Talk:Moe aikāne

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies

Hawaii High‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Most common name

I wonder if the subject is better served under the title "Aikane relationships in historic Hawaiian culture"?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but you could make the redirect from one to the other. Also maybe link into LGBT history in Hawaii. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does appear to be an official relationship of Hawaiian nobles. Per our naming conventions guidelines I think we need to stick to the most common name or reference and "Aikane" seems to be it. Also, not clear that this has to be seen in entirely in the sense of a historic context alone for many reasons. I will be moving the page to Aikane relationships in Hawaii and redirecting the old name, Homosexuality in historic Hawaiian culture.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Sources

I'm surprised at the creation of other Hawaiian pages with utilizing actual Hawaiian scholars as sources, that this article screams homosexuality only! As a Hawaiian language speaker I and many others have used "aikane" for the purpose of a friend. I'm appalled at how someone not only tried to make it seem homosexuality based but cited only western sources, not even Aunty Kawena was quoted in this nor mentioned as to how the word was used, and the regular definition of it from the Hawaiian dictionary was not even quoted. This is awful, and the reason why some people cannot look at wikipedia as a reliable source. Mamoahina (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also the nonsexual usage of the term is not noted at all. Many aikane were not sexual partners.--96.41.155.253 (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that there is a non sexual use of the term that many feel is accurate but the encyclopedic use here is accurate itself. Can the article be expanded? certainly.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia IS NOT a reliable source. I also wonder why people insist on complaining but do no actual work towards whatever content they see missing. First of all, Wikipedia is not a dictionary and there are multiple reasons for not simply defining a word with a translation. I don't know the relevance of naming someone who is not quoted. Is this person a notable expert on Hawaiian culture? Is she published? Can you tell us what she writes on the subject and where it can be located to further look into?--Mark Miller (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You mean Mary Kawena Pukui the author of the Hawaiian dictionary. That's a single source but is something to look into.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very weak article. It totally confuses moe aikane (a verb) with aikane (a noun); fails to realize that the meaning of Waikane was changed from intimate partner to friend only as the result of colonial pressure to prohibit same-sex relationships; fails to realize that moe Waikane became a popular term because of its inclusion in anti-sodomy laws; all all together approaches the topic from a western, non-Kanaka viewpoint. I hope a talented Hawaiian scholar will undertake a complete rewrite. Imi Ike Nui (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]