use of the SPLC piece as a source then are valid. I can't help you with that. The SPLC is a valid source, and most importantly, we are not using it to claim or cite to all of the more extreme stories in the piece that you keep raising. You also keep making statements based on your own point of view and then saying "that's a fact". Neither of these are likely to get you any closer to your desired outcome. We have multiple sources that say that the word has been used as a part of a racial pejorative. I can also cite to a 1995 Hawaii Civil Rights Commission finding about the use of "fucking haole". There's also, as I mentioned, chapter 3 of Rohrer which quotes a column in the Star-Bulletin ("If people say, 'The haole guy who was the first to speak at the union meeting' with a sneer in their voice, they are probably referring to a shared negative stereotype") and also makes a larger point about some of the cultural animosity inherent to the term ("Even in the most benign usage—'Eh, haole, you seen my cell'—the term continues to carry some of the weight of its colonial history...Because of that, even when used purely descriptively, it is not a completely neutral term, nor should it be. It reminds us of the violences perpetuated against the land and people of Hawai‘i, violences that are not simply contained in the past but that spill over into our present"). If you are going to continue to argue that even in light of all of these sources, that the word has never been used as part of a racial pejorative, then you're just willfully ignoring my point (and I would argue, completely underinformed about the history of the word "haole" in everyday use). If you truly want to argue that the word cannot be used even as part of a racial pejorative, then you need a source that says that. Because otherwise you're just repeating your own personal point of view, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Dont forget that prior to our edits, the WP article was outright calling it a "racially discriminatory slur" which is ridiculous. And the issue is that it sourced the splc article primarily for that reason. Which coupled together = fear mongering. Stating that its allegedly pejorative is irrelevant anyway but thats NOT my issue since anyone with one brain cell and no bias can guess that its not inherently pejorative and "fucking haole" is harmless and justified. My issue is the SPLC source. You claim its reliable which it is not. It breaks two rules and cannot be fact checked whatsoever. It's taken out of context and is clearly, as i keep stating in vain, fear mongering. Just because SPLC is credible does not mean its responsible to source that specific white supremacist article. We can literally use this http://labor.hawaii.gov/hcrc/files/2013/01/DOCDavis_Final_decision.pdf and the news article u linked instead since apparently this wiki article wants to push a narrative of fear mongering and white victims so badly. You've found two sources since, the only reason you'd keep a practically fictitious and clearly racist article like that (left over from an inaccurate and less than neutral prior edit) sourced is out of stubbornness. White people arent victims, especially when they're on stolen land.

Alright well you're entirely just pushing your point of view and ignoring everything else I'm saying so this discussion has probably run its course. Please just be aware that if you continue edit articles and interact in this fashion, you'll likely eventually get blocked per WP:ADVOCACY and similar policies. Cheers, Alyo (chat·edits) 01:20, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I wont edit or argue further as we did make at least some progress in an article that was less than neutral prior to our edits. However: i think "Racially pejorative" still suggests a kind of "reverse racism" which pushes a narrative that victimizes the colonizer, which is problematic but also 'racially pejorative' can possibly be seen as 'racial discrimination' phrased differently, which im sure you can understand why is so absurd. I would like your opinion on this and to work to improve that small bit, and make sure it doesnt contribute to fear mongering or the myth of reverse racism. I think we should just not add ""Racially pejorative", it seems like its manufacturing a narrative because the assaults had nothing to do with them being Haole. And Hawaiian people have a right, regardless of personal opinion, to feel contempt towards their oppressor. It just seems like leftovers from the original less than neutral edit. .."cheers"

For the love of god, please stop pushing your singular opinion as ultimate truth. This is not "allegedly". This is not allegedly. Just stop. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not singular, its actually disrespectful to say so. Non Hawaiians have no say over a native Hawaiian word. Regardless of opinion it is not pejorative but since you see it as a personal opinion this will lead nowhere. This back and forth is because of your stubbornness to see issue with a fictitiously harmful and misleading article (which broke two policies) :/ To avoid turning this into an immature back and forth ill ask for permission one last time to make ONE last edit, and again i thank you for helping out those few times earlier; Can 'racially', before pejorative, be removed? 4 obvious reasons, it is not neutral and has harmful 'reverse racism' undertones don't you think? Haole cannot be a slur...white people arent oppressed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.46.123.173 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Hey Peaceray, just a heads up--the cite you just added seems to be WP:CIRCULAR source: "(Wikipedia)" is cited at the end of the definition and it's basically a copy of the lede from 2016 or so. Also, bizarrely, I just clicked through and the "ɔ" sign (Open O sound) doesn't appear in Help:IPA/Hawaiian or Hawaiian phonology? It was added here and has been unsourced ever since, and I wonder if it should just be fully removed. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

@Alyo: Thanks for catching that! I reverted my edit, but if you can find & add the correct Hawaiʻian pronunciation, that would be great. Peaceray (talk) 19:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at all the sources

I was lucky enough to recognize a link to a source with the full Charles W. Kenn article from the 1944 Paradise of the Pacific printed in 1961 that I have in my own collection. In reviewing the other sources, as well as the original Kenn source, I am endeavoring to remove unsubstantiated claims, claims relying on primary sources only or claims that use sources that cannot be verified. Much will probably return in some form or another using reliable book sources from notable experts, but the sources currently used are also being checked for accuracy of the summary.Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Get a Hawaiian

After reading a decent amount of the discussions, I'm highly offended that people believe Haole to be a racial slur.... "Ha" means breath in Hawaiian "Ole"means no or to not... So when the first settlers came to Hawaii from Europe they shook the hands of our chef or Ali'i and that's not how Hawaiian people greeted one another. We would put our foreheads together and breath in, it was a way to show respect, to breath in each other's life force to know they were alive.... So when European settlers came and didn't exchange of breath Hawaiian people started to call the Haole... Only RECENTLY have people NOT NATIVE TO THE ISLANDS decided to change the actual meaning to what it's know as today.... It's just like when European people couldn't pronounce "Negro" in Spanish did THAT also became a racial slur... So what's the common denominator here? People are ignorant to every other persons culture or language and make their own meanings... don't you honestly find that to be ridiculously stupid? To have people from a completely different group or background telling a whole different group a completely wrong and incorrect statements. That's like any person who's never been or lived in Hawaii telling everyone what something means WHEN THEY'RE WRONG TO BEGIN WITH. This is absolutely my biggest pet peeve I've ever had... spreading the wrong information around leads to people being divided over things they dont actually know anything about. It's sickening and wrong, let's please do a BETTER job in spreading information. Also if you guys really wanted to go down that route that the Hawaiian people "oppressed" white colonist.... You honestly better be joking... like I'm asking are you fucking kidding me. Our last queen was held hostage in her bedroom and was told that if she didn't sign Hawaii away to the WHITE COLONISTS that those same men were going to kill her to get their way... Our queen said to kill her, she'll never sign Hawaii away.... then after a week of them trying that, they told our Queen that all of her people would be killed if she didn't sign Hawaii away. She signed that stupid papers that made Hawaii the 50th state. So PLEASE tell me again about how the Hawaiian people are doing reverse racism WHEN YOU GOT THE MEANING OF THE WORD INCORRECTLY. Or let's talk about how Hawaiian people only have control over 25% of their own water and the rest is all privately owned.... hmmm please please point out to me WHERE is the reverse racism...

Sincerely, From a Mad Hawaiian 172.116.177.159 (talk) 17:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I take your points, but do you have any issue with the content in the article? Right now the pejorative use description in the article isn't more than two or three sentences, which I think is a fair representation of the word and the sources. Alyo (chat·edits) 20:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, most if not all the information is relying on one sided information, there's not a single Hawaiian source referenced. This happens on a lot of subjects including if you just Google the Bayonet Constitution (which is also riddled in miss-information) . Sources in my opinion that should be sighted should be from books not just online sources, because even an online source of a book could also just be someone's opinion on the matter. Also the point of making a new word... I've never heard of a Haole ele ele... in Hawaii a person on dark skin is called popolo meaning burnt or dark skin (Hawaiian meaning not Pidgin). Since Hawaii had a lot of different people; ethnicities; and languages we started to be descriptive in order to communicate... the development of Pidgin English where a lot of what this site is getting it's information... not the actual Hawaiian language or meaning.. what's being used is a complete different way of speaking... Speaking Hawaiian isn't speaking Pidgin. That's one of the biggest issues in this article mixing up what the Pidgin version of things mean and what actual Hawaiian. 172.116.177.159 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not exactly true--we have multiple citations to Haunani-Kay Trask quotes and interviews. As for haole ele ele, that is from a source in the 1800s--it's not saying that is currently in use. Regardless, if you have any Hawaiian sources discussing the word haole, I'd happily take them. The issue isn't that I don't want to, it's that they are very hard to find. Alyo (chat·edits) 01:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)