Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:59, 29 April 2008

History B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hawaii B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

UN & Plebiscite

I am removing from the article History of Hawaii to here the sentence

In 1999, the United Nations declared that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of article 73 of the United Nations' charter.

• This is unacceptably vague as to what body (Security Council, General Assembly, or one of a flock of far less influential ones) is involved.
• It is supported
  • primarily by clones copied from WP,
  • secondarily by a few sites ranging from strident, PoV, and loosely reasoning to looney, and
  • not at all, at least in several hours of Google work, by any site that gives an exact date, a specific UN body, or the name or number of any UN document other than the Charter.

I assume there is some real event behind it. If that event is an explicit ruling to the effect stated (and not something vague that partisans claim implies such violation) then i hope we can verify it and put more suitable language back into the article in place of this. --Jerzy 09:21, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)

UN 1999

I assume there is some real event behind it. If that event is an explicit ruling to the effect stated (and not something vague that partisans claim implies such violation) then i hope we can verify it and put more suitable language back into the article in place of this.

Actually I know only that the UN confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of Article 73 of the United Nations' charter. This was prompted by the United States Public Law 103-150. I'm not sure exactly what type of factual evidence you are looking for. Mamoahina 14:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But how do you know this? People told you. Were they right? We don't know. As Jerzy said, we don't know WHICH arm of the UN did this confirmation. I very much doubt it went to the General Assembly. It had to have been a committee then, or something like that. We just need a reference, online or in a book, to pin it down. Zora 18:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Titles

Although I support the neutrality philosophy of WikiPedia, the title United States Government Minister doesn't make much sense to Americans since no such title exists. I'm guessing that it is relating to the Secretary of the Department of State. Does United States Government Minister make more sense to non-Americans? I don't know but the titles sure make it confusing. Perhaps a small addition clearing this up would be of some help?

Apparently, at the time, "United States Government Minister" was the official designation for what today is simply called the "ambassador" to a country. But most readers today, whether American or not, wouldn't know this. So I agree, it should be explained. IslandGyrl 13:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sources

This is one of the many pages on Misplaced Pages which I feel would really benefit from listed references. If anybody knows where the body of this work came from I highly suggest that you post it to resolve any conflicts, to allow further research, and to fact-check that which is already there. Nrbelex 01:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a person who just did a research paper using this article on the longterm causes for the overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy I would like to encourage those working on this article to begin to source their material as it lead to quite a conflict as to what I could and could not include in my paper due to lack of proper citation and an inability to find these statements and ideas from other sources. The article as a whole is great but the lack of citation made it hard to deal with. Oroneko 16:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This article seems to get away from NPOV in the last two paragraphs. Specifically, calling a lack of debate on the merits "unfortunate", and labeling the "Akaka Bill" as of "dubious constitutionality" (as opposed to, say, "debated constitutionality"). I'm changing them. JRoman 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and isn't including links for direct sources in the body of the text, a la the Bruce Fein PDF, frowned upon? JRoman 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JRoman for helping make it more NPOV. I'm not sure what the policy for direct sources in the text is though...do you have a link to anything regarding that policy? --JereKrischel 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Try this Misplaced Pages:cite_sources. It doesn't explicitly state that the present way is wrong, but it gives alternatives that seem more typical of Misplaced Pages style. Because, let's face it, the whole colon at the end of the sentence thing is kind of ugly, no? Perhaps the appropriate thing to do would be to conclude the sentence as "criticized for factual errors." and then include a footnote-style link to the references section, which would then link to the PDF. What do you think? JRoman 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Roman, what you suggest sounds great...I don't know how to do a footnote-style link to the references section...could you make the change as you suggested so I can see how it is done? Thanks! --JereKrischel 05:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Edit summary was some kind of the "hands in wrong position on keyboard" mistake. Sorry

I rewrote the section about the coming of the missionaries. I'm well up on this, having just edited a 400-page history of Honolulu for a local press. The rest of the article deserves a look, but I don't have time now. Zora 07:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Alcohol and prostitution

The Christian chiefs attempted to rule the islands as a Christian nation, which led to intense conflicts with other resident Westerners and visiting ships, all of whom preferred the old regime of abundant alcohol and promiscuous sexual relations.

What is the source of this last clause? Some hundred-year-old encyclopedia? Why does the clause not also refer to spiritual beliefs and values but only to two items usually classified as "vices"? --Badagnani

Badagnani, problems with alcohol and prostitution are very well documented -- by current historians. Once the missionaries had the ear of the chiefs, they tried to put an end to chaotic conditions in the ports of Honolulu and Lahaina. The sailors and sea captains resisted vigorously. They rioted, burned down a jail (if I'm remembering correctly), and would have killed a missionary if the Hawaiian governor and his men hadn't intervened.

Both the alcohol and the prostitution were introduced by the sailors; they were not part of indigenous Hawaiian culture. However, there was nothing in the indigenous culture to prevent this "drunken randy sailor on leave" culture either. Hawaiians drank their 'awa and were notoriously easy-going in matters of sex. This was easily distorted into drinking alcohol and having sex for pay.

I'm constantly pressed for time, but I can try to put some of this explanation into the article. Or, you can transfer what I've written. Just don't try to erase part of Hawai'i's past because you find it embarrassing. Zora 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, I'm confused as to what your concern with the clause is - are you asking that we should refer to the spiritual beliefs and values of the Westerner sailors? Are you under the impression that there were intense conflicts due to spiritual beliefs and values with Westerner sailors? Your question isn't very clear. --JereKrischel 10:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged"

JK, note that while I undid your revisions that seem patently POV, I am leaving in -- for now -- your rv that put back the word "alleged". I am suggesting we discuss first (see talk on the other page) before we get into a pointless rvv battle. Arjuna 10:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we still need some of what was in there. Specifically, the note that the resolution was passed with limited debate in the Senate and no debate at all in the house is significant. Similarly, there is no citation anywhere that I know of that claims the reason tribal requirements aren't necessary for creating a race/ancestry-based government out of native Hawaiians is due to "recognition" of "cultural differences" - that seems completely OR (original research). If anything, the assertion is that they need to be treated as Native Americans are treated in recognition of "cultural similarities" (nebulously defined, of course). Can we work on some sort of compromise that would be acceptable to you? I'm willing to use "ancestry-based" in lieu of "race-based" if that seems more neutral, but I'm hoping you can see my concerns on the other issues. Mahalo again for your help! --JereKrischel 07:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

POV push

As a professor of English and composition and as a student of Hawaiian studies, I find this article with a severe case of POV push and am continuing to bar my students from using Misplaced Pages as a resource because of this kind of POV without authority and scholarship (besides the various inaccuracies). For example, subtleties (as well as not-so-subtle language) include the use of quotation marks around "'sovereignty' movements" without a complete discussion of the meaning of sovereignty and statehood in the legal sense (as held in international law); the use of "alleged" in the USA's role in the overthrow of Hawaiian monarchs when the 1993 resolution clearly "aplogizes...for the overthrow;" and the use of the clearly POV phrase "without any of the same qualifications necessary for tribal recognition" (implying that the Native Hawaiians are not on historical and legal par with the Native Americans). I'm not Hawaiian, but find many Misplaced Pages articles about Hawaiians and Hawai`i to be written from a distinctly (and often myopic and one-sided) perspective. HeartlyHear 08:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo HeartlyHear, certainly as a professor you can accept the fact that there is no international law applicable to 1893 (neither the league of nations nor the UN existed then), and if you've studied either the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report of 1983 or the Morgan Report of 1894, you'll have learned that regardless of the assertions made by the symbolic resolution of 1993, the historical record is not nearly as concrete or unambiguous. And of course Native Hawaiians are not on historical or legal par with certain Native Americans - did the Navajo Nation have a majority non-navajo multi-ethnic population after decades of integration led by their leaders?

Please, read the source materials in question before insisting on your view as definitive. --JereKrischel 15:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I second HeartlyHear's comments. While I am neither Hawaiian, nor indeed a sovereignty supporter, I have often found many of JK's edits to be the most insidious form of POV. I am sorry that he seems to take a weasel-word approach to undermining the most fundamental facts of history in regards to Hawaii -- in addition to the examples given by HH (one could add many others): continually adding "alleged" to a description of a U.S. role in the overthrow. That there was a U.S. role was not alleged, it is a fact. The running edit wars on these and other issues need to end and to achieve some sort of NPOV, not the ideology-as-truth as seen by JK. JK, I fear that your ideology is preventing you from being able to see NPOV in many cases; what you see as "truth" is not necessarily so. That said, in other cases, such as JK's recent edits on the Akaka Bill, I agree with some of his reversions that seem tendentious in the other direction. To both sides, I appeal to take a step back and try to assess what is a fair representation of historical fact and what is not. Arjuna 21:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned about your position that you are the only keeper of the "fundamental facts of history". The U.S. role is alleged, it is not fact, and your insistence on only allowing one POV to be presented is a violation of WP:NPOV. Neither of us can establish "historical fact", and neither of us should try to censor the POV we disagree with.

It would be just as reasonable for me to remove every mention of any U.S. role at all - my interpretation what you call "historical fact" is that they didn't have a role. But I have to admit that some people have alleged that they did. Please, reconsider your position Arjuna, you are an intelligent person with a lot to contribute here, but I think you've hit a wall in your understanding of WP:NPOV.

Mahalo. --JereKrischel 16:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

JK, wow. I respect you as an intelligent person, but you seem to be having a serious lapse in the ability to judge fact from interpretation in this matter. I don't know how many times or ways I have to say it, but that the U.S. played a role simply by fact of sending troops to the palace means that there was a U.S. role. Forget about whether there was a conspiracy with the Committee of Safety (there was, but that is certainly more ambigious and I would agree that presentation of that material is much more complicated). This issue is not. It's a no-brainer. The very fact that U.S. troops were deployed, and that their presence was decisive in intimidating the Royalists means that there was a U.S. role in the overthrow. Period. Seriously, I'm losing my patience here since there is no other way a reasonable person can interpret the facts. You are an intelligent man, and I think you also have something to contribute to the article in keeping it free of the other extreme viewpoint, but take a step back from the hole you have dug here. Your position is just wrong JK. I'm sorry, but let's take it to the Wiki people if you want. Until then, I will just keep reverting your edits. Aloha. Arjuna 18:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai, Arjuna, but I'm not asserting "fact" - you are. I'm asserting that we both have differing interpretations of the historical record, and both are valuable and justifiable. Censoring one of them because you don't believe it in isn't appropriate, even if you believe that anyone who believes other than you do has no brains.

I'm sorry you've lost your patience, and hope you take some time to think about your motives and motivations here before engaging in more destructive behavior. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 21:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

JK, be serious. Yes, I've lost my patience given that you seem to be unamenable to rational understanding of what constitutes a fact versus an ideologically based interpretation. And it's quite rich for you to assert that I'm the one engaging in "destructive" behavior. Alas, I think the shoe is on the other foot. I think this is a case of an attempt at rhetorical intimidation that is getting the best of sound judgement. It won't work on me. I will be happy to bring this to the attention of the Misplaced Pages authorities, and if you continue to revert the sound NPOV position, that is exactly what I will do. But feel free to start the process yourself. Aloha. Arjuna 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna, I'm sorry you cannot open your mind to the idea that your interpretation may also be ideologically based. I have reported you for violating WP:3RR, and will handle your edit-warring through the proper channels. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

Aloha all, and thanks again to Viriditas for agreeing to help mediate this disagreement, which is not just on History of Hawaii, but also Native Hawaiians, Kingdom of Hawaii, and Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement. On the other hand, although there are several disagreements, I think the main sticking point is over whether the term "alleged" needs to preceed the phrase "U.S. role ". As background, my position is that regardless of whether one agrees that there was a conspiratorial role played by U.S. agents (this issue is admittedly -- by its very nature -- more murky and both sides of the argument should be presented), it is undeniable that by the very fact that U.S. troops were landed, the U.S. "had a role". This role is further demonstrated by the fact that the U.S. troops in front of the palace had the effect -- whether or not this was intended -- of intimidating the Royalists. So, my position is that adding "alleged" is non-sensical and demonstrably erroneous. JK wrote the U.S. troops "presence was designed to comfort American non-combatants, and that only as an unintended side effect did they intimidate" and that therefore, there was no U.S. role in the overthrow. I do not intend to misrepresent JK's position on this, but this is how I understand what he is saying, and I encourage him to correct me if I am wrong.

In general, I'm concerned that JK's edits are generally of an insidious nature in pushing a particular tendentious POV, in which he uses subtle qualifiers, distortions, and half-truths to create an overall inaccurate representation of the accepted facts. I am no radical on these issues; I simply think it is unacceptable to misrepresent the basic facts of history -- which is how I see it. I am happy to provide examples if you like, but obviously you can see and judge for yourself.

Btw, I apologize to all parties for inadvertently breaking the 3RR rule, for which JK rightly reported me. I simply wasn't paying attention and should have been more careful -- won't happen again! In any event, I'm sure there are several possible ways out of this apparent impasse, and for your help in mediating these disagreements, thanks very much in advance. Mahalo. Arjuna 04:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of the basics Arjuna lays out - it is fact that the U.S. peacekeepers landed during the interregnum preceding the Hawaiian Revolution of 1893. However, I strongly disagree with his conclusion that this fact unerringly leads to the statement that the U.S. had a "role" in the overthrow, and further contest PL103-150 as being accurate in describing any "role" that may have been played.

Arjuna mentions "U.S. troops in front of the palace" - they were in fact bivouacked in Arion Hall, which was blocked by the Opera House of any view of the Palace. He also mentions "intimidation" of the Royalists without understanding that this is also a disputed point - there is strong argument made that Royalists had nothing to fear from the U.S., as such peacekeeping missions had occurred several times before, including in 1874 during riots over Kalakaua's corrupt ascension to the throne over Queen Emma, and in 1889 during a revolution against Kalakaua in favor of Liliuokalani conducted by Robert Wilcox. In both cases, U.S. peacekeepers remained scrupulously neutral. Although Queen Liliuokalani, and her lawyer Neumann tried very hard to repeat the play of the Paulet affair in 1843, by purposefully drawing in the U.S. into the issue, their protests ring pretty hollow - why would the Queen surrender to the U.S., but deliver the message to the Provisional Government?

A reasonable view, which Arjuna may disagree with, is that the Queen simply did not have the support to resist the Committee of Safety, and the Royalists weren't intimidated by the U.S. peacekeepers, but demoralized by their fractured leadership - the Queen's own, handpicked cabinet (used to pass the opium and lottery bills), turned on her and refused to aid her in her plan to promulgate a new constitution. They were the ones who left the palace, to warn the Reform party folk, in fear of their lives due to the Queen's wrath. When the whole thing came crumbling down, and the over-eager Minister Stevens hastily recognized the Provisional Government (as did all the other nations with representatives in the islands), there is no doubt that the Queen felt intimidated by the ready acceptance of the international community of the new government, but to say that the U.S. peacekeepers had any functional role is to give too much credit to 162 marines, and too little credit to 1500 Honolulu Rifles members.

My primary concern is this - in much the way that Arjuna uses the word "insidious", I feel that there has been an insidious effort to overstate any role U.S. peacekeepers may have played in the Hawaiian Revolution, and believe PL103-150 is a particularly egregious example of that. There must be some way for us to accurately report that PL103-150 (a symbolic bill that had no real debate or investigation as to the accuracy of its contents) regards the U.S. role as "unambigious", and that other bi-partisan investigations and well respected historians (the Morgan Report of 1894, the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report of 1983, Kuykendall, Daws and Andrade) regard the U.S. role in the Hawaiian Revolution as incidental and over-hyped by royalists.

As an example of what I find particularly "insidious" is phrasing like this:

This resolution explicitly apologized "to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893... and the deprivation of the rights of Native Hawaiians to self-determination."

This is misleading - it presents the whereas clauses as abjectly factual, rather than disputed (Certainly Native Hawaiians have only increased in self-determination since annexation and statehood - the 1900 Organic act provided voting rights to more Native Hawaiians than ever before in the islands). A better formulation may be something to the effect of "This resolution stated, ...", but any neutral formulation must certainly include the fact that PL103-150 is disputed from a historical basis, and cannot be presented as the only, or the definitive POV.

If there is going to be a statement that PL103-150 "apologized for the U.S. role in the overthrow", we need to find a way to make sure that this doesn't prejudge whether or not it is was either an appropriate or accurate apology.

Let me give another recent example where a bill with whereas clauses, contradicted by the historical record, is close to passage: HCR82 in 2007 for the Hawaii Legislature has passed the house and looks like it will pass the senate. It states,

WHEREAS, in a proclamation dated February 25, 1894, President Cleveland declared that "April 30 be set aside as a day of solemn fasting, and prayer for the injustice to me and my great good sister for her speedy return to the throne";

This is completely false - Grover Cleveland never wrote any such proclamation. Originally cited by Helena G. Allen in her book, "The Betrayal of Liliuokalani", she quoted the New York Sun, February 26, 1894 - incorrectly. The New York Sun article actually declared April 1 of every year be set aside as "a day of solemn fasting". It was preceded by an letter to the Senate, attributed to Cleveland, demanding that the Senate be abolished and all its powers given to the executive. It has since been picked up by sovereignty groups, repeated over and over, and even inspired some to make pilgrimages to Cleveland's grave on April 30th. (You can see scans of the original article misquoted by Allen here).

PL103-150 ranks in my book about the same as HCR82 - it is a twisted, distorted report of history, with whereas clauses that are either misleading or blatantly false. I have no argument with including mention of PL103-150, but I strongly believe that if simply stated without qualification it misleads the reader into believe that it is an accurate portrayal of the historical record. --JereKrischel 05:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See this for clarification. Arjuna 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're making some fairly good progress on that page, but we still have to work out a better way to deal with specific sentences, once we've established what we think the positions are. I've outlined a proposal on the Talk:Blount Report page, where we can take turns presenting evidence, and leaving it to the other person to characterize it - perhaps this will be the best way of moving forward. --JereKrischel 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I regret to say that I do not think that working "in tandem" will be productive strategy as I question your good faith, among other things. Rather, following the matrix and then having third parties assess the evidence based on citations is likely to be the only way forward. Arjuna 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As you work towards WP:AGF, hopefully the point will come when you do feel like working together. If for now we require third parties to mediate between us, I am perfectly fine with that. You react much better to other people at this point, and I'm sure that will help move us forward. I continue to believe in your good faith, even if your recent edits have not shown it. --JereKrischel 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I removed the links to Morgan Report and Conklin website because 1. this is undue weight to POV material; and 2. these links have been already been placed in several Hawaii history-related articles even when they are marginally relevant to the context of the article. Misplaced Pages is not a link farm. Arjuna 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgan report seems pretty important as a primary resource, given the discussion of the Hawaiian Revolution, as does the Thurston Twigg-Smith publication (it's not Conklin, btw). I could just replace them as direct refs if you feel that would be more appropriate - "External Links" might just be a crutch at this point, and what we should do is inline "ref" these sources. Your further thoughts are welcome. --JereKrischel 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed them again. It is fine if you can use them as citations, as long as the material they reference is non-POV and does not violate WP:UNDUE. I suspect this may be a challenge for you. Arjuna 19:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've appropriately placed them as citations. Again, please refrain from personal attacks - implying that it would be a challenge for me to constructively contribute to the text by providing useful and appropriate references does not help move the process forward. Your future restraint, again, is greatly appreciated. --JereKrischel 06:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

JK, you're supposed to link directly to the book page (p.88) and cite it as Thurston-Twigg Smith's book, not as a link to hawaiimatters.com. —Viriditas | Talk 02:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Cited. —Viriditas | Talk 02:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Viriditas. It seems your help could be used in calming down an edit war brewing between Arjuna and myself again. Would you be willing again to help mediate? I'm concerned that we're no longer engaging in discussion, and have only been able to revert each other fairly consistently. I'm trying to engage him, but it appears that non-wikipedia remarks that I've made comparing hawaiian sovereignty activists and specific race-based agendas to nazism and apartheid have offended him in such a way that he is unable to continue discussion with me. Your kokua is appreciated. --JereKrischel 08:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Viriditas, yes, your help is requested. I'm afraid JK has neglected to mention that he has made wholescale reverts to my very careful (and meticulously cited) additions and revisions to various articles. In addition, apparently he contests the very definition of "overthrow", arguing that the events of 1893 were not such, but rather a "change in government". Needless to say, such an assertion violates not just WP:OR, but basic common sense, but seems to be indicative of a certain thought process. Unfortunately, JK seems to feel he owns not only the articles, but evidently, the Webster dictionary as well. Though tedious, a look at ] may be instructive. In short, I do not believe I can work with such a person. Mahalo in advance for your help. Arjuna 08:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It unfortunate that you chose to interpret my remarks the way you did. The "challenge" referred to my assertion that use of those POV sites as references to non-POV material may be a challenging task. Arjuna 09:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It amazes me that a report written by a segregationist during the Manifest Destiny era provides a basis for the arguments of "civil rights activists."Eekadog 00:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is interesting, isn't it? It's almost as though.... Arjuna 00:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eekadog - you may note that Morgan, a segregationist during the Manifest Destiny era, was actually bucking his party and joining in with abolitionists in his opinion. Although it is difficult to remember in today's political stage, Republicans were the ones who freed the slaves, and Democrats were the ones who tried to keep them. And although there were certainly racist tendencies, beliefs and statements made by both Blount and Morgan, these were a factor of the times, and does not impugn their ability to investigate or report on the Hawaiian Revolution.

And Arjuna, wouldn't you consider the propaganda put out by sovereignty activists just as "POV" material as any repudiation of their arguments? I think we can both admit that any material in this controversy is going to seem POV, if only because it bolsters one side over the other. A strong argument can be made that Hawaiian Sovereignty:Do the facts matter? is in fact a NPOV adjustment to the past 30 years of historical revisionism by folks like Noenoe, Allen and others don't you think? --JereKrischel 05:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If Blount's ability cannot be impugned, why do you give his report such short shrift and hold Morgan's report so highly?

Morgan was an expansionist, what other conclusions would he have had? When the marines landed to "protect the lives of American citizens" what do you think would have happened if the royalists started fighting the American citizens? It's a pity that Robert Wilcox didn't write a report?Eekadog 06:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Blount's ability is not impugned by his racist tendencies, and neither is his report. It is impugned because of the fact that the testimony he collected was not under oath or cross examination, and was recanted by witnesses when they were confronted with their lies. It is impugned because when further investigation gave an bi-partisan treatment to it, it was found to be lacking.

As for Robert Wilcox writing a report, here is what he actually said :

"INTERVIEW OF R. W. WILCOX WITH R. R. HOES, HONOLULU, JANUARY 27, 1893.
"What are your views, Mr. Wilcox, in regard to the present situation in general?
"Queen Liliuokalani brought these evils upon herself and the country both by her personal
corruption, and that of her Government. She surrounded herself with bad advisers, and seemed 
determined to drive the nation to destruction. Good people had no influence over her whatever, for 
she indignantly refused to listen to them. I believe that if we can be annexed to the United States,
the rights of all of our citizens, and especially those of the native Hawaiians, will be protected 
more carefully than they have ever been under the monarchy.
"What, in your opinion, is the personal feeling of the native Hawaiian element in this community?
"My countrymen, with the exception of the most intelligent among them, do not understand much about 
these things. They need to be educated. They have so often been told by designing men that the 
United States was their enemy that they are naturally suspicious. Politicians who have sought to use
 the natives simply as so many tools have deceived them. When they understand from the lips of 
disinterested men and patriots what annexation means, and become acquainted with the benefits that 
it will bring them, they will be as much in favor of the movement as any of our other classes of 
citizens.
"Does the present Provisional Government command the respect of the native Hawaiians?
"They are naturally somewhat prejudiced against it, as monarchy is the only form of Government with 
which they are familiar, but this feeling will quickly wear away as the Hawaiians are led to see 
that the Government is friendly to them and their interests. They already have confidence in the 
integrity and patriotism of President Dole.
"You advocated annexation to the United States, I believe, several months ago, in your newspaper, 
'The Liberal?'
"Yes, and I have repeatedly done so in public meetings held in this city.
"How long do you think it would be after hoisting the American flag before the natives would be 
entirely reconciled?
"Almost immediately.
"Are you doing anything to instruct the natives so that they may have correct views in regard to 
these matters?
"Yes; but I am compelled to move cautiously or I shall lose my influence over them. I believe I am 
doing a good work by constantly conversing with them on the subject. I have told my countrymen that 
the monarchy is gone forever, and when they ask me what is the best thing to follow it I tell them 
annexation, and I firmly believe that in a very short time every Hawaiian will be in favor of that 
step. The great thing is to keep them from being influenced by the arguments of designing men who
pretend to be their friends, but who are really their enemies---- men who will try and use them as
tools to accomplish their own corrupt and selfish plans. We have had too much of this and it is high
time to call for a halt.
"Have you confidence in the integrity and patriotic intentions of the commission that has just been 
sent to Washington by the Provisional Government?
"It is made up of good men, and I believe they will endeavor to do what is for the best interests of
 the country.
"The above is correctly reported. "
"R .W. WILCOX."

Now that you've read what Wilcox, Hawaiian Rebel and Hero and first Congressional Representative said, are you willing to change your mind? --JereKrischel 01:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps those witnesses in the Blount Report were "convinced" to change their minds. I'm guessing that you have examples of recanted testimony so please post them. About the Wilcox interview: thanks for posting it, it was educational. However, actions speak louder than words, right? Apparently, he was disgusted by the bayonet government, its constitution, and its successor enough to be the namesake of two rebellions. I think its safe to say that while may have been pro annexation he wasn't pro overthrow (he used the word "evils"). Have I changed my mind, with regards to the Morgan Report and the marines? I think you know the answer. Eekadog 12:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha eekadog, I'm glad I could provide something educational for you. For more information about Robert Wilcox, the best reference is "Unconquerable Rebel", by Ernest Andrade. It is a very good book covering both his life, and the period between the Hawaiian Revolution, and the Territory of Hawaii period. He did participate in an 1889 attempt to overthrow Kalakaua and place Liliuokalani on the throne, and he also participated towards the end during the rebellion of 1895 against the Republic of Hawaii, but if you ever learn anything about Robert Wilcox, it will be that he changed his mind often and was most interested in working with who he thought could provide him with political power and advantage. In the end, he was very much in favor of Hawaii being a part of the United states, as was Liliuokalani in her later years. The fervor of anti-annexation sentiment from the royalists burned from luke-warm to mildly hot from 1893-1900, but as soon as the Organic Act gave universal suffrage to all native Hawaiians, such sentiment disappeared until the late 1970s and the desire to cash in for reparations the way the Native Alaskans did. Charlie Maxwell was one of the key folk in trying to get to that cash cow, but there truly is no continuity or even the slightest reality of connection between the anti-annexation petitions of 1898, and the modern sovereignty movement.

As for recanted testimony, Oleson testifies about Dr. Trousseau on page 872 of the Morgan Report, providing a recant of testimony that Trousseau gave to Blount, in which he insisted he had first hand knowledge of a conspiracy between Stevens and the annexationists. The retractions are printed on page 874-875. There are other recants I can provide reference for if you'd like, but the whole Morgan Report is available online for your own study if you'd like at http://morganreport.org, including the original scanned images of the report (so you don't have to simply trust the copyediting of the OCR program).

The story of the Hawaiian Revolution is a very interesting one, with character faults on all sides - but I believe the current debate over it is often reduced to a simplistic proxy which doesn't truly reflect the situation at the time, or after the 1900 Organic Act. Nevertheless, I must continue to have hope that even the most ardent sovereignty activists will have a change of heart, since all of the royalists from 1893 did after less than 10 years...maybe nowadays it just takes longer for people to get over things. --JereKrischel 04:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Jere...had the Hawaiian renaissance of the 70s not happened the Navy would still be bombing Kahoolawe, there would be no Hokulea or Punana Leo, the Hawaiian language would be on its deathbed, Hawaiian Homelands would just be a longer waiting list (Congress approved that act just like the Morgan Report), and Hawaiian burials would be more likely to be crushed instead of stored for reburial. You have noted that some if not most Hawaiians were eventually pro annexation but please, don't forget that the haole gentlemen who were the first Bishop Estate Trustees admitted only Hawaiian children. Eekadog 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt eekadog - I'm all about celebrating the cultural achievements of the Hawaiian Renaissance - I'm just not too keen about making them racially exclusive. My dad sailed with the hokulea to Tahiti in the 80s, and got to come aboard during the voyage, and celebrate the landing and spiritual greetings in tahiti for the crew. FWIW, he's 100% portuguese, but local roots back to the 1870s. I even know two haole guys who speak olelo Hawaii fluently, one of them a Ph.D. in olelo Hawaii. I'm a bit suspicious about the Hawaiian Homelands and racial exclusion at KSBE (note, both of those great ideas came from arguably racist haoles, though Kuhio fought for DHHL too), because I think opening up DHHL to real homesteaders who wanted to farm the land would probably be better, or just giving the land away fee-simple to 50%+ers, just to get it done and over with. But all in all, the sad legacy of the Hawaiian Renaissance today is a mixed bag. I'm hoping that with time we'll keep the good parts of that cultural resurgence, and get rid of the racially exclusionary parts of it. --JereKrischel 23:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think I know which Ph.D. you're talking about. Is he the guy that you hear on the bus "Beretania and Keeaumoku, Major Transfer Point?"....Giving the land away and ending DHHL would be a great idea. I can't stand the folks that get the plot and then complain about paying utilities. As for the KS preference and the renaissance having a sad legacy, I will have to respectfully disagree. Where were the lawsuits when it was just a POOR Hawaiian school?

I respect your stand on KS - you're right, it wasn't lawsuit ridden when it was just a poor Hawaiian school...but neither was there any major outcry when the children of non-kanaka maoli teachers and employees got to go there for free back in the day. What they should do with it is charge full tuition to anyone who can pass the tests, and reserve like, 25-30% of the spots for scholarship cases, and then have scholarships go to the neediest, with kanaka maoli ancestry counting as a factor, but not as a exclusive one. Since the latest statistics that get pounded around show part kanaka maoli as being on the bottom of a bunch of demographic categories, for sure they'll be more qualified applicants from that pool than anywhere else. Oh yeah, and the 25-30% scholarship cases, no testing required. The moment you demand specific academic skills, you're gonna get nothing but toe-nail hawaiians that are whiter and richer than most everyone else in the islands. Now, one day, it may be that mostly filipinos or tongans or even poor white trash get the majority of the scholarships - but that will only be if they are the neediest people. In the meantime, you keep the school's focus on hawaiian culture, celestial navigation, and hawaiian language, for everyone. KS is a great institution (Broken Trust debacle aside). I just hope it evolves into the penultimate Hawaiian institution of learning, not just a native Hawaiian institution of learning. Anyway, good to hear your mana'o, eekadog - I can tell it comes from the heart. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stating that rich, white "toe-nail hawaiians" would be the only children attending the school with specific academic testing seems like a biased statement, suggesting that higher Hawaiian blood quantum correlates to lower intelligence. What KS needs to do is to figure out how to build more schools for Hawaiians until the time comes that such stereotypes are no longer in existence.Eekadog 23:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not meant to be biased, nor is it meant to assert a correlation with blood quantum and intelligence - a high percentage of high quantum native Hawaiians live in poverty. Poverty reduces academic ability. Why are they in poverty? Certainly their genetics have nothing to do with it. If anything, the reasons for poverty are cultural and economic - without skills to get good jobs, the cycle can continue, and without a culture that emphasizes academic learning, those skills cannot be obtained. The answer? Well, first off, basic literacy needs dramatic improvement (for all of those in poverty in Hawaii, regardless of blood). The "local" culture also needs some serious adjustment, since it's demonization of people who seem too "haole" (i.e., do well academically, speak proper english, etc), only serves to hold them back. Building more schools is great, but they should be for all Hawaiians who are impoverished. --JereKrischel 01:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Eekadog reverts

Eekadog, would you mind elaborating a bit on your rationale for reverting my recent edits? Perhaps if you have specific concerns, we can work together on compromises. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 06:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

JK, I believe that it is incorrect that you continue to lay the sole blame of the bayonet constitution on TTS' depiction of Kalakaua. I think the verbage that was already there is more than fair. Currently, it does not even address that Kalakaua's government was injured by the sugar oligarchy. In your heart of hearts you can not possibly believe that the intentions of those writing the bayonet constitution were 100% altruistic. I do not like your next edit because it removes the negative aspects of the 1887 constitution. In the next edit I think that while it is important to mention that the individuals were kingdom subjects it is also important to mention that many were dual citizens who may have remained more loyal to the US than to the kingdom government. Also, are you suggesting that the Committee of Safety (formed by the Hawaiian (Annexation) League) was not aiming to depose the Queen in the coup. If I recall correctly the Queen was made to step down. There was no Bayonet Constitution II. I find your edits of the Akaka Bill section POV. I feel that we should leave the first sentence of that paragraph as Arjuna had it written. You can develop the second sentence as a summary of what the critics think to balance it out. What's written now is

Sentence 1: What the critics think the bill says.

Sentence 2: What the critics think about the bill.

Eekadog 18:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha all. I don't have much time now (going down to have some fun at the beach and watch F-16s!) to comment in detail, but I agree with Eekadog's points. JK, I think your edits were POV pushing and that what E and I added were only trying to bring things back -- a little -- to the center. We could (and perhaps will) go much further. The wording as it is now is at minimum to keep an NPOV. Cheers, Arjuna 22:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering why we're trying to remove cited information and material - on the specific points eekadog mentions, I'm sure we can find some compromise language. For example, removing a good cite to Twigg-Smith seems like censorship of an opposing view. Russ also shares Twigg-Smith's view of the corruption of Kalakaua, and King Spreckels, and Walter Gibson. Do you have any cites about Kalakaua's government being injured by a "sugar oligarchy"? Wasn't Claus Spreckels, the sugar baron, the great ally of Kalakaua?? Anyway, I'd be more than happy to put more citations in there if you have them, but removing good citations seems like a bad direction to go. --JereKrischel 03:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

JK, I don't have time to get into this fully right now, or indeed, to go back specifically and re-revert (which would be justified as there is now a consensus of 2 to 1. But basically, the fact that there are citations is irrelevant. The fact that a POV push is cited doesn't make it any less POV. More soon. Cheers, Arjuna 05:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai, no offense intended, but I think maybe we need to review WP:NPOV. Just because a citation has a certain POV, does not mean that we cannot cite it in an NPOV manner. See WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements, for example. If we both shot out of the water any citations that cited expert opinion, one way or the other, we'd probably have a pretty thin article. We get to NPOV by attributing statements, so that even if one side finds them biased, we are clear that the statement is not fact, but a statement attributed to a specific person or reference.

I get all itchy when instead of working on the tone of the citation, the citation is just wiped off the map. As we work to improve these articles, citations are probably the most important addition. Anyway, thanks for the comments, hope mine make sense too. c/m/t --JereKrischel 05:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. Obviously things should be cited, as appropriate and whenever possible, but pushing a POV and then cherry-picking citations out of context to "support" it is a modus operandi you have often used, so please pardon Eekadog and I if we are somewhat skeptical. Providing a citation is not license to POV push. If a citation is deleted, you may want to consider the fact that that was done for that reason. And at the very least, as I have pointed out before, editing an article is not "censorship". At worst, the charge could be "supression", but trust me we haven't even come close to that line -- the articles are still heavily POV in the other direction and no one is suggesting that the perspective you represent should not be mentioned at all, just that it should not be accorded the undue weight that it currently enjoys. Btw, being quite knowledgeable on the subject, you obviously know that your argument about Sprekels is a red herring, and you are (mis)using Russ in the way I was illustrating above. Sprekels was the notable exception, while the rest of the sugar elite were largely of similiar disposition in favor of annexation. There are numerous scholarly sources to support this view of the history -- start with La Croix. And finally, sorry, but TTS is NOT a scholar but rather an extreme partisan, and so is most certainly NOT as legitimate a source as others, including those whose views you object to in UH. Sorry, that just is not a viable line of argument. C/m/t, Arjuna 22:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Providing a citation is not a POV push, and Spreckels was not the "notable exception" - "The revolution was certainly not a sugar planters' revolution. Of the eight leading planters in the islands, three proved to be actively antagonistic to annexation - Spreckels, Davies, and Isenberg. Irwin preferred the old status in the islands and was away from Hawaii when the monarchy was overthrown. Evidence on Alexander is lacking, but his name is nowhere mentioned in the annals of the revolution. Baldwin opposed unconstitutional action until the last, then joined the annexationists because he felt the need for good government. Spalding, the only unreserved American annexationist among the planters, was out of the islands at the time. Young participated in the revolution, though not as one of the original promoters. Like Baldwin, he based his position on the need for stable government."

Could you give me a La Croix quote and cite? And have you read TTS? Honestly, does he come across a partisan? He provides good citations for his narrative, and is tremendously gentle compared to partisans coming out of UH manoa.

To avoid "cherry-picking", I think the only answer is to provide additional cites that may contradict each other - and providing full quotes so we can collaborate on how to characterize those quotes. Removing cites that don't agree with a specific POV is simply not acceptable, as per WP:NPOV - it is by specifically citing them that we remain NPOV, rather than simply stating things as fact without context. --JereKrischel 21:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: TTS. Surely you jest -- he is the definition of partisan, though it is perhaps telling that you feel he is not while UH scholars are. For LaCroix, you may wish to start here. Finally, WP:UNDUE trumps the argument you are trying to make, I'm afraid -- not all POVs are equal. The cites I removed were justified on the basis that they were pushing a POV. Again, the mere fact that POV statement/push is cited (the additions you so often make being quite the textbook examples of cherry-picking) does not legitimize it. This is elemental, and most unfortunate that you do not so recognize.

As for Viriditas' message, I couldn't agree more. If what it takes is taking this (and some of the other articles) to mediation, which I assume is what Viriditas means, I would support that if that's where we need to go to get the articles back to a NPOV. The current process of doing so is proving to be unnecessarily contentious and involving a high degree of nitpicking that is an utter waste of everyone's time. Arjuna 02:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't jest Arjuna. If you've read his book, he's hardly partisan - he reads more like your POV, if anything else. And certainly TTS isn't WP:UNDUE - I again refer to WP:NPOV#Attributing_and_substantiating_biased_statements, where even though you may feel his statements are biased, he represents a substantial and legitimate point of view, and the statements are attributed to him. --JereKrischel 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Folks, this has been going on for far too long. I'm going to ask all of you to try and work this out before I escalate this to the next level. —Viriditas | Talk 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

JK, the quotes that you recently added show that there were accusations of a bribery scandal but do not say anything about triggering. It seems questionable to blame the Bayonet Constitution on that one thing. Eekadog 23:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing on p44 of Unconquerable Rebel: "The opium scandal and the fragmentary news concerning the Samoan embassy led to unprecedented criticism and unrest by a political opposition that had by this time gone far beyond venting its dissatisfaction through political action.". I'll add that to the cite. --JereKrischel 21:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Naniwa

JK, your re-insertion of the Naniwa info is sophomoric. Do you really think this level of detail is justified in a general overview article on the "History of Hawaii"? Seriously? If you want to make the point that the provisional government was recognized withing 48 hours, that's fine and I have no problem with that. But just come out and say that, which would improve the article rather than reverting back to this nonsense. Arjuna 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverts part deux

1) "there is no evidence that such a threat existed" - citation please. There is ample evidence, including first hand testimony, that people felt threatened - to assert without qualification that those thoughts were simply unfounded could be just as easily said about ideas regarding the U.S. peacekeepers being "threatening", when no evidence exists that they acted in any threatening manner.

2) Why not leave the quote from Swinburne? Why paraphrase it? We cite the quote to the book on purpose.

3) What's the big deal about the naniwa? Why are people trying to remove that information?

4) Regardless of what the Akaka Bill calls itself, it is simply factual that no such ancestry based government ever existed in the Hawaiian Islands (remember, upon unification in 1810, the Kingdom was already multi-racial). To try and talk about "the single Native Hawaiian governing entity" is simply fictional - there never has been any such governing entity, ever, and neither has any such entity had any sort of "government-to-government" relationship with the U.S. - there is no continuity here (otherwise, they'd simply fall under the BIA criteria for tribal recognition). This proposed government is a completely new government, and you can't whitewash that. Mentioning that supporters make claims that it would simply affirm an existing relationship with a certain ancestry group is proper attribution - stating it as unvarnished fact is POV pushing.

Seriously guys, help me out here on the POV push slant - I can't see where you're coming from. I mean, c'mon Arjuna, I didn't use the word "race-based", or try to slant it any given way - we're being respectful and neutral in the version I'm proposing. --JereKrischel 06:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The text says, "the stated purpose of." Is it not an NPOV fact that the Akaka bill has that stated purpose? The critics sentence follows it immediately. Why are you so adamant about coloring the paragraph with your point of view?

If we want to get technical, why not consider the government prior to 1778 a loosely knit oligarchy composed of related ali'i.

Oligarchy - 1. a form of government in which all power is vested in a few persons or in a dominant class or clique; government by the few. (dictionary.com) Eekadog 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The government of the islands of Hawaii pre-1778 was one of warring chiefdoms. Trying to manufacture that into a "single governing entity" is a stretch - one might go so far as to assert that the entire world is a "single governing entity" of indigenous Africans in oligarchic form.

In that case, I know of one indigenous African who would argue that. Eekadog 01:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you're being sincere or sarcastic, or both. In any case, arguing that there was a "single governing entity" pre-1778 is novel, and definitely WP:OR. The Apology Resolution, which the Akaka Bill was built off of, claimed that this "single entity" was the Hawaiian Kingdom - they simply forgot to note that the Kingdom was not race-based, and decided only to apologize to a single minority ethnic group, out of all of the people who were part of the Kingdom in 1892. Finding the problems with this inconsistency is left as an exercise for the reader. --JereKrischel 01:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've put the quote from the Akaka Bill which states "the single", attributing it directly rather than stating it as fact. Hopefully that helps your concern - quoting the bill is fine with me, but putting in as editorial fact that there is "the single" is POV pushing. --JereKrischel 01:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Committee

E kala mai, I think leaving out the fact that the C of S requested the landing of troops is hewa. Eekadog 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have put in a quote and a cite from Russ, p77. I hope that satisfies your concern! --JereKrischel 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Specifics

Arjuna, please, don't revert well cited material. Eliminating cites to TTS, Russ and Kuykendall aren't rational. Can you explain your particular problem with those cites instead of reverting them? Maybe we can find a compromise. c/m/t --JereKrischel 13:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aloha

All you guys -- the edit warring I'm trying to follow (all over)is getting scary! I understand the need to react, believe me. But can we all chill out & up the aloha a little bit? I suspect that a lot of people might be close to burning out from that level of intensity. Having come from that place recently myself, I really want to ask everybody to do something happy for a moment and then come back. This does not minimize anyone's points at all -- some valid stuff is being discussed in terms of both content & approach. But I would like to see more aloha overall, on all sides. Is this possible? Aloha, --Laualoha 14:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Laualoha, thanks and I couldn't agree more. But how to do that given some of the dispositions involved? I've also called for people to just chill a little and not necessarily feel the need to revert immediately, but it didn't seem to work. JK is blocked for another 12 hours or so, and hopefully this "time out" will encourage everyone to take a deep breath and realize that the world isn't going to end if the version that one side doesn't like is up for a day before one feels the need to revert. This goes for both sides. (The whole revert thing is a big waste of time obviously, but we seem to be at a fundamental impasse in terms of how to fairly present the material.) I for one think that the only way is to bring in third parties with some general appreciation for the issues but without a personal dog in the fight. Your thoughts? Aloha, Arjuna 20:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to do, Arjuna, and I honestly don't blame you for your actions, having been frustrated in the same way many times. However, I also have to say that when "authorities" are called in (and I'm not saying this wasn't necessary -- that's your call, not mine), it can be very painful to the person on whom they were called, and doesn't tend to encourage cooperation. I do feel that some better standards of behavior need to be agreed on by all of us who work on these Hawai'i pages, since it's a real small group anyway. We all need to take responsibility for this, since we've all fucked up aloha-wise with our dealings with each other at one time or another. Personally, I think it would help for us to agree to a higher standard than WP policy amongst ourselves. For example, how about hand edits as opposed to reverts, no personal (or ideally even philosophical) attacks, give each other breaks & time as needed, etc. Obviously, details need to be worked out, and we're gonna backslide sometimes, but that's ok -- I think we can decide on a more functional plan of action if some part of our higher standard is broken. Being "busted" makes people feel angry, and can lead to increased aggressive or passive-aggressive behavior; this is not what I want to see. Or deal with myself! And since we all (yes, even Jere) seem to have some respect for and understanding of basic Hawaiian values and practice of aloha, I think we should use this to make things better as much as possible. That's just my mana'o. Aloha, --Laualoha 04:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Laualoha, I do appreciate them. I understand what you are saying and agree with it in principle, but at the same time: a. the 3RR rule is there for a reason: it's necessary to prevent total chaos -- not just on these articles, but Misplaced Pages-wide and b. I made an offer a week ago or more, and reiterated yesterday before all this happened, to JK whereby we would alert the other if they had gone over 3RR, and give them a chance to self-revert before the other reports them. JK did not respond to my offer, but I still honored my end. I gave him a heads-up that he was coming close to going over, and again when he did go over 3RR on not just one but two different articles. I alerted him again, on a couple of different talk pages, and also via an email to him. JK can confirm this (though apparently he didn't get the email until later). EVEN THEN, I may not have reported him had he not been rather defiant in his response. I felt little recourse was left but to report, because accountability is critical to civility too. My policy of warning with a chance to self-revert still holds, and though I hope it will be officially reciprocated by JK, it is a unconditional and I intend to honor it. Hopefully we won't get there again, but realistically we likely will at some point. So, I don't know what to say except that sometimes aloha only goes so far unfortunately, and then one has to expect and enforce accountability. JK and I have emailed each other last night after the dust settled, and I offered my sincere regrets but that I felt that I did what had to be done. He was very gracious in expressing no hard feelings. Again, my offer still holds to give the other a warning, even after they have gone past 3RR, and that offer is unconditional. I think that's pretty aloha without allowing people (not just JK, but anyone) to just do whatever they want here, which would be even worse than little sparks of bad vibes here and there. Hopefully even JK may agree with all of this, but I can't speak for him. My two cents is that I really think a neutral mediator without a dog in the fight would be really beneficial, so they can call bullshit on one side or another in a way that would be accepted. I've suggested this to a couple of people (I won't mention their names since I don't want to make them feel committed, but I think they are editors that JK might also accept as a fair). Anyway, many thanks for your thoughts and if you have other ideas on how to better improve the dynamic, that is definitely welcome and encouraged. Aloha, Arjuna 05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A quick P.S. For all our pugilism, JK and I actually have a bit of rapport via email, where we can (tongue in cheek) let loose with all sorts of cusswords towards each other and it's understood that it's funny and not to be taken seriously or personally. Rather refreshing actually. And about a year ago, I accidently went over 3RR, for which JK reported me. My attitude at the time -- and I give JK credit for showing the same to me in his email to me last night -- was "fair enough! I deserved it". JK is of the same caliber, I think, so I hear ya but I honestly don't think this is going to worsen the dynamic. May even help. Aloha, Arjuna 07:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I hear what you're saying, and I hope you're right! I would still like some behavior standards developed between all of us, though. I really believe in civil consensus, and I think we can do it. To me, when "laws" are invoked, it (not necessarily through anyone's fault) means that our human ability to solve problems on our own is not functioning as it should. I really believe we can do better for the future. Aloha wale no ke ala. Aloha,--Laualoha 08:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

A few things -

1) apologies for getting too scary Laualoha - me and arjuna snap and bite at each other, but it's mostly reflective of what kind of stresses are happening outside of wikipedia, and we've fought and made up enough times already not to get too worried when the sparks fly. The fact is, we spend too much time with each other to give up completely on the other. A dysfunctional relationship, perhaps, but one that has apparently been compelling enough for us keep at it for what must be running on years now.

2) arjuna shouldn't even be considering apologizing for holding me to 3RR - although I may have disagreed with his interpretation (I left an impassioned defense on my talk page for a reconsideration), his interpretation was accepted by the administrators who reviewed my edits, and I gratefully accept both their decision, and their consideration of my appeal. Enforcing 3RR *is* aloha, as far as I'm concerned, because it promotes an acceptance of rules on all sides.

3) If we're going to give out warnings, it should be before the 4th revert, not after. If I see 3 reverts, and I'm paying attention at all, I'll definitely leave a note as to the 3 reverts I think have already happened, and an indication when the 24 hour period will expire - but 4 reverts is a violation, and I encourage us all to hold ourselves strictly accountable to that. (I must say though, there should be a technical solution to this, like a big red banner that asks you "are you sure?" on your 4th revert in 24 hours...)

4) Not to disagree with Laualoha's point about "laws" being invoked, but I think 3RR has helped both Arjuna and I function here. We're both very passionate about our positions and beliefs, and being blocked for going over 3RR is actually a welcome opportunity to reflect, and frankly, relax. We both know that we're in it for the long haul. Without 3RR, I'm sure we could both be stubborn enough to hit "refresh...undo...refresh...undo...refresh..." for hours on end. Having limits helps us all keep some perspective.

Anyway, I thank you Laualoha for your kind words and again apologize if the discourse has appeared too emotional. I think the only reason why it happens is because I feel comfortable with Arjuna - comfortable enough to fight hard with him, and not be worried that there is a point of no return. c/m/t to you all, --JereKrischel 08:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay then -- I guess you guys get um! Geez, looked scary to me. Maybe it's one of those guy things I just don't get. Just kidding...well, sort of. Main thing is that everybody's ok. Aloha, --Laualoha 20:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)

"DISCOVERY" ¿¿COOK??

No references to spaniards Juan Gaytan who discovered Hawaii in 1555 or before Ruy López de Villalobos in 1543. Is incredible that today is totally acepted James Cook´s discover late to 1778, when hundred of spanish trader ships sail from Nueva España( Mexico) to Philipines every year since the 16th century. Hawaii´s island old spanish names: Los Monjes, Mesa, Desgraciada, Vezina are forgotten by anglo prejuices. There were old maps from 1580 with Hawaii painted. Surfers hello is old spanish way to demand drinks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.145.96.53 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering the traffic between Mexico and the Philipines, I think it is very likely that the Spanish made it to Hawaii in some form or another, but unfortunately the evidence is hard to come by. I've been looking though, and I'll keep adding information as I find it. Although I created the article for Juan Gaetano, I've temporarily removed it pending additional sources. For now, it's pretty fringe, but that could change. —Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

newly united Hawaiian Kingdom

Let me first preface my comments by stating that I know nothing about Hawaii, or its history, which is why I came to read this article. But I am a historian, and in terms of reading the narrative of this article, it strikes me that the use of 'newly united Hawaiian Kingdom' as a subject heading is an attempt by whoever inserted it to detract from Hawaii's status as an independent kingdom, and is putting an POV slant on it. When does a united kingdom stop being new? Five years? Ten? Fifty? Unless used in the immediate sense it is a subjective categorisation, and I think it would be better were it removed as a heading. Cripipper 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article so biased?!

I have read through the article and have noticed there is absolutely no Native Hawaiian primary source references. Its basically a history of Hawai'i without any Native Hawaiians directly speaking about their history. What about Queen Lili'uokalani's view on what happened to her? What about being fair and including the Haunani Kay-Trask's view since she she does have a PhD in American Studies? What about even Professor Francis Boyle, though he is not Native Hawaiian, he is also a professor and an accredited international law expert? This article reminds me of Hawaiian textbooks written in the 1940s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokulani78 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pick one to start with and I'll help out. —Viriditas | Talk 21:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As a historian with a degree emphasizing historiography, I see something here that's been played out many times, which is to dismiss "old" historical interpretations simply because they are not in line with a current group's interpretation of what is correct. "Reminding you of Hawaiian textbooks of the 1940s" is disingenuous in two ways: 1) There is no common perception of "textbooks in the 1940s", and 2) You have established no connection to what you apparently consider a common perception of them. One does not need to be Scandanavian to write about the Vikings, nor does one need to be Hawaiian to understand the feelings of the people there.

Coming to Wiki Hawaiian articles entirely by chance (choosing Random Article in the navigation) in the last couple hours, the bias I am struck by is yours, Hokulani78. Either you do not understand rules of capitalization, or you are making a political statement by capitalizing the "n" in "native Hawaiians". I.e., you are espousing the opinion of a group seeking to establish itself as having a special interest, with grievances (with an undefined community), etc. As someone who, up until now, had no part in this discussion, I don't appreciate being lumped in with whatever groups you think I represent.

You may, however, include me in this group: Those who are more interested in educating people about objective information than in making a political point.

67.169.127.166 (talk) 10:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not a "troll" comment, Viriditas. I've never read these articles before today, and to the best of my knowledge, don't know the contributors. I.e., I have no association or vested interest. Don't delete what I've written in Discussion again. The community can comment as they please.

67.169.127.166 (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• B-Class history articles
• Unknown-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• B-Class Hawaii articles
• Top-importance Hawaii articles
• WikiProject Hawaii articles