Talk:Arakaki v. State of Hawai'i

Need to cite sources
1. OHA election: 4th in a field of 20 sounds good, single-digit percentage might not sound so good. To be NPOV, present both angles. Source for exact vote totals?
 * I'll look up vote totals and make the change. --JereKrischel 17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Vote totals: http://www.hawaii.gov/elections/results/2000/general/00swgen4.htm --JereKrischel 18:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

2. "Aloha 4 All": Dr Conklin seems to identify himself as one of the original instigators here, so what supports the change saying that Mssrs Burgess and Twigg-Smith started it alone?


 * Ken Conklin specifically denied in an email being a founding member on any legal articles of incorporation, although he certainly is a major intellecutal contributor to the organization. I suppose we're dancing around what it means to be a "founding member" - do you think that the original wording is more appropriate?  How about "Conklin helped start Aloha for All, a 501(C)(3) non-profit corporation founded by Burgess, Twigg-Smith"? --17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture is very good. -- IslandGyrl 13:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Mahalo, JereKrischel, for the prompt response. That takes care of both points as far as I'm concerned.


 * Note that when we do fact-checking by contacting persons directly&mdash;and I have done / will be doing the same thing; e.g. in an e-mail to me, Prof Davianna McGregor denied having written the Apology Resolution, and I'll eventually get around to working on that article again&mdash;we are technically in violation of the verifiability policy. I think we're on safe ground because we're documenting things openly on the Talk page, the points are not that critical, and we might otherwise be unable to illuminate them at all. So I'm not objecting, but at some point someone else might: "How can I tell if you two really got those e-mails from Dr Conklin / Prof McGregor? And if you folks are that close to your respective subjects, can I trust either of you?" etc. In the meantime, though, "hele on"! -- IslandGyrl 10:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Very interesting point...I guess some of the things we do border on original research, but I think we're doing the right thing here. I can understand some of the impetus for the policy, but I think it could use some amendment...I'll have to ponder this for a while - I don't want to violate policy here, but I'm afraid that it's a bit easily gamed by people with access to "reputable publishers", and if anything wikipedia is a valuable alternative to the mainstream media. For example, The Hawai'i Reporter will probably publish just about anything Conklin submits, so if he wanted to assert something without proof (i.e., McGregor being the author of the apology resolution), he could do so in that forum.  And then McGregor could get the Advertiser (awfully pro-sovereignty usually) to publish her denial.  And back, and forth.  In a world where anyone can publish anything on a website, it's hard to discern what "reputable" means I suppose.  I not only enjoy the fact checking we've done, but I think it serves a very useful purpose.  I guess at the end it's all about trust, and although I can imagine you being skeptical of Conklin's claims of foundership of Aloha For All, and actually looking up the 503(c)(3) articles of incorporation to verify his denial, I think that process is a legitimate one.


 * Anyway, thanks for the pointer to that policy. I'll ponder it a bit more and try to adhere to the policy better.  Maybe there is some light for us in the WikiProject Fact and Reference Check? --JereKrischel 20:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Older items
Welcome, 67.49.166.229! I edited, but then decided to remove the following passage you added:


 * In 2004, Conklin after much pressure by the local press shared his views of Hawaiians and Hawai&lsquo;i. Conklin told a reporter, "Hawaiians although a friendly people could not govern themselves out of a paper bag." He then went on to say that Hawai&lsquo;i is "truly paradise, except for the racism towards the white man or haole, which the locals here commonly refer to me [as] with such disgust in their tone."


 * Conklin's views are very controversial in the state of Hawai&lsquo;i. One reason for this is that Conklin actually lives on the island of O&lsquo;ahu while he crusades for his cause.

The quotations in the first paragraph are going to need a verifiable citation of a source (newspaper article, etc.) if they are to be retained. And I admit I don't understand the point of the second paragraph; if I did I would have tried to find a more neutral phrasing than "crusades for his cause." It is a fact that Dr Conklin is controversial, but what does that have to do with his living on O‘ahu? In whose opinion does this connection exist? Is it relevant to the encyclopedia reader? -- IslandGyrl 18:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems like 67.49.166.229 has decided to vandalize this page with anti-gay homophobic rhetoric. 67.49.166.229, regardless of what your opinions on Conklin's positions, ad hominem attacks are not acceptable.  Please contribute according to The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. -- JereKrischel 17:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Eye On Conklin Site Suspect
The Eye on Conklin website purports to be part of "The Hawaiian Foundation, Inc.", which was "Officially becoming a non-profit organization in January 2005..." according to the site. A check of httpx://guidestar.org, listing non-profits yields nothing, a red flag for a sock puppet site. The only people behind it seem to be Lana Robbins and Frank Agostinelli, seen on this archive page: httpx://web.archive.org/web/20040518003141/httpx://www.eurasiancommunity.com/, who are linked to realhapas.com, which also claimed to be part of "The Hawaiian Foundation, Inc.". (the site dedicated to the proposition that hapa is only a term that should be used for part hawaiian people, not asian/caucasian mixes) A whois search reveals that all of these sites are actually registered by DomainsByProxy.com, further obscuring the source behind these works.

I would suggest that the suspect nature of the site kenconklin.com disqualifies it from being worth linking to. From the 5 pillars: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." --JereKrischel 03:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll notice I originally removed that whole set of anon edits including the link. Later I had second thoughts because of another WP guideline about trying to salvage useful content even from bad or blatantly-POV edits. No question the blog is dodgy and murky about its origins, though. So I concur, let's dump it. Whoever posted the link originally should find a balancing resource critical of Dr Conklin that is worthy of being taken seriously.
 * P.S. It would be nice to have (copyright-safe) pictures of Dr Conklin and Mr Burgess though. -- IslandGyrl 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why there is a battle of adding and deleting Eye on Conklin. Perhaps you are right though, that Eye on Conklin should not be in there.  I personally never saw a problem with it, nothing more than the author behind Eye on Conklin wanting to show a different perspective of Kenneth Conklin.  Also I don't know who Frank Agostinelli is but I suspect he has nothing to do with Eye on Conklin.  66.215.18.34 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the real problem is that Eye on Conklin does not show a different perspective, but merely attacks him personally. The current top article on that blog merely calls him a "deciever", and is nothing more than a vanity attack site.  If it was a site that responded in some way to his writings, or his assertions, rather than just attack him personally, it may be acceptable, but right now it is clearly not a "different perspective", it is a site dedicated to name-calling and personal attacks.  You may agree with these attacks, kalani, but they certainly have no place here at wikipedia.  --JereKrischel 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I would question Jere Krischel's ability to provide a neutral point of view regarding Ken Conklin. Considering that he has such a close working relationship with Ken Conklin on the Morgan Report web site for starters. Reading his comments above, it certainly does look like he will argue for the removal of any negative comments about Ken Conklin. While the Eye on Ken Conklin site does get personal, it also contains references to material that proves Ken Conklin wrong on some issues. Another site that may be worth including is at httpx://mauliauhonua.com/PaulsWordPress/index.php which comments on some of the writings of Ken Conklin, highlighting the errors. But if Jere Krischel continues to be active in writing on Ken Conklin here then there is no chance of any criticism of Ken Conklin appearing on Wikipedia, no matter how valid it may be. -- 66.133.242.199 02:32, 15 April 2006


 * The whole point of wikipedia is to give everyone a chance to strive for NPOV. If we were to disqualify people from editing the article on Ken Conklin because of bias shown in the world outside of Wikipedia, certainly people like Paul Arrighi wouldn't be qualified to write anything either.


 * Insofar as the Eye on Conklin reference to Paul's critique of Ken's claim that kanaka maoli should not be considered "indigenous", it is difficult to call that "highlighting the errors" - Paul's rhetoric is clearly primarily personal attack, with limited debate on the merits. He attributes the most negative motivations to Ken, and uses the slightest difference of dates (440AD versus 400AD) as a reason to condemn everything he says.  For example, Paul writes "Ken Conklin is mistaken in thinking that the loss of some aspects of a culture is a determinant in whether a people are indigenous or not.", but Paul does not reference any sort of reference to back up his claim.  In fact, Indigenous peoples shows a reference from the U.N. in 1972 that claims that indigenous people are those who today live more in conformity with their particular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country of which they now form part.


 * Criticism of Ken Conklin may be perfectly valid - but personal attacks are not. Unfortunately, those who oppose Conklin's ideas of racial equality have no other avenue to attack his ideas. --JereKrischel 19:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A predictable response from someone who only serves to promote Ken Conklin's activities rather than provide a neutral POV which is what I originally pointed out. So Jere maintains that as soon as a culture changes, then it is no longer indigenous? This debate would be better served by a third party looking at what Paul Arrighi has written and them deciding if they are personal attacks on Ken Conklin or a valid critique of Ken Conklin's writings. Despite that, I suspect that Jere would still remove any reference that is critical of Ken Conklin because of his bias towards Ken Conklin. -- 66.133.242.199 14:18, 15 April 2006


 * I did not maintain anything about what part culture played in the definition of "indigenous" - the U.N. did in 1972. Again, instead of addressing the merits of references, you attack the person making the reference.


 * You seem to have two issues here - you'd like to have baseless negative opinions of Ken Conklin's character given more weight, and you'd like to have alternate points of view regarding the arguments Ken Conklin makes on racial equality in Hawaii given more light. For the first issue, I think it is inappropriate to engage in personal attacks.  For the second issue, I think you have a strong showing of the alternate point of view in the article, Hawaiian sovereignty movement.


 * I'd be more than happy to hear a third party's opinion of Paul Arrighi's writings - I think that the personal nature and juvenile character of his attacks on Ken are self-evident, and that a neutral observer would be able to recognize that. If you'd like, we can ask for a third-party from the Mediation Cabal here.  --JereKrischel 22:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hard to understand your rationale on this, you state "He attributes the most negative motivations to Ken, and uses the slightest difference of dates (440AD versus 400AD) as a reason to condemn everything he says." When in the same topic Paul also states "Ken opens up with some rational information in the first two paragraphs, concerning the settlement of Hawaii by the Polynesians." and "Ken Conklin correctly states Indigenous people who have continuously maintained their cultural traditions as their primary and regular way of life clearly deserve special protection so they may continue doing so." So he is not condemning everything Ken says. What he does do is bring to light that Ken's claim that the Saxons tenure in England is longer than that of the Hawaiians in Hawaii is incorrect. Where Ken only provides one approximate date for the Hawaiians, Paul provides a date for the Saxons, with 3 references to provide a clearer picture which Ken does not do. This is hardly consistent with someone making a personal attack. -- 66.133.242.199 01:35, 16 April 2006


 * Actually, recent archaeology has shown that Ken's claim was correct - see this Advertiser article. The negative, personal attacks are in the flavor of: "In yet another example of his habit of distorting the truth".  Paul has taken an approximate date (400 AD), which has a range of error that includes his specific date (449 AD), and uses it to claim that Ken has a "habit of distorting the truth".  Regardless of the 49 year difference (new data indicates settlement of Hawaii between 800 and 1000 AD), that seems no reason to invalidate Ken's comparison to the Anglo-Saxons.


 * Paul has acutally published what is an opinion piece on the motivations of Ken, based on a single disagreement on the date of Anglo-Saxon presence in England versus kanaka maoli presence in Hawaii. His arguments are flimsy, clumsy, and thanks to the miracles of modern archaeology, his one factual disagreement with Ken is incorrect.


 * Paul's personal attacks continue with assertions that Ken "displays his intent at vilification of the Hawaiians". His disagreements with Ken (besides on the 400/449 AD date) are purely rhetorical, with no references at all.  I could go further if you'd like, and tear Paul's argument down point by point, but this probably isn't the proper forum...I'll tell you what, within the next week I'll post something at my blog responding to Paul's argument, and we can hash it out further there.  --JereKrischel 19:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

"His disagreements with Ken (besides on the 400/449 AD date) are purely rhetorical, with no references at all." Only if you consider The Morgan Report, Gavin Daws, Attorney General Ashford, Hawaiian Kingdom Legislature Education Committee and Maui News amongst other references that he cites as not references. So what you are saying that Ken Conklin's item on the indigenous status of the Hawaiians is correct despite the fact that it contains no references at all while Paul Arrighi's item is incorrect and it does contain some references. This gets back to my original issue, you only seek to promote Ken Conklin's activities and because of your close working relationship with him provide a very biased entry on Ken Conklin whether you will admit to it or not. Regretfully such situations devalue the importance of Wikipedia as a neutral source of information. -- 66.133.242.19914:51, 16 April 2006


 * Did you read what Paul wrote? His attack on Sanford Dole hardly relied at all upon the few references he made...he also seems to make the mistake of asserting that the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii were not internationally recognized, based on his own interpretation of the authority conferred to the diplomatic corps from other nations in Hawaii.  And again, Paul concentrates on unfounded, personal attacks, with "Sanford Dole does tower above all others in Hawaiian history, few have achieved his level as a scoundrel, thief or a liar."


 * I'm not promoting any of Ken's activities here at all - the article on Ken is clear, sympathetic, and neutral in tone. It does not claim that he is 100% right on every issue he speaks to, nor does it assert that his arguments are invulnerable to critique.  That being said, your desire to add personal attacks to the article on Ken Conklin seems to devalue your potential contribution to Wikipedia. --JereKrischel 04:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The personal attacks that you claim exist are just your opinion, one that is undeniably biased towards Ken Conklin, despite this you overlook that Paul does agree with Ken Conklin on some points as I have shown above. Again at least Paul does cite some references, something that Ken's article on the indigenous status of Hawaiians fails to do even once. But it is notable that you diligently remove any comments or links to sites that are contarary to Ken's and your views to the point that I think this item should be removed from Wikipedia. -- 66.133.242.199 23:15, 16 April 2006


 * First note, please attribute your comments with:

--~


 * Second of all, I do not diligently remove comments or links to sites that are contrary to my views - the Hawaiian sovereignty page contains links to many groups I completely disagree with, and I help maintain that page diligently. What is notable is that I diligently remove personal attacks, and strive for NPOV articles.


 * Regarding the article on Ken Conklin, I'll have you note that it was originally posted by IslandGyrl, who is very pro-sovereignty, and that the version that exists today is largely unchanged from her original article. The fact that the article does not include baseless personal attacks accusing Ken Conklin of racism does not mean it is pushing any POV - in fact, it is a rather dry assessment of his political career and activist work.


 * There is no reason for this article to be removed from Wikipedia, and there certainly is no reason to include personal attack blog links in the article. The article on Ken Conklin does not push his POV, it merely describes, in a neutral manner, what his point of view is, and his historical significance to the debate over hawaiian sovereignty.  It does not say he is correct, accurate, or definitive.  Please read Neutral point of view for more information regarding NPOV. --JereKrischel 08:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Controversial"
JK, your hair-splitting about whether or not C's assertions are controversial are nothing short of hilarious. I am not going to revert now, but will give you a chance to recover whatever shred of decency and common sense you may have left. Arjuna 09:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Arjuna, you can't quote people out of context. If you want to find a source that asserts that he is  controversially "accusing those within it of preaching racism and apartheid", find the source.  Don't just find a page with "controversial" and his name on it.


 * Would you like help finding a negative review of Conklin? Seriously, in good faith, I can go look for one further (simple google does not find any reliable reference that uses the word "controversial" - of course, you gotta ignore cousin Lana'a blogs), but you just can't throw in "controversial" because it suits you. --JereKrischel 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

JK, be serious. You are simply trying to waste my time, not to mention mis-using the entire notion of citations. I think any other person with a modicum of common sense would agree that if Ken Conklin himself acknowledges that his class at UH on these issues was controversial, then his assertion that Hawaiian Sovereignty people "are practicing racism and seeking apartheid", then gee -- that might also, just barely, maybe, perhaps, under such conditions as say EVERYWHERE, also be considered, at minimum, "controversial". I could easily insist on the more accurate qualifier of "incendiary", but have been trying to be reasonable and simply use "controversial". Use your head! And stop overzealously trying to protect your friend. (Does he pay you for this service?) There might even be some Wikipedia guideline on what's going on here. Do you really think your efforts on this will hold up to outside scrutiny? Really? I think you're just trying to make me jump through hoops at this point, and I'm not going to. "Controversial" is a reasonable description of Conklin, it's not editorializing, and you know it as well as I do. So if you want to find a bloody citation, you go for it mate. Failing that, I will begin reverts when I'm free of the 24 hour window. Cheers, Arjuna 19:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, arjuna, I'm not trying to waste your time - I'm trying to improve the article. Ken's class on Hawaiian Sovereignty is not identical to asserting that pro-sovereignty people are "practicing racism and seeking apartheid".  Making the stretch that because his class was self-described as "controversial" to asserting that his criticism of pro-sovereignty folks as "practicing racism and seeking apartheid" is controversial is beyond WP:OR.


 * Second, no, I'm not paid for my contributions to Wikipedia, and I assume you aren't either, so let's start by acknowledging that we're both good hearted volunteers here trying to work together.


 * Third, I think you may misunderstand 3RR - 3RR means you can do up to 3 reverts in 24 hours, not that the 3rd revert is a violation. The 4th revert is.  I know, I know, this doesn't help my cause to inform you that you're limiting yourself arbitrarily, but I thought it important to point out to you in the spirit of full disclosure.  So feel free to revert 3 times every 24 hours, and I'll do the same.


 * Anyway, pretty please, with sugar on top, find a cite. If he is as patently controversial as you seem to believe, it shouldn't be hard for you to find a magazine or newspaper article to that effect. c/m/t --JereKrischel 20:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting kinda overheated. The discussion about 3RR is not good you guys; it sounds like threats on both sides and I don't want this to be a standard that we all have to live with. Jere, can you give the specific reason you don't like the word "controversial"? I guess I'm thinking that something is controversial if some people disagree strongly with it. I might be missing something, but the only angle by which I could see that KC could not be viewed as "controversial" would be to say that the guy is so far out there on some things that nobody, even the rest of the GRIH/AFA crew, agree with him. And to me, this is quite plausible -- at least I hope that it is! To illustrate what I mean, try look at this link:. It clearly shows that there is indeed controversy with KC's position, and includes a link to KHNL footage that gives a visual picture of the controversy. It also shows KC trying to physically bite Auntie Terri Keko'olani's finger off, which is what I mean by him perhaps being a little extreme for even the GRIH team. I myself have more footage like that, but I guess that's OR? My point is that it could indeed be said that some of KC's viewpoints and behavior are so far out that it may indeed be wrong to call them controversial. But I'm not sure that that's what you mean, Jere. One way or another, let's have some more aloha in all this. Pretty please, but no sugar (nuff of that already). Somebody reminded me of the importance of this recently, and it was good advice. Aloha,-- Laualoha 20:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 06:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Conklin doctorate
An anonymous user claimed that a search of the UM Dissertation database showed no recored of a Kenneth R. Conklin writing a dissertation. Another user reverted that edit. Conklin does indeed appear to have a doctorate according to this database. His dissertation is from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1967. It is titled THE RELEVANCE PROBLEM IN PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION. The source is DAI-A 28/08, p. 3065, Feb 1968. The ProQuest ID # is 755317761. The url is http://0-proquest.umi.com.catalog.lib.cmich.edu:80/pqdweb?did=755317761&sid=1&Fmt=1&clientId=45540&RQT=309&VName=PQD although due to licensing restrictions those without access to the databse may not be able to access it. It is a subscription database. LarryQ (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes - 1/12/09
I just removed from this article the spam link that was masquerading as a reference and one other spamlink. This article needs some reliable sources per WP:RS. – ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there a cite so support "He once taught a controversial course on Hawaiian Sovereignty at the University of Hawaii." There's no title for this course. I've always had the understanding that his proposed course was canceled before it ever began.--RichardP1978 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)RichardP1978
 * If there is no cite, then you can remove the information since you've already posted about it here. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)