Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 13

Revamp Discussion
Ok, now where were we? Looking back thousands of words into the mists of this page's distant history, I think we were talking about talking about a re-write structure. Jere & I were gonna work out our impasse, & then others asked about it so I made a proposal in green font somewhere above (side note: could someone please tell me the formula for linking to a section within a page? Mahalo!). Didn't get much response, though, because then this "undue weight" semite truck crashed into a kapakahi crazy-native blockade in the middle of the road & made, um, a bit of a mess... anyway, given that we'll be cleaning that disaster area up for a while, lets take a bypass route for now, so we can actually get somewhere, whachu guys think?

So what's the kakou mana'o in terms of how to proceed? I would really appreciate it if everyone could please relate responses (including alternate proposals) to the proposal I made above, so that we know where any issues are. There were a few other proposals (a couple of them being earlier drafts of my green one, and there was one from Jere and another one from Larry someplace) even further back that we can look at, too. Main thing is we get this moving toward some semblance of consensus, how you figga?

Lots of Aloha to Everybody, -- Laualoha 10:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try and add something to the revamp proposal. This has been a brutal week at work which has kept my editing time from happening and I am travelling with my family to a football game this weekend which will further hinder editing. I am not even sure I will have Web access on the road so it may take me some time to get back here.


 * As a whole, I think your proposal is too long. We need to have a tighter article with the main points highlighted.  Also, my old proposal also included that we have a paragraph about how Hawaii was unified. The legal question did not begin in 1893. The Kingdon of Hawaii was clearly de facto but was it de jure as many of the island kingdoms conquered never gave consent to the unified kingdom?  I believe under international law at the time it was both de facto and de jure but the idea of legality needs to be introduced briefly here.


 * I also hope many of the people who offered opinions on the RfC will be willing to help with a rewrite. This article needs new perspectives  particularly from those who are apt at finding workable compromises. I know I do not have these skills to the level I should to make it work at this article.


 * I REALLY am going to try and focus on Congress again. I was so much happier editing when I did that almost exclusively.  However, I have feelings for this article and I promise I will keep coming back to it and try to make positive contributions even if they are not always seen as such by everyone. Please assume good faith.  Believe me, that is where I am coming from.


 * Best wishes to all. LarryQ 02:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo, Larry. I think we can probably work with that overall, though I'm not sure where you're going with the "de facto/de jure" thing, since there were interrelated chiefdoms, not kingdoms, in Hawai'i prior to Kamehameha I, and everything was very different then than in the foreign-influenced structure of the Kingdom. It sounds a little like you may be assuming a Europe-like paradigm? I don't want to assume this, but that's how it sounds...Anyway, I agree that legal questions go pre-contact, & it's fine to mention this, but briefly, as it doesn't relate too directly to the current political state. Also, while I agree the proposal may include too many issues (I just figure I'll list them now so we can see what works), I want to know if the side-by-side concept works for everyone. Personally, I think this is best (it visually frames the argument as an argument, separates arguments from fact/context, makes it easier to understand the debate and it avoids the "weight problem"), so I want to know what everyone else thinks. And if you don't like it, what's better? Aloha,-- Laualoha 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)-- Laualoha 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Laualoha, I was meaning that to those who oppossed Kamehameha I, his actions were very likely seen as illegal. Kamehameha I unified the islands but was there a single Hawaiian state before that?  The independent chiefdoms exercised soveriengty over their areas and Kamehameha I actions would have been illegal according to the laws of these chiefdoms.  However, this should only be a very small portion of the article and only used to illustrate that the legal status of Hawaii questions go back to the 18th century.


 * Two other points while I am here:


 * The pictures on the page are redundant. Why two pictures from 1893?  I would just use one.  And the best one is probably the picture of US Marines who were all Americans rather than the Provesional government troops many of who held Hawaiian Kingdom citizenship.  The Marine photo makes the point.  However, all the legal status questions do not arise from 1893. Regardless of how it is interpreted, the 1959 statehood vote was clearly important to the issue of the legal status of Hawaii and Image:Hawaiivotesinset.JPG would probably be the best second image.


 * Can we archive the beginning parts of this talk page? It is too large.  It takes forever to load on my dialup connection at home anyway. Do you know how to do it?  I can figure it out but would rather not do so without you and Jere agreeing as most of this page is the two of you talking.


 * Thanks and best wishes. LarryQ 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Ok, I think we can work with this, with some adjustments, if everyone can agree: • The Kamehameha thing: I'm not a humangous Kamehameha fan per se, having O'ahu genealogy myself. However, I don't want this to distract from the main thread here, and I think that relating it effectively to the Legal Status questions without creating a major tangent would take some serious doing. If you want to mention it, I would support that, but I think you should be aware that others will probably feel the need to indefinitely expand whatever you start, so my own opinion is that if you're serious about this mention, I think that you should consider making a separate linked page. Also, the pre-Cook concept of law was very different and would require a lot of explanation: I don't know if we want to get into it right here? • The pictures: Fine, one 1893 picture in the beginning is ok. As far as the statehood picture, I'm ok with including it later in the article. I would also like to add other relevant pictures from other time periods so that the whole thing looks like the high-quality illustrated encyclopedia article it should be. • Archiving: Shoots, I'll work on it. Aloha, -- Laualoha 07:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Laualoha. The archiving you have done is great.  The page loads much faster and your archival breakdown by topic makes a lot of sense.


 * "Also, the pre-Cook concept of law was very different and would require a lot of explanation: I don't know if we want to get into it right here?" No, but I feel some mention has to be made. The whole pre-20th century (pre-League of Nations and UN) concept of international law was different than it is today (just like pre-Cook law) but people are still attempting to apply modern legal concepts ex post de facto to American actions in the 19th century.  Considering that, some context to how the Hawaiian Kingdom came into existence in the first place needs to be contrasted with the events of 1893.  I do not want to derail the article.  But this is certainly an important point.


 * I am going to do my best to refrain from commenting here for a bit. I need to step back from this article. I am going to work on Congressional bios.  I promise to come back.  I hope to see you, Jere, and others make some headway on a rewrite.  Take care, LarryQ 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I agree that pre-Cook law is an important point, that's for sure. I just want to steer clear of major distractions to the current legal status issue, and I want to be careful in this particular area, because a lot of stereotypes exist about this and I feel that debunking them would take more effort and page space than it's worth right here. Basically, if it's approached in a solid manner and with enough internal consensus on wording to prevent a fight, I'm all for it. Otherwise, it should probably have its own linked page.

Jere seems to be busy elsewhere at the moment, but I still need to honor our agreement to make a real attempt at some consensus on the basics before either of us proceeds on this article. So hopefully there will have been progress by the time you return, but I can't promise it. Take care & aloha, -- Laualoha 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC
The RFC is still open. Can I close it? Eiler7 18:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether the RfC is closed, it might be helpful if JereKrischel (esp writing here), and maybe Lauahola or others, would summarize the results of the RfC, especially if folks are closer to agreement on whether/how to apply WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE policies to this article. HG | Talk 18:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Compromise draft
Okay, me and Laualoha are going to work on a /compromise draft, and see if we can come to some agreement as to structure. --JereKrischel 20:23, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am closing the RFC. Eiler7 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...
Is it just me, or does this seem like a fringe theory, similar to the accusations of unconstitutionality (might not be a word) of income tax... --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 14:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This question is discussed at considerable length above. Please review. After a long discussion, JereKrischel summed up his view (above): "Understanding that "fringe" and "academic" in this context are synonyms for me, and not synonyms for you, helps clarify our disagreement greatly. I agree wholeheartedly with your characterization of an appropriate compromise - in terms of academic and theoretical views, I accept that a "significant minority" holds a "nationalist" view (we still need better labels than "annexationist" and "nationalist" - but we can save that for another time). But that view must be qualified in terms of lacking any contemporary judicial record (or any supportive judicial record for that matter). I am happy to move forward with the article on those terms, and hope that they are respectful enough to Laualoha and her honestly and strongly held convictions." In my view, we've agreed that the article deals with what Wikipedia calls a "significant minority" view, but based mainly on academic notability rather than successes within the legal system. Thanks. HG | Talk 16:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"/The Legal Status of Hawai'i is not a Major Debate"
June 2006 - Jere & Laualoha debate question of settled/not settled for the 1st time

"/POV Edits & Is there such thing as an Anti-Sovereignty Movement?"
June 2006 Jere & Laualoha Debate

"/Detailed Concerns"
June 2006 - Jere argues that legal status is settled due to international recognition of U.S. evidenced by trade; Laualoha argues that trade is common after coups & does not prove legal recognition; Also discuss Bayonet Constitution, term "Armed Sugar Planters", "Peacekeepers", & Ku'e petitions