Talk:History of Hawaii

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)

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 Wikipedia:cite_sources. It doesn't explicitly state that the present way is wrong, but it gives alternatives that seem more typical of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [in the overthrow]". 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 [of every year] be set aside as a day of solemn fasting, and prayer for the injustice to me [President Grover Cleveland] and my great good sister [Queen Liliuokalani] 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)

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, 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, 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. &mdash;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 Wikipedia-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. &mdash;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. &mdash;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)


 * Hi anon, Hokulani78 made a valid argument about the systemic bias in the article pointing out the lack of primary source material from native Hawaiians. Please keep in mind article talk pages are for discussing the article, and your response deviated from this purpose as it was a personal commentary about the editor making the observation rather than about the article.  Any future comments you have to offer about the article itself are of course welcome. -- M P er el  07:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it civil
While I'm sure there are times when editors don't agree, at least give them the respect to have a difference of opinion and allow them to discuss the issue on the talk page. SunCreator (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't use article talk pages to criticize editors, and Hokulani78 hasn't edited since February. This talk page is used to discuss improving the article.  If you don't understand how talk pages are used, I suggest you look at the links you were given on your talk page.  The comments of the anon IP were moved to the talk page of the user in question.  They do not belong here and are a classic example of trolling. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No reference to the unification of the islands
Why is there virtually no reference to the very important and interesting history of the unification of the islands? At very least, there should be a paragraph or subsection that refers to it, and then says something like, "This period is detailed in such-and-such article." Also the main Hawai'i article has no such clear reference. Holy (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * See the first paragraph of the section "Formation of the Hawaiian Kingdom". You are welcome to help expand it. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I mean--one very short sentence. I'd love to contribute, but my knowledge base is pretty thin on this.  It just seemed very odd for this history to be almost completely missing on Wikipedia.  I wonder if someone's agenda has kept it away.  Thanks.Holy (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you be specific? What particular details need to be in this article? Part of your confusion may stem from the missing summary style link, "Main article: Kingdom of Hawaii" at the top of that section.  I'm not sure what an agenda would have to do with this, but please, explain a little more so I can fix the problem to your satisfaction.  Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the conquest, in stages, of the main Hawaiian Islands, by Kamehameha I, and the many events surrounding those events. The possible agenda for keeping this very important part of Hawaiian history out of the article might be that this history would take emphasis away from non-Hawaiians' dominance of and conflict with Hawaiians.  It might present (as some might perceive) the Hawaiians as warlike and not united in the past.  I don't worry about those perceptions myself, as long as the history meets normal encyclopedic standards, and I'm not making any statements about who would hold those perceptions or how valid they would be in various forms.  Again, my knowledge base is not adequate to add this information myself and don't have the time to do the research that many others probably have at their fingertips.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyT (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Provide History not Propoganda
The current content on the Web Page ”History of Hawaii” in Wikipdia is of such shoddy scholarship that the only solution is to scrap it entirely, and, hopefully, replace with the truth. The material on this page is a concoction of distortions and untruths that was used in 1993 to extort a confession of guilt from the US Congress.

If the material were the result of truthful, earnest research, it might be worthy of peer review and revision. Instead, it is the same collection of revisionist history, distortions, and outright lies foisted upon Congress on October 27, 1993, (Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 19)) by Senator Akaka and his cronies. At that time, Congress accepted the veracity of the resolution without investigation and voted to extend an unwarranted apology for the non-participation of the US government in the “illegal” Hawaiian revolution of 1893. (By the way, what is a “legal” revolution?) Since 1993, the Senate has learned that the data supporting the demand for an apology is untrue, at the least. This discovery is why the so-called Akaka Bill has been repeatedly rejected by the Senate in the decade since the “apology” was issued. The US Resolution led to the UN Resolution and were both a result of lies perpetuated by a minority of citizens of the State of Hawaii. Now, the same organizations that brewed this propaganda that they parade as history are trying to use the erroneous resolution and the erroneous UN confirmation to substantiate their version of Hawaiian history. I see a problem with this kind of duplicitous documentation and procedures, don’t you? Set the record straight and provide fact-based information on Hawaiian History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrana (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Be our guest. siafu (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

== Sort Of. As my father taught me, "all history is bias. No-one writes well about there enemies." May father's side of the family is from Hawaii and through his spoken history is why I have to mention 2 parts of this which are incorrect and omitted.

One- Captain Cook. Did play "a" part in it's history. Hated by native Hawaiians

Two- The Scot's stopped at the Azores to collect people to go to Hawaii to colonise. They could pay their way or go as indentured servants. My great grandfather paid his and his families way (my father still has the original contract). When the ship got to Cape Horn, everyone became slaves. That is why Portuguese are considered by Hawaiians as Native and not as foreigners, as they worked side-by-side, Hawaiian and Portuguese, as slaves on Sugar Cane Plantations under the Scot's.

So this sort of throws the timeline for the Sugar Plantation Era a little off.

During that time was a great influx of missionaries and conversion. As per Hawaiian history, according to Hawaiian spoken history, this was also a time where the church "stole" a lot of land. Unbiased, this might have been claimed, "acquired, etc." There was spoken historic reference to conversion of certain members of the Hawaiian Royal family that resulted in such.

This is a time to get the history "less" BIAS and from all points of view, instead of being slighted and bias through a filtered one-sided point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mafoelffen (talk • contribs) 20:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over 'Annexation to the United States'
''Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. The neutrality of this section is disputed. (May 2011)''


 * What dispute? 80.174.254.178 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

First contact
Is this a reliable source on the subject? Lfstevens (talk) 22:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

http://imagesofoldhawaii.com/first-foreigners-to-find-hawai%CA%BBi/


 * This would be a self-published source, so the policy at WP:SELFPUBLISH would apply. The author lists & quotes from other sources; unfortunately, he does not list a complete enough citation to easily find the works. I would suggest trying to find the original citations & see what conclusions that the authors came to within those works.


 * BTW, Kane probably refers to Herb Kawainui Kāne.


 * If you cannot find the original sources, I may be able to help, but please try yourself first.


 * Peaceray (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Mix of opinion, citations, and text with an unencyclopedic tone
'''The text that follows was moved from the main article to here. Please go to the Discussion of unencyclopedic material section to comment.'''

In lede
On January 16, 1893, United States diplomatic and military personnel conspired with a small group of individuals to overthrow the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and prepared to provide for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America, under a treaty of annexation submitted to the United States Senate, on February 15, 1893. Newly elected U.S. President Grover Cleveland, having received notice that the cause of the so-called revolution derived from illegal intervention by U.S. diplomatic and military personnel, withdrew the treaty of annexation and appointed James H. Blount, as Special Commissioner, to investigate the terms of the so-called revolution and to report his findings.

The report concluded that the United States legation assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, together with United States Marines and Naval personnel, were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. The report details the culpability of the United States government in violating international laws and the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but the United States Government fails to follow through in its commitment to assist in reinstating the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.

Instead, the United States allows five years to lapse and a new United States President, William McKinley, enters into a second treaty of annexation with the same individuals who participated in the illegal overthrow with the U.S. legation in 1893 on June 16, 1897, but the treaty was unable to be ratified by the United States Senate due to protests that were submitted by Her Majesty Queen Lili‘uokalani and signature petitions against annexation by 21,169 Hawaiian nationals.

As a result of the Spanish-American War, the United States opted to unilaterally annex the Hawaiian Islands by enacting a congressional joint resolution on July 7, 1898, in order to utilize the Hawaiian Islands as a military base to fight the Spanish in Guam and the Philippines. The United States has remained in the Hawaiian Islands and the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under prolonged occupation to the present, but its continuity as an independent State remains intact under international law.

The main documents surrounding United States intervention and subsequent occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom are recorded in the following.

The Executive Documents of the United States House of Representatives, 53rd Congress, 1894-95, Appendix II, Foreign Relations, 1894, Affairs in Hawai‘i, volumes 1 and 2:

Report of U.S. Special Commissioner James H. Blount to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom Investigation, July 17, 1893 Petition filed with U.S. Special Commissioner James Blount by the Hawaiian Patriotic League, March 2, 1893 Dispatch from U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham to U.S. President Grover Cleveland concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom Investigation, October 18, 1893 Dispatch from U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham to U.S. Minister Albert S. Willis, assigned to the Hawaiian Islands, concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom Investigation, October 18, 1893 U.S. President Cleveland's Message to the U.S. Congress concerning the conclusion of the Hawaiian Kingdom investigation, December 18, 1893 Dispatch from U.S. Minister Albert S. Willis to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham concerning the consent of Queen Lili‘uokalani to the Condition of Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, December 20, 1893 Dispatch from U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham to U.S. Minister Albert S. Willis concerning U.S. Senate resolution warning Foreign Governments not to interfere in Hawaiian Political Affairs, June 2, 1894 Dispatch from U.S. Minister Albert S. Willis to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham concerning the delivery of the U.S. Senate Resolution to the provisional government, June 23, 1894 The 1893 Executive Agreements between President Cleveland and Queen Lili`uokalani obligating the U.S. to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and to restore the Hawaiian Kingdom government:

Article, "1893 Cleveland-Lili`uokalani Agreements," November 28, 2009 Lili`uokalani Agreement (administration of Hawaiian Kingdom law), Appendix II, Foreign Relations, Affairs in Hawai`i, sent to the Congress by President Cleveland, December 18, 1893 Restoration Agreement (restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom government), Appendix II, Foreign Relations, Affairs in Hawai`i, sent to the Congress by President Cleveland, January 13, 1894 Congressional Record: containing the Proceedings and Debates, 53rd Congress, 2nd Session, volume 26:

Resolution of U.S. House of Representatives condemning U.S. Minister Stevens for his role in aiding the illegal overthrow of Hawai'i's legitimate government and also instituting the hands-off policy of noninterference to the U.S. President, Feb. 7, 1894 Resolution of U.S. Senate instituting the hands-off policy of noninterference but also warning other Governments not to interfere with Hawaiian political affairs, May 31, 1894 U.S. Senate Secret Debate concerning Hawai`i, May 31, 1898 Hawai'i National Archives in Honolulu, and the United States National Archives in Washington, D.C.:

Protest filed with the United States Legation by the Governor for the Island of O'ahu against the unauthorized landing a U.S. troops from the U.S.S. Boston, January 16, 1893. Protest filed with the United States Legation by the Minister of Foreign Affairs against the unauthorized landing a U.S. troops from the U.S.S. Boston, January 16, 1893. Protest filed with the United States Legation by Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani against the U.S. Minister's recognition of the provisional government and calling for an investigation by the U.S. President into the actions of its representative and to reinstate the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, January 17, 1893. Protest filed with U.S. Minister Albert Willis by Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani against the formation of the Republic of Hawai'i, June 20, 1894. Protest filed with the British Legation by Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani against the formation of the Republic of Hawai'i, June 20, 1894. Protest filed with the U.S. State Department by Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani against the Treaty of Annexation signed by the United States of America and the Republic of Hawai'i, June 17, 1897 Petitions filed with the U.S. State Department by Joseph Heleluhe, commissioner for the Men and Women's Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hui Kalaiaina, on July 24, 1897 Petition against the Annexation of Hawaii Submitted to the U.S. Senate in 1897 by the Hawaiian Patriotic League Protest filed with U.S. Minister Harold Sewall on August 6, 1898, by the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha 'Aina) and the Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai'aina) against the Joint Resolution purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands Memorial filed by the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha `Aina) with the United States "Hawaiian Commission" for the creation of the territorial government. The commission was established on July 9, 1898 after President McKinley signed the joint resolution of annexation on July 7, 1898 United States Department of Justice, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation to Extend the Territorial Sea, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, vol. 12, p. 238-263, October 4, 1988, commenting on the annexation of Hawai‘i

pp. 250-252, "Congress' Power to Assert Sovereignty over the Territorial Sea" United States Statutes at Large:

Joint Resolution no. 55, To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, July 7, 1898 Chapter 339., An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawai'i, April 30, 1900 Chapter 42., An Act To amend an Act entitled "An Act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii," approved April 30, 1900, as amended, to establish an Hawaiian Homes Commission, granting certain powers to the board of harbor commissioners of the Territory of Hawaii, and for other purposes, July 9, 1921 U.S. Public Law 86-3, An Act to Provide for the admission of the State of Hawai'i into the Union, March 18, 1959 U.S. Public Law 103-150, To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, Nov. 23, 1993 Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands:

Lance Larsen vs. the Hawaiian Kingdom, case no. 99-001 United Nations Security Council:

Complaint against the United States of America by the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom concerning the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, July 5, 2001

There is a very popular myth that Hawai'i became the 50th state of the United States. Since Hawai'i was a country established and recognized first by the United States in 1843, the only way to absorb another country through international law is through a treaty. There simply is no treaty for Hawai'i, so the Hawaiian Kingdom under the presumption of continuity still exists.

The United States of America was created by treaties. Every State except Hawai'i, has a treaty. If you look to the the East Coast, there is a treaty called the territory of the original 13 states, ceded by Great Britain in 1783. That was formally British Sovereignty. Then we have Florida, Spanish cession of 1819, that used to belong to Spain. Voluntarily negotiated and transferred by the Spanish. The Louisiana purchase from France, 1803, negotiated, and purchased. Right here, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended, the Mexican American War, the Mexican cession of 1848. All territory north of the Rio Grand river. The Pacific Northwest, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, that's from Great British 1846. Alaska in 1867 from Russia. Hawai'i has no treaty. All it says American claims is Hawai'i "annexation" of 1898, former republic of Hawai'i as stated above.

The United States used fake democracy to create the perception that Hawaii "belongs" to the U.S: It's 1959, and the UN has Hawaii on its official list of places that still need to be decolonized. There's an important new rule that's about to get passed in the United Nations real soon called Resolution 1514. The U.S. knew Resolution 1514 would make it much more difficult for them to maintain indefinite control over Hawaii - it would basically provide a framework by which Hawaii's future political status could be decided by Hawaiians - who obviously might want their stolen lands back. The U.S. decides that the best way to keep Hawaii from being affected by the new UN rules is to make Hawaii look more like one of its other states, instead of an occupied nation. To accomplish this, the U.S. quickly rushes a vote on statehood to ballot, and to make sure that statehood 'wins', it rigs the election. After the election the U.S. tells the UN that Hawaii's questionable status has been resolved and that Hawaii should be removed from the UN's list of colonies. That's basically what happened. Okay, now, while there's no such thing as an ethical way to keep stolen territory, this is a textbook example of how to use political maneuvering to bypass justice and democracy, so I think it's actually very educational to take a closer look at how the U.S. did it.

Please note the inherent contradictions - both the U.S. and the United Nations are rooted in the logic of Western Imperialism.

On the Ballot for statehood in 1959 it was asked what do you want to happen, Hawaii? 1) Would you like to become a U.S. state? Or 2) Do you want to continue being a territory?

It's 1959 - what kind of laws, principles, and factors are the United States obligated to follow, if it's going to try to hold a vote on Hawaii's future? Well, there are several - the U.S.'s own Constitution, obviously, but also the U.S. is a signatory of the UN Charter, so we're supposed to follow everything in that, plus UN resolutions like Resolution 742 and so on. Interestingly enough, the U.S. stages the 1959 "statehood vote" in a way that manages to violate all of the above.

First of all there's the obvious question of suffrage, or "Who gets to vote?" Under the principles of decolonization, if you're trying to undo a historical wrong - like illegally overthrowing somebody's government, you have to ask the people who suffered the violations - the colonized - what they want to happen. You don't ask the people who benefited from the stealing of the land if they feel like giving it back or not - that only makes sense if you don't have any respect for fairness. But guess what - that's exactly what the U.S. did - they opened the vote to everybody who was living in Hawaii at the time, knowing full well that Native Hawaiians made up less than 20% of the population, and that the remainder - settlers from the U.S., plantation laborers brought in from Asia, U.S. military personnel - the U.S. knew all of those guys would vote in favor of statehood. A second requirement for a "legitimate" vote is - you must offer three choices on the ballot: 1) Independence, 2) Free association, and 3) Integration. But instead of offering the required three, the U.S. essentially only put one choice on the ballot: integration. Integration via statehood, or integration via continued territorial status! What kind of ballot is that?

America: It doesn't matter which one you choose, I get to own you either way. Leaving "independence" and "free association" off the ballot is clearly a manipulation of the UN-sanctioned voting process. That's strike two.

Okay - third big problem. When holding a vote on Hawaii's future political status - the administering power (the United States) - is required to place the interests of Hawaiians before its own interests. The UN Charter calls this mandate a "sacred trust". Okay, so what does this mean? Well, practically speaking, it means that if you're going to have something like a vote, the U.S. is obligated to conduct it fairly so that Hawaiians would be free to choose what they really want for their future. But instead, the U.S. did just the opposite - before the vote the U.S. initiated an intense pro-statehood propaganda campaign. And just to be safe, a parallel campaign of attacking anyone who spoke up in opposition to statehood. Obviously this is not how an administering power lives up to its "sacred trust" obligations. Strike three.

So yeah, the so-called "statehood vote", was, for several reasons, illegitimate. This is how the U.S. was able to subvert the UN's stated goal of a world free of colonial domination. A process for decolonization was instead turned into a process of assimilation.

The important thing to understand is that statehood was used to keep Hawaiians from getting their nation back. Statehood is not just an abstract concept, it can also be used as a tool for accomplishing concrete political objectives. In the case of Hawaii, statehood was, and continues to be, a strategy for obscuring a history of dispossession and repackaging it to make it look like something good, like "democracy".

Since there is no treaty for Hawai'i, the 2013 Oxford War Report lists Hawaii as an illegally occupied nation state since the Spanish American War. For 123 years, Hawai'i has been under the illegal and belligerent occupation of the United States of America.

In Overthrow of the Kingdom
In the late 19th century the dominant White minority attempted to create a civil war in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which was ordered by the United States President, to take all means necessary to acquire Hawaii for Pearl Harbor. The illegally founded Republic that was finally annexed by the United States. The Kingdom of Hawai'i never was. The Republic of Hawai'i tried to ratify a vote to annex Hawai'i but couldn't get a 2/3's majority vote because of a massive petition of Hawaiian signatures called the Ku'e petitions of 1988 and 1989. The Ku'e petitions represented roughly 80% of Hawai'i's population at the time, 95% of which were Kanaka Maoli, signed a anti annexation petition against becoming American. The hopes of establishing a treaty between the Kingdom of Hawai'i and the U.S. were dead. So the U.S. government set up a puppet provisional government to create the illusion of democracy.

Discussion of unencyclopedic material
I moved the text above from the main article to here. It was added by 67.148.246.94. Although not in proper reference/citation format, there are valid references. However, much of the added text is not of an encyclopedic tone & comes off as an opinion piece. Not exactly neutral ... Peaceray (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a diatribe by a self-taught international lawyer who comes up with howlers like " Since Hawai'i was a country established and recognized first by the United States in 1843, the only way to absorb another country through international law is through a treaty. There simply is no treaty for Hawai'i, so the Hawaiian Kingdom under the presumption of continuity still exists." Kingdom??? Why should anyone believe anon's wild speculation here? where did he get his law degrees? he cite no source for this howler and throughout has no reliable secondary sources. As for one country absorbing another without a treaty that's what Canada did to Newfoundland. Rjensen (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * and, much of this article seemed to have an extreme bias so I have attempted a re-write with some material from other articles and additional research but am meeting with some resistance. Yes, the article is still incomplete but I do believe first contact and the death of Cook was a very important part of modern Hawaiian history. We still need to expand the religion section and need much more on the ancient history but I do believe the first settlement issue has become a problem with an editor wishing to push (from my perspective) the high-precision radiocarbon dating models as the absolute "truth" and has begun making changes based on that seemingly biased approach to the article. I am sure some of what I added could use some trimming but I also think that the article needs a great deal more content and more neutral wording. I don't think we can say that the Chinese brought leprosy into Hawaii. There are other claims that are simply inaccurate, biased opinion and original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you have specific complaints you have to specify them here. Otherwise  your making big changes will not be welcome.  Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Changes alone are not a problem. Even big changes as long as they are sourced, neutral and encyclopedic. I do believe that is what Wikipedia is for. What is your take on the changes? That is why I pinged you. Do you feel that the issue of first settlement should be altered?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I started by drastic reduction of the section on Cook--full of trivia & poor sources and not useful to an overview of the state's long history. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, that is a start. A little drastic perhaps but, if you could be specific of what you felt was trivia and what sources you feel are weak? I disagree that it was not useful as an overview of the islands long history. How is first contact with the western world not useful?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did return a few reliable sources and some essential information to understand what Cook was retaliating over but other than that I kept it tight and did not return anything else. While I would prefer more detail on this, at the moment it could be seen as undue weight if the ancient history has so little. I hope the changes do not go against the spirit of your alterations.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I also did a slight copy edit to the last few sentences for clarity and tone, so it flowed a little better.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Inaccurate claims, opinion or original research
I removed a number of claims that were not sourced and were inaccurate. One claim was that the 1887 Constitution (known as the Bayonet Constitution) was forced on Kalakaua to accept a constitutional monarchy and the Liliuokalani was overthrown because she attempted to regain absolute power as monarch. No. Kamehameha III and Kaahumanu II wrote, signed and ratified the first constitution in 1840. All of the monarchs from that time on were no longer absolute monarchs. Similar issues were reverted on removed that were analysis or opinion and written in Wikipedia voice of authority. There still remain a number of issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Moving from article for the moment
This table is not complete enough for use at the moment. Perhaps there is something with more information that could help complete the information or take it's place.

Population statistics

--Mark Miller (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

History of Hawaii vs. Prehistory of "Hawaiian Archipelago"
Prehistory is not "History of Hawaii", all the Prehistory material needs its own article. Wolfpack903 (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the problem actually lies with the opening sentence: "The history of Hawaii begins with the arrival of Captain James Cook and the start of the Kingdom of Hawaii ....." It seems odd to assume from the outset of the article that everything prior to the late eighteenth century needs to be consigned to 'prehistory' or 'the ancients'. I can't think of any other cases where such a bald statement would make much sense. Would it help to incorporate some clarification, such as "The history of Hawaii as a unified entity...." or "The modern history of Hawaii...."? jxm (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well on the one hand yes "Hawaii" is often assumed to be a singular political entity of islands which did not exist until the Kingdom of Hawaii and which came after Cook. I do not think Hawaii here is meant to mean the archipelago of Hawaii. Further there is a second distinction to make anyways which solves this ambiguity. "History" is defined as the time period of written records and prehistory is the time period where there are no written records.v In regards to renaming the article I would propose creating another article called "prehistory of archipelago of hawaii" linking it in the start and putting all the cultural information there as well as a link for disambiguation if people are confused.Wolfpack903 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thnx fr yr comments. As it currently stands, the style of the opening sentence just bothers me a bit, as it's somewhat in contrast with other equivalent history entries, such as those for Tonga or Tahiti, which have some comments regarding early settlers, carbon-dated information, etc. I believe that the idea of a separate prehistory article makes sense, though I suppose we have to be clear about how it might overlap with Ancient Hawaii - which we already link in the lede. jxm (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

-Objecting to Miller replacing history of Hawaii with an extensive cultural descriptions of pre-western Hawaiian society (put that in Ancient Hawaii for god's sake) and an extensive copy of his house of kamehameha. Again "History" is defined as the time period of written records and prehistory is the time period where there are no written records. In Hawaii they did not a written language until missionaries created one in the 1820's and records were created in the subsequent decades which came after unification. Accordingly everything before Western contact is pre-history/ancient. Wolfpack903 (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

-Second Objection: calling the Bribery Scandal "biased" - I've heard a lot of people in Hawaii claim anyone not a native Hawaiian is "biased" - this ridiculous xenophobia like attitude and close-mindedness has got to stop. Further, the source is the Kingdom of Hawaiian records themselves anyways. Thirdly the major impetus for the drafting of the new Constitution is obviously relevant and not biased. What is biased is pretending that the Kingdom was a rich utopia which was suddenly and without reason overthrown. Some historical context is necessary; the bribery scandal, the then King settling with the Asian farmer's family and the King's Guard stepping down is relevant to the new constitution. What I left out was the racism that Hawaiians at the time started expressing in Newspapers and Complaints to the Kingdom as the number of Chinese and white men (from US and Portugal mostly) were greatly outnumbering them as there population dwindled over time from disease and numerous other reasons. With that level of complaints to the Government the whites must have been alarmed, and with the King acting lawlessly (Kingdom of Hawaii records indicate Committees were complaining King was acting in violation of the Constitution) that they may used the Opium bribery scandal as an excuse to force the King to rewrite the Constitution the way they wanted to help protect themselves as well as demand an end to cronyism (firing the prime minister was a central demand they made at the time). Wolfpack903 (talk) 18:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I stand by what was written. Content must be non biased.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Update
Copyedited and restructured this. Feedback encouraged. Comment: The history seems to end with statehood, save for a brief discussion of sovereignty, renaissance, etc. Love to see someone pick up on things such as the rise of tourism, the end of sugar and pineapple cultivation, GMOs, Hawaii's most famous export (BHO), etc. HNY! Lfstevens (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I took another run through this. Feedback encouraged (shouting into the void). Same comments. Lfstevens (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Why No Mention of Hawaii Independence Day?
According to the hitherto uncategorised Anglo-Franco Proclamation article, this would have been 28 November, beginning with 1843. But according to this article, the British were taking over Hawaii in the same year. Does this mean that the Brits changed their minds in December, or that they took over early in 1843 and then had second thoughts? Or something else?

And, by the way, although I would never defend the way in which Newfoundland was added to Canada — or most other acts of government for that matter — the place hadn't been a self-ruling country for over 70 years as of 1949. The people there were vulnerable to forces emanating from various directions. SewerCat (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Newfoundland was an independent self governing dominion like Australia and Canada before 1933, when it voluntarily reverted to a colony ruled from London. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hawaiians celebrated Independence Day (Hawaii) in recognition of that document you are linking and Sovereignty Restoration Day (Hawaii) for the end of the Paulet Affair (1843). The occupation was not supported by the British government and was a rogue effort on the part of Paulet. One celebrates the international recognition and another celebrated the restoration of sovereignty following the occupation. Lots of things are not mentioned or are erroneously oversimplified here (such as the claim the Mahele was a response to the occupation when it occurred five years after) as a matter of fact.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you,, for clarifying. To be honest though, I'm more concerned that this article might be misleading for other readers. The materials you mention should be linked in. I'm obviously not the one to do it. SewerCat (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Who elevated Hākau?
Section Liloa says:
 * Līloa had two sons; his firstborn Hākau from his wife Pinea, (his mother's sister), and his second son, ʻUmi a Līloa from his lesser ranking wife, Akahi a Kuleana. Upon his death, elevated Hākau as ruler and delegated religious authority to ʻUmi.

Is no subject in second sentence. Who elevated Hākau? I assume it wasn't the dead Līloa, so who was it? -- Thnidu (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220230111/http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&CategoryID=298 to http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&CategoryID=298
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/html/topics/apam/patriots.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124141942/http://www.hawaiianhistory.org/ref/chron.html to http://www.hawaiianhistory.org/ref/chron.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111143257/http://www.hawaii.edu/environment/ainakumuwai/html/sustainability.htm to http://www.hawaii.edu/environment/ainakumuwai/html/sustainability.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENWR 1510 Writing and Critical Inquiry
— Assignment last updated by Rge6eb (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

attack on pearl harbor and "Hawaiians"
Fast question. when it says Hawaiians on the pearl Harbor paragraph does it mean those from hawai'i or Kanaka maoli (Native hawaiians)? 808Poiboy (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * it refers to the one regiment, where all the soldiers were of Japanese descent. Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * aah ok. that shouldn't say "Hawaiians" then. it should say Hawai'i born Japanese. Hawaiian is an ethnicity that's why. I'm Hawaiian and that part confused me. thanks. I don't want to try and edit that because I just started and I don't want to mess up anything that won't be good 808Poiboy (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 MW
— Assignment last updated by Rmahal05 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)