Talk:Legal status of Hawaii

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days.--Oneiros (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
There is a personal conflict of interest tag and nothing here on the talk page. I do not feel I should have to do exhaustive research in hope of uncovering this allegation. Would someone care to expound on this some? Otr500 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

1893 Constitution
The beginning of the History section says:


 * Liliʻuokalani tried to disenfranchise Americans and Europeans and restore the old monarchy in a new 1893 Constitution....

This is unclear as to whether it refers to Hawaiian-born people of European and American descent, or just resident aliens. It sounds like it refers to both, given the context, but I think it's only true for resident aliens: The 1893 constitution was based primarily on the 1864 Constitution, which I believe did allow Hawaiian-born people of European and American descent to vote. The article on the 1887 Constitution, which would have been repealed, says it "allowed foreign resident aliens to vote, not just naturalized citizens." This implies that the present article should say


 * Liliʻuokalani tried to disenfranchise American and European resident aliens and restore the old monarchy in a new 1893 Constitution....

I hesitate to put this in myself because I'm not positive. Could someone who knows for sure put this clarification in? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Since Americans and Europeans are included this would mean those that would otherwise be eligible to vote such as resident citizens or resident aliens. The article section of the the 1893 proposed constitution states, "American and European residents, granted suffrage in 1887, would lose the right to vote.". The article section of the 1887 constitution states, "allowed foreign resident aliens to vote, not just naturalized citizens", so adding "resident aliens" would be correct. It might be easier verify but the entire paragraph has no references. Otr500 (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Parallel Overview
I am temporarily moving this here, to be worked on before reposting. The main problem is the diversity of viewpoints, which are not really captured in a "black and white" analysis. But I'm not throwing it out -- with a little effort, I think we can find a way to make it work. hawaii legal status overview

Old Edit Sections
Likewise, I am temporarily moving some of the old, tangled edits here so that they can be fixed or cut and pasted, and then moved back into the main article. Mahalo!-- Laualoha 00:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That was appearing as an article. I've moved it to Talk:Legal status of Hawaii\old edit sections for legal status of Hawaii page. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. -- Laualoha 23:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Legal Issues Section and Downward
Alot of this stuff is completely unsourced and extremely biased. I understand the arguments of the Hawaii Sovereignty Movement, but this needs to be completely re-written. Due to the fact that this material is paramount to the subject I think we need to completely rewrite it and source it. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪  ߷  ♀ 投稿 ♀  04:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal status 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/20120317183803/http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/pet-intro.html to http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/pet-intro.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) 02:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Introduction
This is part is worded unclearly: "The legal status of Hawaii is a settled legal matter as it pertains to United States law. Hawaii is internationally recognized as a state of the United States of America. Their argument is that Hawaii is an independent nation under military occupation due to the fact that there is no treaty of annexation between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States." Who is they? Aimasterclmaster (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Relevant blockquotes belong where?
At the top is how I have always presumed Wikipedia to operate with vital pertinent informational quotes. Please explain the guidelines of appropriate blockquoting if this is not the case. Thank you! 67.8.169.171 (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles do not have quotes in the introduction, let alone at the top. This can be seen by visiting other Wikipedia articles. Quotes as primary sources should be used generally when they are important enough that other sources discuss them, and should be included near the text that discusses those quotes. CMD (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Clear bias and conflict of interest
There are many clear and obvious biases by the writer(s) of this article in favoring a legal American narrative, as well as leaving out pertinent information, that it has caused the article to be wholly misleading.

In fact many articles on Wikipedia regarding this subject possess the same obvious biases, so much so in fact that one has to wonder if articles on this topic are written by the same person(s), to purposefully promote and push this narrative.

From the very beginning of this article, the very first paragraph in fact, the attempt to misguide begins. “The legal status of Hawaii is an evolving legal matter as it pertains to United States law.” … this article is regarding the legality of the US’s claims of annexation of a sovereign country (The Hawaiian Kingdom), therefore US law, which has no power or jurisdiction beyond the borders of ITS own country are not relevant to this legal question, but rather international law is (inter = between / national = nations), only international law is relevant to legal questions regarding two separate sovereign countries.

Likewise the writer(s) argue that domestic US laws via the US Supreme Court, which are bound by the borders of ITS country & have no power or jurisdiction on other countries, determined that a joint resolutions were sufficient in acquiring Texas and “Hawaii”, when in fact the joint resolution used to acquire Texas was not sufficient and the US ended up having to add Texas into the Guadalupe Hidalgo TREATY with Mexico. Also, the US created a legal precedence of Customary International Law, “Customary international law consists of rules that come from "a general practice accepted as law"”… when it acquired every state via a treaty… except for the Hawaiian Kingdom. This proves that the US knew and understood the international law of needing a treaty to acquire foreign lands.

To determine the legality of the US’s claims of annexation, we must look to and use international law, not the domestic laws of a biased party which could potentially be in violation of both customary international law and international humanitarian law.

This entire article needs to be rewritten, free of the obvious biases that Wikipedia has allowed to be displayed, in order to restore the integrity readers expect from Wikipedia. QueenOfTheMisfitToys (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2024 (UTC)