Talk:Hawaii National Guard

Merger proposal
Proposal to merge National Guard of Hawaii to this page.
 * Support as proposer - wolf  02:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Mztourist (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Why? These are two different organizations from two different time periods. - BilCat (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * With both essentially the same name. The content of both articles could easily fit into one page, and show a historical progression of the state military on this small group of islands. - wolf  05:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving a rationale at last, though it might be a good idea to do that when you make a proposal. (I can't wait to see what you do in response to this note, but I'm sure it'll be a doozy as usual.) - BilCat (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * relax, no need for drama - wolf  14:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the organisations are from 2 different countries. The National Guard of Hawaii was under the Provisional Government of Hawaii and Republic of Hawaii prior to Hawaii's annexation by US. So while there is some continuity, it's not all that clear cut. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "So while there is some continuity, it's not all that clear cut" - Exactly. So merge the two, and have a single linear article that explains the history, from the origins of the first National Guard to the current one. That way we dont have two articles with essentially the same titles causing potential confusion. I thought that would have be obvious with the proposal, but... - wolf  14:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 *  Oppose Support The standard title for these orgs seems to be  National Guard, not National Guard of , so I would prefer the opposite merge. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell because the proposal was sloppily formatted, but the proposal is to merge National Guard of Hawaii into Hawaii National Guard. - BilCat (talk) 08:29, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the idea. No need to be so crusty about it. I've added further reasoning above. Thanks - wolf  14:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, supporting then. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. One organization belongs to a US state (and for the most part in the 20th century - is pretty much wholly subsumed into the Federal army). The other organization was the military force of an independent country - Provisional Government of Hawaii/Republic of Hawaii and was involved in a number of conflicts - e.g. Leper War on Kauaʻi, 1895 Wilcox rebellion. That Hawaii subsequently became part of the US is irrelevant. We would not merge the Army of the Republic of Texas into Texas Army National Guard.Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No, of course not... they're different titles, different forces and both are much larger articles. As I said above, the "NG Hawaii"/"Hawaii NG" titles are too identical and both the articles are smaller. The NG of Hawaii could/should be merged into it's own already existing history section of the Hawaii NG article, (especially considering the NG of Hawaii became the Hawaii NG). The Provisional Government of Hawaii section also already covers the NG of Hawaii (and could be hatnoted to the NG of Hawaii section of Hawaii NG). There's a shared history there; same force + same titles = same article. - wolf  13:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The similarity in title is irrelevant for a merge discussion - there might be scope for disambiging one - e.g. to National Guard of Hawaii (Republic of Hawaii) (or perhaps National Guard of Hawaii Republic (though it seems the official name had no Republic)). There is absolutely no basis for merging the army of an independent state with the national guard of a US territory/state (effectively subsumed into the US federal system). Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "The similarity in title is irrelevant for a merge discussion" - Based on what? It was relevant enough to eventually lead to this proposal in the first place, and relevant enough to merit (repeated) mention in this proposal. "There is absolutely no basis for merging the army of an independent state with the national guard of a US territory/state (effectively subsumed into the US federal system)." - Again, based on what? I would suggest you give QY RANG a read, as an example of a "basis". There are other examples, of course, of countries that became new countries, and militaries from the former that also became part of the latter, all documented in a single article. That, along with the points I made above seem to form just such a basis for a merge. We are, after all, talking about the National Guard of Hawaii that became the Hawaii National Guard. And at the same time, the "independent state" that became the State of Hawaii. We would only be merging these two, near-identically titled articles, about about the same force, one about it origins, the other about it present day status, into a single, linear historical narrative. All other related articles, such as; Kingdom of Hawaii, Provisional Government of Hawaii, Republic of Hawaii, Territory of Hawaii and State of Hawaii would remain intact. - wolf  16:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the Republic of Hawaii - an independent entity - which become the Territory of Hawaii (not even a state - e.g. no voting rights on the federal level (neither congress nor president) in the country they were annexed to) - not independent, and not in control of its armed forces. Military forces of nations are generally notable stand-alone. Icewhiz (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally, but not always. I believe that merging in this case will make for the best presentation of information about this force. - wolf  17:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * When closing the merge, I also added an about hatnotes to more clearly distinguish the scope of the articles (reducing the chance for confusion. Klbrain (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2019 (UTC)