Talk:Committee of Safety (Hawaii)

--

List of members questionable
Where did the names of the members come from? They all don't match the ones mentioned in the Blount Report.

66.215.8.85 16:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I question the names of members. Most of those listed are not Hawaiian born, leaving the impression that the committee was made up of recent arrivals. I don't know if the committee was or was not made up mostly of recent arrivals, but I do know the list leaves off one of the most important, Lorrin Thurston, born in Hawai'i. It's also a little bit misleading as these are the folks (with Thurston) who signed the request for US armed forces but this list obviously does not include everyone who was involved in the action. Does it even include all the leaders? The article needs more clarity. Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Citizens?
The article says "formally the Citizen's Committee of Public Safety", but the second External Link says "citizens' committee of public safety" once, and everywhere else says "Committee of Public Safety". So I don't think "citizens'" or "Citizen's" was a formal part of the name. Art LaPella 01:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the Blount Report quotes the letter to Stevens as "Citizens' Committee of Safety" so various names were used. That is why citations are needed to be precise. W Nowicki (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please examine
This edit. Badagnani (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I just reverted it.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Citizens question and please verify sources
"The Committee of Safety was organized by the Hawaiian League, a group of over 400 businessmen, merchants, and planters." The Blount Report (page 583, ) states, "A committee of safety, consisting of thirteen members, had been formed from a little body of men assembled in W. O. Smith's office." which would dispute the 400 businessmen, merchants...unless W.O. Smith had a very large office or they were very skinny men.

"As these events were unfolding, American citizens living in Honolulu expressed concern for their safety and property." To whom? Again the Blount Report (page 585) says, "To use the language of Admiral Skerrett, the American troops were ... very improperly located if only intended to protect American citizens in person and property."

"On January 17, 1893 about 1500 members of the Honolulu Rifles, a militia composed of local citizens, occupied government buildings, disarmed the Royal Guard, and declared the Provisional Government of Hawaiʻi." 'Local citizens' does not mean 'naturalized'. As shown in Members of Committee Section, many whites/anglo-saxons held on to their foreign citizenships. By using the term 'local citizens' it implies general acceptance from the populace.

I find this article to be bias in using only the Morgan Report as reference and not citing the Blount Report which came earlier.--Quneur (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, the article needs work. If you have access to this info and can cite it, then please do add in. I think both reports should be cited, as well as any later "authoritative" works, if there are such things. Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, generally a "committee" is a smaller part of a larger group organized for a more specific purpose. So this article needs to more clearly distinguish between the whole "Hawaiian League" which was a broader group that had existed for a while, and the Committee of Safety itself. It is also unclear to me if the "Annexation Club" applied just to the small committee or the whole League. Please do help make the viewpoint more neutral. It can be done without weasel words, just state the facts. W Nowicki (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One more inaccuracy: The second photo caption is wrong; this is the "Executive Council" of the Provisional Government, not the committee! W Nowicki (talk) 23:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move
Many of the links to this article are piped from Hawaiian League. I propose to move this article to that name (leave the resulting redirect to not break any links) and rewrite the first body paragraph to expand including the 1887 role. The Committee of Safety as far as I know only existed for a day or two, while the League has more history that we can cover, filling a current hole in Wikipedia. Much of the article had confused the two anyway. Any objections? W Nowicki (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Mahalo. Makana Chai (talk) 18:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok with me as well. Arjuna (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

criticism/controversy section
Shouldn't there be a section that discusses how the Hawaiian League and it's actions were controversial and criticized by some individuals?--Samusaran253 (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

AND FUNDED BY CAPITALIST US BUSINESS INTERESTS LIKE DOLE?

I don't see any "Hawaiian" ethnic names on the list of members too. All Anglo Saxon names. Got white imperialism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.26 (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

"American Response"
In International Response, paragraph 2, sentence 1, it claims that there is an above section titled "American Response". There is no section in the article with that name; however, the response by the US Government can be gathered from earlier in the article. Either this sentence needs to be changed, the section needs to be created, or maybe a link to an existing article needs to be introduced. JMtB03 17:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMtB03 (talk • contribs)

"American and Hawaiian citizens"
and I are in dispute over his recent edit. The article's first sentence previously read


 * The Committee of Safety, formally the Citizen's Committee of Public Safety, was a 13-member group of the Annexation Club. The group was composed of American and Hawaiian citizens who were members of the Missionary Party, as well as American residents in the Kingdom of Hawaii that planned and carried out the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893.

He edited it to the following:


 * The Committee of Safety, formally the Citizen's Committee of Public Safety, was a 13-member group of the Annexation Club. The group was composed of Americans, with a few Europeans and foreign nationals naturalized as Hawaiian citizens, who were members of the Missionary Party, as well as American residents in the Kingdom of Hawaii that planned and carried out the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii on January 17, 1893.

My objections are:


 * Factual. "American and Hawaiian citizens" is a more accurate description of the members of the committee and other leaders of the coup than "Americans, with a few Europeans and foreign nationals naturalized as Hawaiian citizens"; the latter does not properly describe the native-born Hawaiian citizenship of such members as Dole and Thurston.


 * Stylistic. Besides being incomplete/inaccurate, "Americans, with a few Europeans and foreign nationals naturalized as Hawaiian citizens" is far too long for a brief lead.

Rui reverted my revert twice, commenting with the second "How can Hawaii be annexed by Hawaiians? That is just plain nonsensical." I am not sure what he meant by this, but I think he is under the mistaken (but widespread) impression that the Committee of Safety's coup immediately annexed Hawaii to the US. Ylee (talk) 02:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * There were Germans and British in the Committee of Safety as well so saying American and Hawaiian citizens wouldn't cut it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Very nice of you to say I reverted you twice while conveniently ommitting the fact that you were the first to revert and that you too reverted twice, being the first to do so. That to me speaks volumes.
 * My objection to the text "group was composed of American and Hawaiian citizens" is that it gives the false impression that these men were Hawaiians who supported the annexation, which is not true. They were not Hawaiians, they were naturalised foreigners and men born of American parents in Hawaii, which does not make them native Hawaiians. So the text cannot be framed in such a manner that it induces the reader to believe that there was native support for the annexation.
 * And as already pointed out, the version that you would like to prevail leaves out the Germans and the British.
 * Yes, I am sure that a more succint wording can be found, but provided that it reflects the facts and does not create ambiguity. Regards. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 11:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to imply that I had not reverted as well; from the edit I linked to anyone could pull up the complete edit history, after all.


 * Dole and Thurston were Hawaiian citizens, full stop. They were born with Hawaiian citizenship. Given their vital importance to the coup and aftermath—the former becoming president of the new nation after the latter turned down the job—eliding their citizenship would be misleading.


 * I know that by "they were not Hawaiians ... does not make them native Hawaiians" you mean "they were not ethnic Hawaiians". I don't think the lead paragraph of the article is the right place to get into the nuances of the definition of "ethnic Hawaiian" and what that entailed in 1892. That's why the text as it previously stood, "American and Hawaiian citizens", is—by specifying the scope with "citizens"—more satisfactory that than your proposed alternative.


 * That said, is correct in that other nations' citizens also participated. I thus propose as a compromise


 * The group was mostly composed of American and Hawaiian citizens


 * I would also support


 * The group was mostly composed of American and Hawaiian citizens of European descent


 * But, again, I don't think the lead paragraph of the article is the right place to discuss race/ethnicity, as opposed to citizenship, which is much more straightforward. Ylee (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No one is discussing race/ ethnicity. merely making sure that we don't misinform readers into being led to believe that Hawaiians supported the annexation or in any way acted on their behalf. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your denying that Dole and Thurston are "Hawaiians" implicitly brings up race and ethnicity. I want to keep such out of the lead; that's why "mostly American and Hawaiian citizens"—100% factual and objectively correct—is preferable to your edit. Ylee (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I will implement the above edit unless there are objections. Ylee (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

YES, there are objections and you have known that all along, and these have been made clear! Besides, I find it preposterous of you to assume that an exchange between you and I constitutes grounds on which to base a decision! Whatever has happened to wide consensus? I thought that was a community pillar. Whatever opinion you might have of yourself, you and I do not constitute "community consensus", so whatever rights you seem to believe you are acting on, I am sorry to say, do not exist. So ,"implement the above edit" in blatant violation of community precepts. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You have not made your objections clear. The discussion has gone like this:


 * Me: Hawaiians were among the members of the Committee of Safety.
 * You: "merely making sure that we don't misinform readers into being led to believe that Hawaiians supported the annexation or in any way acted on their behalf."
 * Me: Thurston and Dole, two important members of the committee, were native born Hawaiian citizens. We should not get into defining Hawaiian ethnicity in the lead. "Mostly American and Hawaiian citizens" is factual and succinct.
 * You: "YES, there are objections and you have known that all along, and these have been made clear!" "No one is discussing race/ ethnicity".
 * Me: Sigh


 * PS - For the record, the edit in question is by you, not anyone else. Ylee (talk) 05:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I again repeat my intention to implement the above discussed "mostly American and Hawaiian citizens" as a compromise. Rui Gabriel Correia refuses to discuss the issue beyond his initial reverts of the reverts of his edit to the existing article, and making non sequiturs when asked to justify his edit. Let me repeat: The edit in question which needs justifying in the face of a dispute is by him, not me. Ylee (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Implemented. I believe three weeks is a long-enough time to wait for further discussion of the proposed compromise. Ylee (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)