Template talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Hawaii This template is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles

Yosemite, please explain why you removed the Flag of Hawaii in a template appropriate to its usage? —Viriditas | Talk 06:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second request: Yosemitesam25, please stop removing the Flag of Hawaii and explain why you are replacing it with the U.S. flag. —Viriditas | Talk 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the name at the top of the template to "Hawaiian Legal Issues" in an attempt to compromise. While I don't think it's perfect--to be perfectly honest, I don't see what's wrong with "Hawaiian sovereignty movement", seeing as how it's a political movement involved in Hawaiian sovereignty--but I'm tendering it as a potential compromise. Thoughts? --jonny-mt 07:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a move in the right direction. But the template seems redundant in that the links are readily available at the bottom of the page. Why the need to duplicate the information on the same page? I think WP:SOAP says to avoid this kind of redundancy. But even if the policy doesn't explicitly rule it out, the template doesn't add anything. I'd like to see the template replaced with both the State flag and the U.S. flag, side by side or one over the other. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a series template about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. There is nothing wrong with the title. Yosemitesam25's objections do not make any sense. —Viriditas | Talk 10:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Yosemitesam needs to stop gratuituously and incorrectly citing WP:SOAP to try to justify every POV assertion s/he makes, and to start looking at Wikipedia as a collaborative endeavor that requires not always getting their way at everything. Yosemitesam is a major pusher of what can at best be described as a "significant minority" viewpoint, and arguably verging on "fringe". I use both terms advisedly. Moreover, s/he is still are still assumed by some other editors to have potential major unresolved COI issues (viz. as a stalking horse for Grassroot Institute) that should be addressed at the earliest opportunity. In terms of substance, the "redundancy" charge is risible; such templates are found throughout Wikipedia, and the links in the template are different from those found at the end of the article. They add much to the series of articles, and to remove it would be a major disservice. As for the flag, the series is about Hawaii, which is indisputably part of the United States, and the Hawaiian state flag therefore is perfectly appropriate and implies nothing along the paranoid lines Yosemite that seems to suggest it does. Arjuna (talk) 09:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any redundancy of links would fall under the manual of style, which only really discusses overlinking. In this case, the template is simply to provide easy navigation between related topics; as a point of fact, the MoS itself is an excellent example of this kind of template being employed effectively. WP:SOAP applies to polemical statements, advertising, and the like--take a look through some of the discussions as Miscellany for Deletion to see some examples of this in action. As for the flag issue, I agree with Arjuna in that the Hawaiian flag is sufficient. Just as no one would mistake Alaska from being separate from the U.S. just because {{Alaska}} has only one flag on it, no one would mistake Hawaiʻi as being a separate nation just because the template has only the state flag on it. For that matter, it could easily be argued that adding the U.S. flag could in fact give that mistaken impression by implying that the two are of equal status. --jonny-mt 09:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jonny, I agree that these templates can benefit the reader. I tried to look around on Wikipedia to find some examples of how templates work but didn't have much luck. Viriditas, there is nothing wrong with the title if the template shows up just on the Hawaiian Sovereignty page. Someone - perhaps you or jonny? - said on my talk page (if I recall correctly) that no Hawaiian or native Hawaiian (that is, anyone who stands to benefit from "sovereignty" or from OHA or from DHL) can contribute to an article about "sovereignty". So does that apply to all articles where the template shows up? jonny says it's a political movement - some folks might recuse themselves or feel hesitant about contributing if they see the title "Hawaiian Sovereignty" as a subtitle in the article.

I do think the including both flags would be nice (and relevant).

Arjuna: Please stop the personal attacks. Thanks--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 11:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, please stop wasting everyone's time on this pointless discussion. The consensus is that the template is perfectly appropriate as is. The double flag idea is inappropriate, and it would be nice if you both read and understood the reasons provided as to why this is the consensus. 2. RE: COI, I think you misunderstood what V said. 3. It's unfortunate that you feel my comments have been personal attacks -- they are not. I have challenged your words and the reasoning behind them, and suggested that you need to resolve perceived potential COI issues. Arjuna (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this short discussion alone you've alredy called me or characterized my suggestions as gratuitous, major pusher, paranoid, and now pointless. You add that I'm wasting your time. Please stop this abuse. Thank you.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...whoever said that, it wasn't me. My support for the "Hawaiian sovereignty" term comes from the fact that it seems to be used in the press fairly often and has nothing to do with what people might think when they see it--it's merely an apt, descriptive term.

If you're looking for examples of similar templates on Wikipedia, I've already pointed to the manual of style, but other good examples can be found in articles like Politics ({{Politics}}), Futures contract ({{Financial markets}}), and Double taxation ({{Public finance}}). As for the two flags, I've explained my reasons for wanting only the one above--can you explain why you want both? --jonny-mt 16:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yosemitesam25 has recently explained his objections to the current template, which I now understand. He seems to think that the navigational template appearing at the top right-hand corner makes it look like the sovereignty movement is in control of the article. As a compromise, I suggest we convert this template to an alternative nav footer for now, but focus on developing the main navigational bar in the future. —Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Viriditas. That is exactly my concern. I hear what you're saying but can't picture how it would look. If you'd like to go ahead and make the change (I don't know how to and I might mess it up but I'll try it that's what you prefer) we can go from there. My concern is not so much the location of the template as it is the title. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A footer would look something like {{US history}} and it would appear at the bottom of the page, like this:

—Viriditas | Talk 22:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing an example of what a footer would look like. The footer or the header both seem fine but I still do think that either way, it's more even-handed to remove "Hawaiian sovereignty movement". If we could develop the title and the contents with the idea of strict neutrality, we wouldn't run the risk of advocating any political movement. Thought of in another way, it would probably be unfair if, instead of "Hawaiian sovereignty", we titled it "U.S. sovereignty in Hawai'i". --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how use of the term "Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement" implies endorsement. I am not a Hawaiian sovereignty supporter and in fact disagree with their aims, but I do not find use of the term offensive whatsoever as it is a descriptive term, well-used (c.f. Google) as jonny-mt points out. Yosemite's proposed "U.S. Sovereignty in Hawaii..." is highly misleading and POV and is a non-starter. Arjuna (talk) 09:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This template might be suitable if it were used only on the Sovereignty page but it has been "transcluded" (not sure if that's the right term) to link across multiple articles[[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]][[8]][[9]][[10]]. If "U.S Sovereignty in Hawai'i" would be POV, then "Hawaiian Sovereignty" is aslo POV. I didn't propose that we change the title, I was merely pointing out that either would violate NPOV. Note that I said, "it would probably be unfair if, instead of Hawaiian sovereignty, we titled it "U.S sovereignty in Hawai'i". Hawaiian Sovereignty is a political goal and the Hawaiian sovereignty movement is a political movement; no one disputes that. Endorsement doesn't require polemics. The mere mention of the movement is advocacy. A bumper sticker reading "Bush/Cheney" is advocating and an endorsement. A sign reading "Macdonalds" is advocating and an endorsement. A person standing on a street corner holding up and waving a banner that says "Al Gore" is advocating and endorsing. "Getting the name out" is part and parcel of advocating, endorsing, and advertising. See WP:NOT#ADVOCACY. We ought to dispense with the "Sovereignty" template, figure out a way to make it work, or replace it altogether with [this].--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 18:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, top, right-aligned series navigational templates are used to link to related articles split off from the main article. Since we are not yet at that point just yet and this template is not used in that way, I recommend converting the current template to a footer that meets the standards for political series and navigational templates, such as {{PRIndependence}}. We also need a {{Politics of Hawaii}}, of which this template would eventually become a descendent, and could be used as a top-aligned template. Right now, this template should only exist as a footer. Yosemitesam25, this has nothing to do with advocacy or endorsement, but everything to do with article navigation. —Viriditas | Talk 01:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the PRInde examples, I see what you mean. I agree on converting this template to a footer and working up a "politics" template, or some other similarly titled template, which will serve as a main navigational tool.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about being out of the loop for so long. I've gone ahead and whipped up a sample template in my userspace (User:jonny-mt/Hawaii template). When transcluded, it looks like this:

User:Jonny-mt/Hawaii template

Naturally, tweaks etc. are more than welcome. Now as for the name of the template/series, has anybody looked into "Hawaiian independence movement"? --jonny-mt 12:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; just need the collapsible feature and activist cat, among others. I haven't looked into changing the name, but most of the sources I've used refer to it as a sovereignty movement; I'm not entirely sure there is any real difference. Be bold and make the changes (to the template, not the title) if you have the time. —Viriditas | Talk 12:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a new version of the template employing the collapsible feature--I think it's much more attractive. Although I colored it in line with the colors used on the current version of the template, the documentation for {{Navbox}} recommends that the styles be left alone to ensure that it blends with the rest of the site. I rather like the default style, but I'm always open to suggestions. --jonny-mt 14:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]