Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom/Archive 1

Organization
You know, one of the things we might want to do is to reorganize this series of articles. I'm not sure if I really understand the point of this particular stub...I think KarlM might be right. --JereKrischel 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

POV tag
Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag since it's been over a month without an explanation. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have been busy. The POV tag was (re)added as there are a number of issues that JK and I (and others) have had disagreements on, and which are common to both this article and several others related to the general history of the period around the overthrow. The article is generally rife with a tendentious portrayal of events, with ample use of weasel words. There are many examples of what I consider to be a very NPOV state of the article, but to pick a couple:


 * The statement that "The 1887 constitution, drafted by Lorrin A. Thurston, Minister of Interior under King David Kalākaua, was in response to what was seen by his critics as Kalākaua's abuse of power" is not untrue, but is highly selective in its attribution of motivation; clearly Thurston et al were motivated by factors other than simply Kalakaua's incompetence or corruption: most scholars agree they also wanted a greater share of power. Not to include this fact is a tendentious presentation of history.


 * Including the mention that "As United States Marines marched past ʻIolani Palace on their way to their peacekeeping stations, they dipped their U.S. flag while passing by, as a sign of respect to the Queen. The sailors and Marines did not enter the Palace grounds or take over any buildings, and never fired a shot" without also mentioning that the only fatality in the 1893 events was the result of one of the conspirators shooting a royalist. But the bigger issue, as JK and I have discussed, is that the very fact that the marines were present was intended to intimidate the royalists (and indeed was very successful in this objective).


 * In short, this article is a biased reading of history that does not reflect mainstream historical scholarship that indicates U.S. agents played a key role in the conspiracy to overthrow the queen. The article as currently written presents a radically different view of events than, for example, the one depicted in the highly regarded book "Overthrow".


 * Alas, I don't have time at the moment to get back into an editing discussion with JK, the main author of the current article, but this is a short summary of the issues as justification for re-insertion of the POV tag. It also characterizes the basis of editing disagreements on other related articles, and I will repost this on those as requested. Cheers, Arjuna 08:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide references for your assertions? For example, where do you find any reference that "most scholars agree they also wanted a greater share of power"?  Of course, by definition, to remove power from the King and invest it in the legislature is "wanting more power", but it seems you are trying to attribute it to a lust for power alone, which does not seem to be present in the respectable literature on the subject (Daws, Kuykendall, Kirch, Andrade for example).  Explicit references would bolster your position, and perhaps help alleviate concerns you may have regarding POV.


 * In regards to the shooting of a royalist, the shot was not fired by any of the U.S. peacekeepers - to attribute the one injury (not a fatality) to the U.S. is simply not factual. Furthermore, as we've argued before, the marines were not present to intimidate royalists - their explicit orders were to protect lives and property, and they remained scrupulously neutral.  You may consider their lack of overt support for the failing government of Liliuokalani as "intimidating" to her cause, but that was never their purpose.


 * Regarding the book "Overthrow", I would enjoy hearing any direct quotes you'd like to cite from there. I believe that you may be misreading it.


 * Would you mind removing the POV tag until you are able to provide explicit references supporting the points you've made? I think the best way to proceed is to be very careful about citation - if there are specific passages you'd like a clearer citation for, I'd be more than happy to provide it.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm "mis-reading" Overthrow? It's amusing that you argue that that book bolsters your position and not the views I articulate. You are again both taking a very selective approach to the facts and misrepresenting what I said (ex. I explictly did not say "the U.S." but rather "U.S. agents", which is quite a different thing). And I do not need to get back into the "whether the marines were there to intimidate royalists" argument again. I have already demonstrated that clearly that was one of their intended purposes, and that they were successful in doing so. I put the POV tags up at the legitimate request of Viriditas, in order to demonstrate that there is a different view of events not reflected in the article. And my short summary above, as I said, was a short summary to justify re-insertion, not to get into additional extended debates with you at this stage. I am increasingly of the mind that such good faith attempts are futile. In any case, the point of a POV tag is to point out that the article is disputed and not the result of a consensus-based approach, not that I have to take the time to argue point by point to your requests. It most certainly is a very tendentious reading of history, as has been pointed out by numerous people over a long period of time, but most of whom simply give up in the face of your attempts to intimidate as well as your admirable tenacity. You know as well as I do that this article is POV and does not reflect mainstream views -- despite your agenda as part of the advocacy organization Grassroot Institute. I will not remove the POV tags, and will resist any attempts to do so. However, I will be happy to put the articles up for independent review if you like. Arjuna 09:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mahalo Arjuna. Although you did explicitly say "U.S. agents", I do believe that assertion is unfounded and unsupportable by any citation - unless you're going to try and make the argument again that Stevens, who had pro-annexationist leanings, was somehow connected with the Committee of Safety, or any part of the Hawaiian Revolution.  Clearly the record shows that this was not true, although it was alleged in the Blount Report.  For example, shows clearly that Trousseau, who alleged to Blount that "Almost daily, to my personal knowledge, meetings were held at Mr. Stevens's house in which the possibilities of a peaceful revolution with the prospects of annexation were discussed. Prominent at these meetings were the chief justice, Mr. Dole, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Hartwell, Charles Carter, and others, also Capt. Wiltse.", recanted his statement and claimed it was heresay, stating Dear Sir: When I made to Mr. Blount the statements you refer to in your letter of the 27th, I believed them to be correct, as my information came from a source that I could not consider but reliable..


 * Please, quote "Overthrow" if you'd like - I simply don't see what you seem to read into his work. And please, demonstrate that the landing of peacekeepers had an "intended purpose" to intimidate royalists by providing citation, not simply opinion.


 * Although you continue to attempt to characterize the view of intimate and direct U.S. involvement in the Hawaiian Revolution as "mainstream", I believe you're using a stretched definition of that - radical activist scholars and organizations intent on rewriting history by ignoring source materials and developing a mythology without basis in fact is not "mainstream".


 * Insofar as any agenda regarding "advocacy" related to the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, the only thing I am advocating here for is a fair, balanced, well cited article. Whether or not you see it as POV because it does not align with your own beliefs on the matter doesn't seem to be sufficient to place a POV tag.


 * You've already admitted well enough that my citations are accurate, and the statements in the article are true. I think that the only way that you're going to be able to make any progress on your "POV" concerns is to provide accurate and true statements and cite them.  I certainly hope that your intent to "resist any attempts" to remove the POV tags does not preclude coming to an agreement and compromise here - please, I'm asking at this point for concrete citations, quotes from "Overthrow", and any other citations you can roust up to make your point.  I think that if we don't go back to the source materials, and simply argue in terms of rhetoric, we won't get anywhere.


 * Your kokua is greatly appreciated. Please remove the POV tag, or provide more specific citations to bolster your claims.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, mahalo for your comments. I have yet to decide whether I find them more amusing or more shocking in their turning-reality-on-its-head. Obviously, "Overthrow" supports my position, not yours, as I know you are intelligent enough to understand. It is definitely amusing, however, that you choose to use Fox News' catch phrase to characterize your own opinion of your contributions. Quite telling. I will not remove the POV tags, and I have demonstrated Q.E.D. that the article is disputed and POV. We can take it to informal mediation from here if you like. Cheers, Arjuna 09:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, thanks for your amusing comments on my talk page. As you are smart enough to know, but failing other ammunition than to request repeated re-iteration of facts already expressed and demonstrated, there is already ample sufficient and specific cause, and that the views therein are not simply "my opinion". The POV tags will stay. Aloha, Arjuna 09:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * JK, thanks for your comments, and perhaps we are both pushing each others' buttons again. My regrets if so, but it is very frustrating that it seems to me that you seemingly refuse to accept that I have already provided sufficient justification for the tags. Your request for further "specific examples" is a red herring, as I presume you are aware but are attempting to use as a rhetorical device. My point in the original request by Viriditas for justification of the POV tags was to make the point that the article as currently written presents a POV -- and therefore misleading -- interpretation of events. This point needs no further reiteration here, and in fact I have already requested Viriditas' assistance on this. I look forward to working with you to demonstrate that the minimal requirement of the article is that it reflect the fact (via POV tag) that the interpretation of events is seriously disputed. Until then, all the best (and I mean that -- let's cool off a bit for the next day, shall we? The article isn't going anywhere) and aloha, Arjuna 10:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As per your suggestion, I have also asked Viriditas to weigh in. I look forward to more specific citations from you, even if as you claim, they have already been provided - I have looked through your contributions, and have not found any such citations, but you may have a better idea of what edits to look at.   Maybe for future work, we can create a page Talk:JereKrischel/Arjuna's citations so we can keep them handy.  I assume your intent is not to leave a permanent POV tag here, but to improve the article so that neither you nor I feel it is necessary.  Mahalo!  --JereKrischel 10:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh.) Ok, JK -- here is one citation to your request on the Kalakaua power play, even though that you request it reflects the fact that you don't understand my point that the bias is subtle, pervasive, and presents an overall misleading picture of mainstream scholarship (though you are, in my book, deserving of much kudos in your mastery of the details and ability to manipulate those details into the picture you wish to present). The citation is from that hotbed of radical left-wing separatist sentiment, Aloha magazine, May 1994, by Pat Pitzer. I know you know this one as it's often cited (if hardly scholarly, it is most certainly mainstream). The quote is "In 1887, during the reign of Lili`uokalani' s brother, King Kalakaua, a group of planters and businessmen, seeking to control the kingdom politically as well as economically, formed a secret organization, the Hawaiian League." Now that I have provided this citation, I do not intend to rise to the further baiting on the "specific" red herring. I have already provided ample specifics to justify the tag, at least until such time as others weigh in. Now, let's please take a bit of a step back -- both of us -- and recognize that this isn't a world-ending issue and perhaps it can await further discussion until such time as we have all had time to enjoy the weekend. Which, I hope, you have a very nice one. Arjuna 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Arjuna, thanks for explaining. I think the easiest solution to this conflict is to represent both positions in the article(s) with the best sources available.  Can the both of you do that? If anyone needs help with research, let me know and I'll try to contribute to the effort. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, V, and I agree. It may be that the two positions are entirely incommensurable -- I hope not to go there, but do I correctly assume that what you're suggesting could, in the end, result in "parallel interpretation", along the lines of the material on Legal Status of Hawaii? That is not my first or even second option for sure, but although I am hopeful that JK will agree to work collaboratively with me (and obviously any others are most welcome) to fairly represent the viewpoint that U.S. agents were complicit in the overthrow, I regret to say that based on prior and ongoing discussion with him, I'm somewhat skeptical that this will be successful. (As an illustration, how anyone could suggest that Kinzer's Overthrow supports his perspective and not the one I'm seeking to have represented is nothing short of bizarre.) However, I hope to be proven wrong. Cheers and mahalo, Arjuna 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See NPOV and undue weight. We don't have to give equal time to perspectives and opinions that don't meet minimum standards for inclusion. Not all opinions are equal, nor should they be treated as such.  If one viewpoint has less weight than another, we can briefly describe it, but it shouldn't outweigh the dominant viewpoint.  However, if the established view is controversial or disputed, and is covered adequately in reliable sources, we can allow equal time for the dispute. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mahalo, Viriditas. I have read NPOV and agree with you entirely. In my view (JK will likely have another), the crux of the issue seems to be that JK views his perspective (to take another example, his inappropriate valorization of the Morgan Report over other sources) as mainstream, historical "truth" (JK, I am not being insulting, but I know of no other way to characterize your approach). No radical am I, but in my view and that of many others in several different contentious debates on related issues on various Hawaii articles (a brief perusal of the talk pages can confirm this), I argue that his is a highly selective presentation of facts that results in an overall distorted view of history, and thus highly insidious. In other words, I argue that the material as currently presented does indeed give undue weight to (JK's) minority perspective -- the majority mainstream view being that the U.S. and agents acting on its behalf had a complicit role in the overthrow. Despite this, I recognize that JK's is a significant minority view that should not be excluded -- merely put into a larger context and given proper weight. I am not trying to put words into JK's mouth, but after sporadic bouts of this over months and months, my fear is that his role at an advocacy group skews his perspective, based on fears that any admission of a U.S. role opens up a can of worms that will ultimately lead to Hawaiian sovereignty or independence. In contrast, I see the U.S. role as tragic and highly unethical -- but probably inevitable -- with U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii as a complete, non-negotiable fait accompli. (I would also agree that what happened was much better than other alternatives at the time -- but that is neither here nor there). Thus, presenting the warts-and-all view of what really happened does not present a challenge to the legal status of Hawaii, and thus, it is not threatening to anyone. Ok, I'm getting off my soapbox now. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, Arjuna 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Arjuna, are you saying that WP:COI is an issue in this argument? Jere, I don't know anything about this, so don't take this as a criticism or an attack; I'm just trying to see that all of the cards are on the table and that all issues are addressed in an open manner. If Arjuna has an outstanding issue related to WP:COI, we need to discuss it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid Viriditas, I must disagree with Arjuna's characterization of what is the "majority" perspective. Although he cites Kinzer and an article in Aloha Magazine, neither of them seem to be particularly well established "majority" perspectives - Kinzer, to his credit, is a popular author, but his sources for his material on Hawaii are questionable, and his general thesis in his book "Overthrow" is arguably a polemic, and an article in a magazine hardly seems as definitive as an in-depth bi-partisan congressional report, much less two of them.


 * If I were to characterize the situation, the accepted scholarly view is that the Hawaiian Revolution (if you start the clock from 1887) was primarily motivated by the well documented corruption of the Kalakaua dynasty, and that it is the "minority" view of radical sovereignty activists who have been highly vocal since the 1970s, but hardly representative of the scholarly work on the subject. Just as Arjuna may see my perspective as "highly insidious", I must admit that his foundational premise, that the U.S. had a "tragic and highly unethical" role, seems quite insidious to me.  For nearly 30 years, a focused effort has been made by many to revise the historical record, and enter into the popular consciousness a mythology that has no basis in fact.  For example, the recent passage of April 30th as "Hawaiian Restoration Day" by the Hawaii State Legislature is based on a fictitious proclamation by Grover Cleveland - should we consider this now a "majority" view, and abandon actual scholarship?


 * Okay, stepping off the soapbox, I think the only way we can move forward on this is to assume good faith, and deal with details, not simply assert that the other person is being insidious or disingenuous. --JereKrischel 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aloha Arjuna, mahalo for the reference. First of all, I don't object to including a quote of Pitzer, with an appropriate reference (a URL would be helpful).  That being said, do you think we should rely on a magazine article, rather than established scholarship on the topic, by people such as Daws?  From Shoal of Time, p245:

"The opium scandal broke at the end of May 1887, while Premier Gibson was trying to get out from under the wreckage of his program for the primacy of the Pacific. This combination of troubles abroad and at home was enough to create a crisis for the government, and the Hawaiian League and the Honolulu Rifles were more than ready to take advantage of it."


 * Daws also prominently mentions Gibson on page 240:

"Ever since Kalakaua came to the throne the planters and businessmen had been telling him, through their newspapers at Honolulu, that it was a wise ruler tho paid attention to well-meant advice from the influential inhabitants of his kingdom. Some of the king's native admirers took an opposite view. White men who criticized the Hawaiian monarchy were overstepping themselves...Premier Gibson was magnanimous in the face of criticism.  The monarchy, he was fond of saying, was willing to give anyone a hearing...Gibson was at his most irritating when he spoke like this.  It was clear to his opponents that 'he and Kalakaua had run roughshod over the constitution: they had subverted the legislature, purged the civil service of all but sycophants, and they were planning to pack the supreme court; and to top it all off they were on their way to bankrupting the kingdom.''"


 * In regards to the formation of the Hawaiian League, the following passage on page 243 is helpful:

"''Toward the end of 1886 Thurston had a conversation about clenched fists and Reform with one of his friends, a physician named S. G. Tucker. As Thurston recalled the occasion in his memoirs, he was standing at his front gate when Tucker drew up his buggy and said: 'Thurston, how long are we going to stand this kind of thing?' 'What kind of thing?' asked Thurston. 'The running away with the community by Kalakaua,' said Tucker, 'his interference with elections, and running the Legislature for his own benefit, and all that.'  'Well,' said Thurston, 'what can we do about it?'  'I suggest,' said Tucker, 'that we form an organization, including all nationalities, which shall force him to be decent, and reign, not rule, or take the consequences.'"

"Thurston talked things over with a number of trustworthy men - his friend William A. Kinney; Sanford Dole, William R. Castle, Nathaniel B. Emerson, and W.E. Rowell, all of them descended from Protestant missionaries; Peter Cushman Jones of C. Brewer and Co.; Clarence W. Ashford, a Canadian-born lawyer; Alatau T. Atkinson, a schoolteacher and opposition journalist; and several others. They all agreed that Tucker's idea was a sound one, and in January 1887, the first meetings oft he Hawaiian League were held."


 * Perhaps citing Daws somewhere is more appropriate than citing a magazine article? What do you think, Arjuna? --JereKrischel 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your attempt at sarcasm is humorous. (Of course it is better to cite a scholarly work. You know that, and asking the question is either sarcastic or something else that I will not point out.) The magazine reference is to show that the mainstream POV supports my position that U.S. agents played a role in the conspiracy, rather than yours.


 * I assume you agree with me that Kinzer does the same. Previously one of your comments sounded as though you were suggesting that Kinzer's work supports your POV, which would be nothing short of a bizarre interpretation. Btw, Daws' work also supports the perspective I am trying to see fairly represented. Perhaps you read Daws but did you understand it? His scholarship is far more nuanced -- as well as being more a straightforward narrative rather than primarily analytical (this is not a criticism) -- than to give pre-digested propagandistic summaries for the Fox News Generation, along the lines of "the U.S. backed the overthrow". To take one example from last night re: whether the, Daws on p. 265 says "The Reformers of 1887 had asserted that their solid property rights gave them the right to rule..." and on p. 251: "the reformers were not about to turn the country over to a masterless rabble...". Obviously they were also intending to end the excrable corruption and incompetence of the Kalakaua regime, but were they also intending to consolidate power in their own hands? Yes. Does Daws come out and say this quite so crudely and bluntly a la Fox News? No, that would be shoddy scholarship. You get my point.


 * At this point, although I do not have a lot of spare time, I will start working on what I consider to be a fair representation of both perspectives, which I'm sure you will find things to disagree with, but we can try to hash it out. If that is unsuccessful, I think we should consider having separate sections with separate interpretations, since clearly I consider mainstream scholarship such as Daws et al to support the perspective that the U.S. had a role in the overthrow (and yes, this includes the marine presence as an intended intimidation, which seems rather obvious). Until then, cheers and have a good weekend, Arjuna 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aloha Arjuna, I did not intend to be sarcastic - my apologies if you took it that way. If you also feel it is better to cite a scholarly work, rather than a more popular one, perhaps you can help make some specific Daws citations.  I think it is possible to rationally argue that scholarly works are somehow less appropriate than popular ones, and was simply giving you the opportunity to do so if you wanted to.


 * That being said, rest assured, I do understand Daws work, and I believe that perhaps you are not accepting the nuance that he lays out for the complex nature of the fall of the Hawaiian monarchy. Your quote regarding the desire of property owners to have significant say in government seems perfectly appropriate - and far from a spurious assertion that their actions were simply a unabashed power grab.


 * For example, also from p265:

"The Reformers of 1887, who had not done well in the elections of 1890 and who looked forward to the elections of 1892 with even less optimism, were getting ready to make the great leap to the solid ground of the United States. They saw an unreasonable queen on one side and irresponsible agitators such as Wilcox and Bush on the other, and they concluded that the only course that offered any hope at all for the future was annexation to the United States."


 * Arguably, Daws is making it very clear here that the concerns of the Reformers was not their own personal power (unlike someone like Walter Murray Gibson), but the continued economic viability and sustainability of the Hawaiian islands. Daws elaborates further on page 266-267:

"Thurston thought he could distinguish several groups of people at the islands who had an interest one way or another in annexation - foreigners with a financial investment in the country; permanent settlers; the native leaders of the Liberal party; the common natives; and the queen and her faction. The first three groups, by and large, were for annexation; the common natives were undecided; and the queen's party was against the idea. The sugar industry was in such bad condition that any change would be welcomed; the planters would be willing to give up cheap contract labor and abide by the labor laws of the United States if this meant that they could get a bounty like the one enjoyed by American producers.  The Liberal leaders, snubbed by the queen, were ready to pu their faith in universal suffrage under the American flag; this would give them control of the legislature, and they would also control patronage - and 'loves and fishes' were important to them."


 * The nuance Daws is exposing here is that there were multiple factions - not simply royalists and annexationists, nor simply planters and businessmen and natives. It seems this might be a difficult thing to condense well, but your help in the matter would be appreciated.


 * Finally, the full quote from page 251:

"Having curbed an irresponsible native king, the reformers were not about to turn the country over to a masterless rabble of mixed origins."


 * Although certainly there were white supremacists around in the late 1800s, that particular tar brush cannot be equally applied to all those involved in the Hawaiian League or the Committee of Safety - Oleson, for example is a total racist, but it would be hard to make the same characterization of Dole or Thurston, who were elitists, but not racists.


 * I appreciate all the time you can spend on this, and since we both have a copy of Daws, I think it will be helpful to discuss specific quotes, and pay attention on appropriate ways to characterize them. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Jere, I would like to refactor this discussion to make it easier to read and follow. Right now, it is very difficult to see who is saying what. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

COI
Viriditas, thanks for your message above. Boy. It was not my intention to go there. I am confident that I have the facts and analysis on "my" side, and I do not want to "win" by getting JK, in effect, disqualified. My mention of his (apparently unpaid?) position as Senior Fellow with the advocacy group Grassroot Institute of Hawaii was to make the point that this organization, which is involved in native Hawaiian issues, has a decidely minority political perspective, and that this may negatively affect his approach to viewing other, more mainstream, perspectives -- and thus editing the articles -- fairly. However... since you mentioned it (I suppose I did actually, but was I not thinking explicit COI), you prompted me to re-read WP:COI and to have a closer look at the GI website. I find reason at least for concern, though I'm not sure I want to "go there", and seek your counsel.

The GI website contains several recent essays by JK here, here, and here. I find some of this material somewhat disturbing. The first essay, for example, in effect calls native Hawaiian activist groups -- with whom I have no connection, and Lord knows probably don' t like me either -- not only racists but implicitly compares them to Nazis and their agenda to apartheid. Now, I find much of the radical Hawaiian activist movement to be troubling in many ways as well, but the rhetoric in that essay is not just overheated, it is propaganda and evidence of serious bias. Of course JK is fully entitled to his personal views, and it is his right to publish whatever he wishes; this by itself probably not grounds for dismissal as an editor on a particular set of articles. But what is potentially more problematic (which I wasn't previously aware of) is the fact that GI is apparently at least tangentally involved in ongoing advocacy and legal battles here in the state and federally over Hawaiian issues (i.e. Akaka Bill, Kamehameha lawsuit). Put together, this is reason to at least give pause that JK not only comes from a non-mainstream perspective that colors his approach to editing, but that perhaps this falls over that fine line in terms of possibly serving in a capacity to propagate and advance GI's perspectives and interests. Indeed, I do feel that there are examples in which JK uses Wikipedia articles to propogate a minority perspective. I am not here to get JK into trouble; despite our battles, I think he thus has something significant to contribute.

In short, I don't know where I stand on this. I do not wish to make a formal accusation, yet at least, and would very much appreciate your best judgement and assessment. And for that, thanks much in advance, Arjuna 11:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Update as of 4 October 2007. The material on the first link provided above, in which JK's highly divisive and beyond-the-pale comparison between Native Hawaiians sovereignty groups and apartheid and Nazis, has since been moved here. Arjuna 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason I brought this to your attention is because you wrote: "...I recognize that JK's is a significant minority view that should not be excluded -- merely put into a larger context and given proper weight. I am not trying to put words into JK's mouth, but after sporadic bouts of this over months and months, my fear is that his role at an advocacy group skews his perspective, based on fears that any admission of a U.S. role opens up a can of worms that will ultimately lead to Hawaiian sovereignty or independence." So, you seem to be concerned about a COI.  Now, correct me if I am wrong, but JK has declared his interest on his user page via an external link to the GI.  I am also assuming that he has declared his interest to you and others, perhaps on discussion pages.  I find this preferable to editors who have not declared an interest, as I am sure you do as well.  I think the real solution here is to determine, once and for all, using brevity as our guide, the actual positions in question, both minority and majority, and go from there.  If we can agree on what is considered a majority and a minority position in respect to the POV disputes occurring on multiple pages, we can take the first step towards solving this dispute.  One thing I want to bring to JK's attention, in regards to the previous discussion above this one, is the important difference between citing primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia.  This can be problematic, which is why we rely on good secondary sources rather than interpreting the meaning of primary sources. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Aloha, my title as "Senior Fellow" with GRIH is simply honorary - I believe in their mission of education and equal rights, and have had the privilege of having some of my articles published by them. I have never been paid by GRIH for anything.  Although they have been tarred and feathered by rather prominent and powerful political groups in Hawaii, including KSBE and OHA, I think it is difficult to assert they have a "minority" view (if you can derive a view from their educational work).  GRIH is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy think tank, and my association with them has been in helping advance the study, analysis, reporting and investigation of issues related to Hawaii.  I am also not involved in any way with any pending or past lawsuits regarding civil rights in Hawaii, although I will state unequivocally for the record that I am for equal treatment regardless of race, creed or color - I believe strongly in the 14th and 15th amendments, and I can understand how some people may find those ideals quaint and impractical.


 * As to my views and what Arjuna finds disturbing, I think we can clearly agree that anyone who advocates for superior rights on the basis of race is a racist, although we may disagree as to whether or not the racism of native Hawaiian victimhood groups is benign racism, or malign racism as compared to the Nazis and apartheid. I stand by my article cited, and I don't believe it can be read as propaganda or overheated - certainly no more than any of Arjuna's comments, or the comments of sovereignty activists who want to lay the blame for the overthrow of Liliuokalani squarely on the shoulders of the U.S..


 * That being said I think if I were to suggest good secondary sources, it would be Kuykendall, Kirch, Daws and Andrade. Post-1970 activist literature doesn't seem like proper sourcing, although it is prevalent in UH Manoa work since the 70s.  I think Arjuna and I both agree on Daws, and maybe that's a good place to hang our hat for now.  I'd add to the mix Hawaiian Sovereignty:Do the facts matter?, but since I can appreciate that some people may not see Twigg-Smith's book as neutral.


 * In any case, I would make the assertion that the demarcation of a "minority" and "majority" POV is complex in this case. For example, the "majority" viewpoint, as evidenced by the last 114 years of history, governance, international recognition and law is that the Provisional Government of Hawaii, the Republic of Hawaii, the Territory of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii have all been legal governments.  However, the "majority" viewpoint of Hawaiians Studies literature coming out of U.H. Manoa since 1970, is that all of these governments are illegal according to international law.  Similarly, the "majority" POV amongst mainlanders, exposed only to the propaganda of sovereignty activist entertainers like Hapa or Iz, is that native Hawaiians are an oppressed race who had their lands stolen by the white man and are identical to Native Americans with their trail of tears and reservations.  The "majority" POV amongst serious historians (Kuykendall, Daws, Andrade), as well as congressional reports and the deliberation of the U.S. civil rights commission, is that the parallel between Native American and native Hawaiian is not a strong one.


 * With new attention being paid to the topic in the past decade or so, now that the Akaka Bill, the Apology Resolution, Rice v. Cayetano, I think we can both be honest and admit that there is a competition between various POVs being played out in the public sphere, and that the "majority" and "minority" positions are still in flux for various cuts at the problem. I think the only way we can avoid becoming a part of this battle is to be specific in our citations, and careful of in-line editorializing.  I think that Arjuna's fear is that by defining the rules of the road that way, what he sees as an important and proper POV will be undercut and marginalized.  I believe that if that is so, it is only because that POV is not well founded in the scholarship on the topic.


 * So let's pick one detail - Thurston's motivation for moving forward with the 1887 constitution against Kalakaua. I believe that the "majority" POV of scholarship is that it was done in response to Kalakaua's corruption and Walter Murray Gibson's influence - I believe Daws backs that up quite nicely.  I believe that is is a "minority" POV to assert that Thurston moved forward with the 1887 constitution for the sake of gaining power for himself, or because of some racist tendencies.  I believe, however, it is notable that one of the primary reasons for the 1887 constitution and the provisions which expanded voting rights to the wealthy, was to give power in government to those people who were responsible for the majority of its tax revenue.  Perhaps Arjuna will agree to this compromise, which accurately notes both the corruption of Kalakaua, and the philosophical belief in rule by the elite characterized by Thurston and his fellow Hawaiian League members. --JereKrischel 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've put forward some changes in the 1887 constitution section - Arjuna, could you look at those and see if you'd like to alter it further? Maybe we can come to agreement just on that one section, and then move to the next one. --JereKrischel 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have family business to attend to, so this is just a short preliminary response for now. Thanks, Viriditas, for your comments, and that sounds eminently reasonable to me in principle. The problem lies in its implementation. For the record, as implied by my previous comments, I do not have any connection whatsoever with, or personal interest in, the issues or groups who are active on these issues. Happy to clarify this further, but basically, I'm merely someone interested in seeing history accurately represented in the article. Now, as for determining what this the majority vs. minority position in respect to the POV disputes: ay, there's the rub, as JK has again illustrated above. I could but will not resort to labels. However, JK is notable in use of logical fallacies to attempt to define the terms of debate in favor of his POV -- ex. that the "'minority'" POV [is] to assert that Thurston moved forward with the 1887 constitution for the sake of gaining power for himself, or because of some racist tendencies", which is not what the alternative interpretation (at least what I was arguing for) was (and either JK knows that and is stonewalling again, or has read but failed to understand what I wrote, which was that T was the leader of a group of Euro-American elites wishing to seize political control in order to protect their economic interests. Was it also to end corruption and incompetence? Yes, of course. Was it something deeper and more structural as I argue. Yes to that too. It is perhaps one of the marks of an ideologue that they are seemingly incapable of accepting that something can have more than one -- and often contradictory --meaning at the same time.


 * As for JK's attempt to compare the substance and style of his rhetoric to mine, I will not lower myself to his level to respond, except to say that I have never made analogies to Nazis or apartheid. The facts speak for themselves.


 * I do not accept his incomplete list of acceptable secondary sources, which leaves out, for example, Russ and (more recently) Kinzer, among others.


 * Now, where to go from here? JK's remark that "Arjuna's fear is that by defining the rules of the road that way, what he sees as an important and proper POV will be undercut and marginalized. I believe that if that is so, it is only because that POV is not well founded in the scholarship on the topic" speaks volumes. He truly believes his to be the correct and unassailable POV, a position I do not find in the least credible. It is quite telling that JK seems to believe that Kinzer's book supports his position. I regret to say that after many months of this wheel-spinning, I simply do not think the actors in this debate can come to any agreement as to who represents the majority vs. minority position. The wise advice of other parties is encouraged, and thanks in advance. Aloha, Arjuna 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to make this really easy. Arjuna and JK, please fill in the following sections with what you consider the majority and minority positions, including sources.   Please do not add comments.  I'm currently adding information as I find it, but I can't vouch for its accurate representation, so please change whatever you see as appropriate beneath your name heading. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Majority v. Minority
{| width="100%" style="background-color:#"
 * style="width: 50%; border:0; background-color:#; vertical-align:top"|

Majority v. parallel
A big mahalo for your efforts here, Viriditas. I took a very preliminary stab at what my positions are, and eliminated some that I do not hold and/or contest.

Taking a step back, though, I wonder if the most appropriate way to handle the dispute is a process such as this to determine "what is the majority on issue X?" (Note that I completely acknowlege I am as guilty as anyone in framing the issue in this way.) How would this possibly be decided -- polling historians? What weight is given to earlier, rather than more modern material? At what scale -- local, national, international -- is the "majority opinion" decided? You get my point: hall of mirrors. This will not comply with WP:UNDUE, but I propose we consider a parallel approach, along the lines of Legal status of Hawaii (note that I am talking about it as a tempate; I do not contest the legal status of Hawaii!). The article itself would be a straight recitation of relevant events upon which both sides can agree, and then separate sections for details and interpretation for both sides. This is admittedly sub-optimal, and has problems itself, but I don't know a better way given the issues. Recall that the proximate cause of all this was simply my desire to retain the POV tags that I added, not to get into this whole mess. I think separate but equal may be the only solution that can keep both sides from antagonism. I am skeptical that this will be amenable to JK (not to put words in his mouth), since I gather he thinks his perspective is "truth" and all others inferior. I feel the same, but am willing to compromise just to get some resolution here and have everyone move on to something more productive. I just have more than a suspicion that we will never get to agreement on either "truth" or "majority". Thoughts from you or JK? Again, thanks to V -- your mediation efforts here are very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna808 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What I'm hoping will happen is that you and JK can equalize both sides, and meet somewhere in the middle. JK hasn't weighed in just yet. Let's stick to WP:NPOV. The next step is to align each claim with a notable source and notable proponents.  The claims that have the most notable and reliable proponents can be safely said to be the "majority" viewpoint and should be represented as such. Notable minority disputes should then be represented fairly. If the proponents are not notable, they should not be included.&mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Viriditas - thank you very much for putting together the table, I think after a few of my edits, it fairly represents my view of the matter.

I have no problem with presenting alternate assertions as to what the historical record shows, but I do have concerns about properly attributing statements to their sources. For example, Kinzer, as secondary source, does not seem particularly scholarly, and although certainly a popular book, does not seem like it should hold as much weight as something by Daws or Andrade. Similarly, magazine articles or post-1970 activist literature doesn't seem particularly scholarly...that being said, so long as they were properly attributed and characterized, I wouldn't mind their inclusion.

On the other hand, I think that there are some points under Arjuna's column that I'm not sure are appropriate characterizations - for example, the "Euro-American" label really only applies very roughly - there were many "Euro-American" royalists as well (Spreckels for example, or Gibson); dividing things on racial lines seems less accurate than explaining things in more detail - Reform Party versus royalists for example. It also seems that some points under arjuna's column aren't what he really means - e.g. "Those who deny that coup plotters were solely motivated by a desire for good government", I think he means "Those who insist that coup plotters were solely motivated by a desire for good government.

I think this is a good start, and I believe there are large areas of agreement between Arjuna and I. Maybe you can suggest some specific item we can try to find common ground on, and work from there. --JereKrischel 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I am interested in reading Arjuna's reply to your above comment. IMO, you are both making good progress on this issue.  I'm glad to see the lines of communication open. I have faith that this argument (and the other Hawaii-related disputes) can be solved, and the three of us can move on to greater collaboration, with a sharp and dedicated focus to bringing this article to FA-Class. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Aloha all. JK is right of course about the "deny" vs. "insist" -- I have had time to put in all of about five minutes on all of this so far (I have yet to take more than a perfunctory stab at "my" section above). My professional life is particularly frenetic at the moment so I appreciate your patience. I think there is some progress here, but as I said from the outset, the devil is in the details. I take issue with JK's premise that a secondary source book such as Kinzer is necessarily inferior to "scholarly" ones -- actually some of the latter are remarkably thin on analysis or context, being mostly narrative accounts of events. This is not to dismiss or insult those books, just to point out they have their limitations as well. I would agree with him however that "activist" literature is not particularly useful in that there is an overt political agenda driving the text, but I suppose the issue may come down to what the definition of "activist" is, and that obviously it can apply to parties on both extremes of the issues. As for how to characterize the plotters, I think it is not only perfectly appropriate, but would actually mischaracterize the historical context at the time to suggest that anything other than that perceptions of race were part of the mix for many (not all). "Reform Party versus royalists", in terms of presenting the big picture, misses the forest for the trees. The question is what was driving the overthrow -- surely JK is not suggesting it was party affiliation. (Btw, I find his #3 odd -- these facts are not contested, but if this is the only information provided in the description of how U.S. troops came to Honolulu, it misrepresents both the motivation behind and (intended) effect of their deployment. I will add something to the list to this effect.) In general, though, I agree however that the racial aspect should be done sensitively, in a way that tries not to unnecessarily fan any flames. But while not all Euro-Americans were plotters, all plotters were Euro-American, and race was a factor, and so not to mention this -- in proper context, with sensitivity -- is only obvious. Btw, for the record I (mostly) agree with JK's #7 myself. My motivation in all this is that history should not be white-washed. I will try to get around to fleshing out my section in the next week. Mahalo to all for your constructive comments and input. Arjuna 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Aloha Arjuna! Glad to extend any amount of patience you require - work has been a bear for me lately as well.  A few notes:  My premise that Kinzer is inferior to works such as Russ or Kuykendall is mostly because Kinzer himself states that his Hawaii section was looked over and approved by Pauline King - a wonderful lady, from what I hear, with relatives on both sides of the Hawaiian Revolution, but who has a particularly pro-Hawaiian sovereignty bent.  Reading her introductions to reprints of Russ's books gives a bit of a glimpse there.  Kinzer started off with his premise (Iraq involvement is bad, America is an evil empire), and characterized the Hawaiian Revolution and subsequent annexation in those terms - he is not a professional historian, and his narrative is the one that helps lead to his conclusion, not the one that exists in the most neutral historical record (Russ is a good example, guy from Pennsylvania, no axe to grind, finds both fault in both sides, but makes it pretty clear that it wasn't some grand conspiracy).


 * As for the question of what was driving the overthrow, I am suggesting that it was party affiliation - the whites on the sides of the british were very much pro-royalist, which had nothing to do with their skin color. The portuguese (white?  non-white?  take your pick.) were mostly annexationist, and had no real affiliation with the United States.  Not to mention the tension on the Asian question - if anything, reading the historical record, the problem race the whites really had was the Chinese and Japanese.  From Russ's Hawaiian Republic, p31:


 * A few weeks later the Advertiser undoubtedly presented the general attitude of most white people, including the committee, when it said that the refusal to grant the vote to Chinese was justified because the "Chinese is an alien in Hawaii, as he is everywhere away from the land of his birth. He brings the Orient with him.


 * My beef is with presenting it as a native versus white issue, which it clearly was not. If we want to describe some of the racial aspects, we should take the time to describe the complexity of the situation, not drive it down to a sound-bite.


 * As for my #3, although you admit the facts are uncontested, you still contest that there was a motivation intended that was contrary to their actual actions. I find that hard to accept.


 * Regarding, "All plotters were Euro-American", I think that can be said about the small leadership circle (the committee of safety, for example, 13 people who did not include anyone with direct native descent), but it cannot be said about the Reform party in general. Thurston, long before the Revolution, was elected as a legislator, and had a constituency that included a majority of native Hawaiians.  Although there are definitely examples of specific plotters who had a racial axe to grind against non-whites, there are also examples of specific plotters who had no such prejudices against natives (although as far as my reading goes, all of them had prejudices against orientals...the 1887 constitution taking away the asian vote is a testament to that).


 * I think given some thought, maybe we can write a section on "race relations", describing some of the complexity in more detail - would you be amenable to helping me draft something like that arjuna?


 * BTW, just picked up a copy of Kuykendall, and have both Russ books, so I can offer and respond to references in any of those tomes. --JereKrischel 02:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and btw, the police officer who was shot during the Hawaiian Revolution did not die - there were no fatalities that day. --JereKrischel 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please link all claims found within the Majority v. Minority to a primary and/or secondary source and I will link them to the proper footnotes. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the other side is now acknowledging that the U.S. played at least an "indirect" role in the overthrow. Clearly this means agreement that the weasel words "alleged" can now be removed from the various articles, unless there is some intention on the other editor's part to engage in Clintonian parsing over what the word "role" means. Since -- alas, one step forward, two steps back: now the other editor seems to want to dispute whether 1893 was an overthrow or a "change in government". I will have more to add on this later, but for now, just be amused. O manna from heaven! Arjuna 12:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The "role" asserted by PL103-150 is an alleged direct role. The "indirect" role of being present at the time, and manipulated by the queen into an attempt for restoration ala the Paulet affair is something entirely different.  I'll change it to "alleged direct role" to make it clear what we're talking about.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think the article (much less the historical truth, because your contempt for that has already been made abundantly clear) is well-served by such Clintonian parsing? Further adjectival qualifications are inappropriate, but now that you have acknowledged there was a role, that is what the article shall refer to. Mahalo! Arjuna 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The "role" asserted by PL103-150 is not acknowledged, it is alleged. A "role" as you put it may have been played, but you can surely agree (as does Russ) that it was at most an indirect one, and not what PL103-150 proclaims.  It is important to give qualifications to the assertion, because PL103-150 is not an accurate depiction of the historical record, and even if you don't believe that, it is certainly not an undisputed one.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 08:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be a benefit to all of humanity if you were to refrain from your idiosyncratic definitions and tendentious adjectival qualifications of what is, after all, a matter not just of the historical record. I did not violate 3RR after all, but to be on the safe side I am not going to revert your wholescale, destructive, and unfounded reverts to my very careful and meticulously cited additions and copy edits -- until later. Arjuna 09:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for refraining from further reverts. Let's be a bit more careful about your citations and additions, and work together, and I'm sure we'll able to improve the article.  Simply stating, "The accuracy and underlying political motivations of the Morgan Report have been disputed by many historians and researchers" begs a mass of questions - accuracy about what?  political motivations of what sort?  which historians and researchers?  You cite a bunch of books, but give no page citations, or quotes to back up such a blatantly POV pushing edit.


 * Let's work together to find things we can say about the Morgan Report backed up by Russ...for example, regarding the section of the Morgan Report written by morgan, and referred to in the statements of the republican senators: "It seems that the Chairman had two purposes in mind: first, to gainsay everything the Blount report had asserted; second, to clear the name of every American official and to give the United States a spotless slate" (this is including exonerating the dubious appointment of Blount) p 335, Hawaiian Revolution.


 * Similarly, regarding Blount, "Blount called upon Liliuokalani on April 24...The visit created a storm of protest from the Annexationist press against Blount and Liliuokalani. There had been a feeling for some time that Blount was taking testimony from more Royalists and native organizations than from Annexationists, and this incident brought the suspicion to light."  p 194, Hawaiian Revolution.


 * Adding in more information is not what I object to - your editorializing of several books into a jingoistic and misleading statement, "the Morgan Report have been disputed by many historians and researchers", is what I find inappropriate. We can do a good job here of fully describing and illustrating the very complex political relationships between annexationists, royalists, democrats, republicans, Morgan, Cleveland, and even the conservative and liberal wings of the Provisional Government, without yielding to simplistic descriptions without justification.


 * Anyway, again, I hope you continue to contribute, and that your future contributions are constructive ones. Your participation is greatly appreciated.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Chronological order
Is there a problem with the chronological order of events laid out currently around the days of the Hawaiian revolution? Or is there a different reason for recent reverts? --JereKrischel 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah -- really? If so, my bad. I thought you were adding stuff back that had been taken out, which I suppose reflects the fact that there's still a lot of objectionable POV stuff in there. We've yet to get to a good NPOV in this article. Anyhow, sorry for not paying closer attention. Have a good one. Arjuna 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, if I've lost some of the NPOV compromises in re-ordering stuff, my apologies. I'll look more carefully at anything you think is still POV, and try to offer compromises, if that would help.  Apologies if I've seemed a bit defensive as of late - I feel like I made progress with Laualoha, and kinda feel like I've slipped with eekadog.  c/m/t --JereKrischel 05:35, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

What's Going On?
Looks like there's some crazy reversion warfare going on. Honestly, I do not have all the facts and refs for this level of detail to butt in at this oment (plus my daughter is sitting on my lap trying to hit random keys). However, reversion without solid explanation is not good. Can somebody explain? Aloha, --Laualoha 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we're getting somewhere in our compromises, but reverts are all too often the first resort, both by myself and others. I'm trying to work harder on providing concrete compromise proposals instead of actual reverts - I kindly ask that others try to do the same.


 * I'm particularly concerned, though, about removing well referenced cites - citing primary sources doesn't seem to be something that is "misuse", but I'd like to hear more of Arjuna's thoughts on that. Maybe we can figure out exactly what would be a good compromise there. --JereKrischel 20:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * JK is the use of the word peacekeeping necessary? and for the love of whatever greater being you believe in can we please remove "passing by" or reword the sentence so it doesn't start with "as they marched past? Eekadog 22:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this POV?
Okay, pop quiz to help us move forward here: How many ways can we say "As these events were unfolding, American citizens living in Honolulu expressed concern for their safety and property.", and which way is NPOV?

1) As these events were unfolding, American citizens living in Honolulu expressed concern for their safety and property. (no change)

2) As these events were unfolding, annexationist Americans part of the Committee of Safety begged the U.S. to protect them.

3) As these events were unfolding, foreign conspirators against the Queen made up stories about public safety to provide cover for the illegal and immoral landing of U.S. Marines armed with vicious looking gatling guns.

4) As these events were unfolding, innocent Americans, afraid of the unruly mobs which might descend upon them after being rabble roused by race-baiting politicians and ne'er do wells, feared for their lives and of the threat of rape and plunder weighing over their heads, and pleaded with the U.S. to provide them some protection.

My guess is that #1 is probably the best way to say it, but I'm open to alternatives. I'll leave you with this from Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom, Vol 3, p629-630:

'''Blount did not realize that time had been running out for the monarchy for years. Without the presence of the Boston's troops the revolution might have been delayed, but only until the committee of safety had sufficient time to prepare, as the Hawaiian League had done in 1887. While Blount correctly believed that native sentiment was for the queen as opposed to the provisional government, he seemed not to have understood that there were large numbers of footloose whites, half-castes, and natives who favored neither side. Had these elements had a choice between annexation or rule by oligarchy, annexation would have been their choice. Under universal manhood suffrage they would have controlled the government and the patronage that went with it.'''

I'll try to figure a way to work this Kuykendall quote in somewhere, it seems particularly relevant. --JereKrischel 07:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this really accurate?
I took this out: "As these events were unfolding, the Committee of Safety requested that United States Government Minister John L. Stevens land US troops to prevent any threat to public safety in response to the Committee's actions. "

Where did the Committee ever say that threats to public safety were due to its actions? Certainly they blamed the queen for the unrest! What they would have said was, "As these events were unfolding, the Committee of Safety requested that United States Government Minister John L. Stevens land US troops to prevent any threat to public safety in response to the Committee's resistance to the illegal actions of the queen." If we stick to the facts, they are as follows (a) The queen attempted to promulgate a new constitution; (b) A committee of safety was formed in response; (c) This committee asked Stevens for the landing of troops to protect the peace; (d) Stevens passed on this request to Capt. Wiltse, who had already decided to land troops based on his own assessment of the situation; (e) The committee asked that the landing of the troops be delayed; (f) Stevens and Wiltse ignored the committee's request, and landed troops anyway; (g) these troops acted in a completely neutral manner, although their presence may have been demoralizing to the royalists. Am I missing anything? Can we stick to the facts, and cite them? --JereKrischel 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Pop Quiz...
 * 1. What would the mob be so upset about?
 * 2. If the royalists had decided to fight the Committee of Safety, who do you think the Americans would have sided with?
 * 3. Why is the Morgan Report still dominating this page?


 * Perhaps the wording could be changed to be more consistent with Arjuna's edits on the Hawaiian History page.Eekadog 18:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) the mob could very well have been opportunistic during the interregnum, driven to race-baited violence by demagouges;


 * 2) the Americans, as they had in 1887 and 1889, would have stood by neutrally. They stood by while battle raged before, and one would expect the same sort of behavior;


 * 3) because the Morgan Report was the most thorough congressional investigation into the Hawaiian Revolution, and it included a close examination, and in some cases outright retractions, of the earlier Blount Report. --JereKrischel 01:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG, Jere, I gotta say I think you're worked up to the point that you would not even agree with your own wording if you were calmer. I know it's a 2-way thing, and I've gotten all nuts myself (um, kinda recently, too) when I was pissed off, but you gotta calm down! Even though I disagree passionately with even the part of this that I really do think you believe, I have no desire to have people dismiss your point just because of how lolo it sounds. Sorry to be rude, but I'm telling you this because I believe you deserve to be heard fairly, even if I myself disagree with you. Your behavior may be kina belligerent, but I don't believe you're a lunatic, and you seriously gotta read your own #1 above and see how you might sound like one to other people. You can totally delete this comment if you like, but please calm down & look at it honestly, okay? Aloha,-- Laualoha 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)


 * Actually, Laualoha, as hard as it is to believe my words were said with a calm mind, although I can understand why people may take them as belligerent if they didn't have the background - thanks to Walter Murray Gibson, (the race-baiting demagogue grand-daddy, who stole Lanai from the Mormons, ingratiated himself with Kalakaua and became "Minister of Everything", and who really, of all people, is probably the one most responsible for the downfall of the Hawaiian Kingdom) racial tensions in politics in the Hawaiian Kingdom circa 1892 were of significant concern.


 * In reality, of course, regardless of how worried people were, there was probably no real cause for alarm - native Hawaiians simply did not support the Queen as wholeheartedly as they had supported Lunalilo, or Emma, and although today she is held in very high esteem, in 1892, and even during the 1895 rebellion, native Hawaiians simply were not willing to endanger their lives or safety for her. This isn't meant to reject the validity of fear that people had - the 1895 rebellion, as small as it was, brought thoughts of threats across all the islands that were just imaginary ghosts - but realistically, if the native Hawaiians had been unified in support of the Queen, the revolution and the republic would not have happened.  In today's climate, a sober assessment of Liliuokalani's support during 1892 is difficult, but perhaps this quote from J.A. Kawainui, editor of the Kuakoa, shortly after the revolution:


 * "The Kamehameha dynasty had a strong hold upon the native heart because of its noble ancestry, but Kalakaua and the late Queen, on account of their comparatively ignoble origin, did not command the respect due to genuine high chiefs. The corruption of Kalakaua and her late majesty have brought sore evils upon the Hawaiians. Then, too, certain designing foreigners have exercised a very pernicious political influence on the natives, and have sought to use them only for the accomplishment of their own ends. For my part I am tired of this state of things. What I want is good government. I do not care for a condition of affairs that is constantly shifting. We need a government that will be respected abroad and trusted at home. Either annexation to the United States or a protectorate. I prefer the former because of its greater stability. With annexation we should, of course, to a great degree enjoy the same condition of things that prevails in America. I have had enough of monarchy, and believe that the safety and prosperity of the country is dependent upon its annexation to the United States, and there are many of the intelligent native Hawaiians who agree with me in this opinion. The majority of my race are ignorant of what is really conducive to their best interests. It can not be a matter of surprise that they look with fond recollections to the throne and the old institutions. The future seems so uncertain that they can not conceive what is in store for them, but when they find that they are treated justly under the new government, as they have been from the first day of its formation, and indorsed their attempts to effect organic union with the United States, they will quickly give it their confidence."


 * This sentiment is echoed by Kauhi, a member of the Hawaiian Legislature as well:


 * "I am 53 years old. During all these years I have lived under the Hawaiian monarchy, that is, under Kamehameha III, IV, and V, Lunalilo, Kalakaua, and the late Queen Liliuokalani. I was personally acquainted with all of these rulers, but it was not until the reign of Kalakaua that I commenced to take an active part in public life. I was perfectly familiar with the whole of that monarch's career. During the first half of his reign he conducted the Government with some regard to decency, but during the latter half the native Hawaiian people strongly objected to his actions. During the whole of this period the voice of the common people was never heard or felt in the Legislature. The King's henchmen and creatures were elected through the power and influence of the Crown for the sole purpose of carrying out the wishes of the King, in utter disregard of the desires and rights of the masses of the Hawaiian people. The common people had no show whatever at the elections. The Government officials were everywhere instructed to compel the people to elect the King's favorites. During these years many self-respecting Hawaiians resisted the encroachments of absolutism and made a desperate, but unavailing, fight against overwhelming odds. Kalakaua controlled every district justice, assessor, tax-collector, sheriff, and all other Government officials, and, through them, controlled the polls and drowned the voice of the people. The rule of the late Queen has been just as rotten and corrupt as that of her brother Kalakaua. The greatest mistake of her reign was the fact that she exceeded her brother in seeking and acting upon the advice of the most unwise and corrupt counselors, and it was this mistake on her part that cost her her throne. I stand for the rights of the people and not for the rights of any privileged person.


 * "Monarchy is dead, and I am glad of it. I rejoice and am proud to support the Provisional Government, for it commands my perfect confidence, and I was the fifth person in the country to swear my alleigiance to it. What I desire is a firm and strong government, and I shall do everything to promote its stability. If we could have a stable republic, with President Dole at its head for four years, and his successor to hold office for the same length of time, it would be an ideal government, but if the present Provisional Government strongly advise annexation to the United States, as seems to be the fact, I shall heartily give it and the movement my support. My determination in this respect is fixed and unchangeable. There is no going backward; we must go forward. I believe that all those who will stop to think will agree with the views which I have expressed. I shall do everything in my power to show my constituents that these views are the only path to prosperity, and I believe that I shall succeed. The great mass of the Hawaiians are very poor, and some radical change must be made or they will be unable to obtain their means of livelihood. There are foreign adventurers in this country, whose names I need not mention, who are cast down because by the recent change in public affairs they have lost the government pap. They are nothing but soreheads, and have grossly deceived and misled the native Hawaiians. Again, I say, I rejoice in the new order of things. I stated on the floor of the recent Legislature that the conduct of affairs under the late monarchy was thoroughly rotten. We have had quite enough of it, and it is my firm belief that the native Hawaiians will quickly recognize the recent government changes as a great blessing."


 * Anyway, there is context for my claims, but I will be more diligent in providing that context in the future to avoid any misunderstanding. Mahalo, Laualoha! --JereKrischel 17:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere, there will always be at least a few citizens who will side with the power; that's pretty much universal. Kauhi was speaking after the Queen's death, which means that the Territory was already in effect, children were already getting beatings for speaking their language in school, and there was a well-entrenched campaign to rewrite history.

But that's not my point. The point is that using words like "race-baited violence by demagouges" sounds so reactionary as to be out of touch with reality. Jere, seriously, I'm begging you: take a good, hard look at your friend Kenneth Conklin. Is this what you want to be? Can this man ever be expected to be taken seriously? Will you ever be taken seriously if you sound just like him? If he got his way, what would Hawai'i really look like? Is this good for ANYONE? This is not an attack, it is sincere concern. At some point, I think that you are going to have to face the fact that there is a major gap in the logical strategy toward your collective aims, if indeed the goal is greater happiness and harmony in Hawai'i. You are very intelligent (I mean, hello, it's taking like, what, 5, 6 people to oppose you and we can barely keep up), and I do not think there is any chance that you will not figure this out, once you put the fear blinders down. So in the mean time, I think you should try not to say loony-sounding stuff that will ruin your reputation. That's just my mana'o. Aloha, -- Laualoha 20:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * http://starbulletin.com/1999/06/16/millennium/story8.html Eekadog 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good link, Eekadog. We should find a way to incorporate that scholarship into the article. I have her book as well but the article is even more convenient. Mahalo, Arjuna 04:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Laualoha, but Kahui was speaking immediately after the overthrow - his testimony was included in the Morgan Report, well before Liliu's death. --JereKrischel 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Jere, I don't understand: why would Kauhi refer to "the late Queen Lili'uokalani" if it were before her 1917 death? Anyway, the "side with the power" of force was the American side well before the overthrow. The 1887 Constitution was not called the "Banana Constitution", you know, and there's a reason for that.  Aloha,-- Laualoha 22:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)

P.S.: Noenoe K. Silva (author of the star bulletin article which completely lacks any references, nor acknowledges that the organizations which did the anti-annexation petitions later renounced their opposition to annexation, and disbanded to become the Hawaiian Independent Party under Robert Wilcox in 1900) is about the same POV extreme as Ken Conklin - I'd love to include any sources she references, but she is hardly as useful as Russ, Kuykendall, Andrade or Twigg-Smith. --JereKrischel 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Twigg-Smith? "Surely you jest." Eekadog 18:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See my recent comment on the talk page for Republic of Hawaii. This explains why TTS is an unacceptable source since it is a "vanity publication". Aside from that, Eekadog is spot-on -- surely JK isn't suggesting that a non-scholar such as TTS is in any way equal to Silva (who, btw, has plenty of sources to back her up in her book; presumably JK is aware of the fact that newspaper op-eds aren't referenced). As for Russ and Kukendall: they don't say what JK seems to think they do, although JK is good at cherry-picking selections completely out of context in order to support his tendentious reading/edits. I urge JK to ponder this carefully before replying, lest he reduce his credibility even further. Cheers, Arjuna 19:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Arjuna, I am suggesting that Silva is a radical activist scholar who cannot be considered in the same light as Daws, Kuykendall, Andrade or Twigg-Smith. I can be more specific about her reckless and unsupported assertions if you'd like, but it would probably be WP:OR.


 * And as per my comment on Talk:Republic of Hawaii, you can't call TTS's Hawaii Matters a "vanity publication", just because he is a REAL publisher, who created a REAL publishing house, which publishes REAL books. You certainly can't, with a straight face, assert that articles from "Spirit of Aloha" magazine, without references, are more appropriate to include than TTS's well cited and well researched book.  And you lose all credibility when you haven't even read it, Arjuna - especially when it's online for free.  Please, as I asked before, show me a single problem you find in TTS's work - no generalizations, just one specific instance.  Maybe then I can better understand your position.  c/m/t --JereKrischel 13:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

JK, I'm afraid the credibility question is reversed. TTS's book is a vanity publication, Q.E.D. So is Conklin's. And it's telling that there appears to be a certain anti-intellectual stance regarding recognized scholarship (although one is certainly free to disagree with any particular scholar's analysis) versus amateurs with a personal axe to grind. And, yes, according to Wikipedia guidelines I do assert that Pitzer qualifies as a mainstream, though non-scholarly source, whereas TTS or Conklin fail in both tests. This is, in fact, rather obvious and undeniable. TTS and Conklin are thus "fringe". As I said elsewhere, I do however appreciate that these facts are rather inconvenient from your perspective. I urge you to spare yourself further embarassment. Arjuna 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * TTS's book is not a vanity publication. As you've already shown, Goodale publishing has published more than "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the facts matter?".


 * Again, I challenge you to cite a single thing out of TTS's book that is out of line or not scholarly - and please, re-read the Wikipedia guidelines before asserting that Pitzer is a more reliable source than a well cited and research book like TTS's. --JereKrischel 06:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm afraid it is, by Wikipedia standards. I will ask others to get involved in this discussion. As for TTS and scholarship: explain to me how he qualifies as a scholar? Did he buy his own PhD factory along with his publishing company? Re: Pitzer, at least this is an actual publication in a mainstream source, unlike C or TTS. I'm afraid you're out on a limb upon which there is no further length to climb. I'd like to say "nice try", but it's pretty far from even that. You really ought to consider a career in stand up comedy! Cheers, Arjuna 09:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He did not self-publish his book, simply because he has an interest or stake, as a legitimate publisher, in inspiring, founding or being the CEO of Persis corp which created Goodale publishing. Goodale publishing is a real publishing house, not just a vanity press.


 * Insofar as why TTS is a scholarly work, read it. Look at his references.  Copious references.  Now find one reference in the Pitzer puff piece. --JereKrischel 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Specifics
c/m/t --JereKrischel 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * quote on p 268 of daws does not support text;
 * Thurston's pro-annexationist leanings pre-dated the McKinley act - trying to turn this into a sugar revolution unsupportable by the sources (e.g. Weigle), no citation for text;
 * Quoting Kuykendall's actual words on "proximate cause" preferable to paraphrasing him;
 * Citing the actual policies lined out by the Provisional Government preferable to the weasel-wording of "but the stated intention was". Put the statement of intent in proper context;
 * Details about who gave Stevens what requests, and how G.C. Wiltse did the actual ordering important context;
 * Naniwa. Why do you keep removing this?;

New discussion
I am copying a recent ongoing discussion between myself and Yosemitesam25 that has been on my talk page, but which is more appropriate here and so am pasting it here for the record. Arjuna (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I noticed you replaced Kuykendall's opinion with your own opinion. I'm not sure I feel comfortable with that. I'm new to Wikipedia but from what I've learned, editors ought to cite the opinions of others - not their own. In addition, you write that "historian Russ 'notes'". The word "notes" bestows extra weight on his arguments and give the statement a gloss of authority. Presenting the information as, "...Historian Russ argues..." is neutral and a more accurate description of what all historians do. Please consider reverting back. Mahalo --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you are mistaken. The sentence is still cited to Kuykendall, therefore it is hardly an assertion of my opinion. As for the substance, it is unfortunate that you do not accept that 1. the two analyses are not mutually exclusive (it is the difference between "proximate" and "ultimate" causation; and 2. both are in fact generally accepted views among historians: one could almost certainly cite Kuykendall, Daws, Russ, and others to support either statement. If you are familiar with these historical works, you may find that these statements are not actually very controversial. Arjuna (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You replaced this:
 * "According to historian Ralph S. Kuykendall, "The proximate cause of the Revolution of January 17, 1893, was the attempt by Queen Liliuokalani on the previous Saturday afternoon, January 14, to promulgate a new constitution which she had prepared"[8]


 * With your own opinion:
 * "The precipitating event driving the revolution of January 17, 1893 was the attempt by Queen Liliuokalani to promulgate a new constitution which she had prepared"


 * You've replaced Kuykendall's words with your own interpretation of his words and removed his name; reverting a nice, clean, neutral contrast between the "arguments" of two historians. (That is, between Kuykendall and Russ)


 * Secondly, check your use of the word "note". Why not use the neutral word "argue"?


 * Last, Do you happen to have a page number for Russ? I haven't read his book(s) but I'll order it tomorrow. Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. That is what is known as editing. 2. The point is that there IS no clear contrast between the two historians, as there is no controversy whatsoever that the proximate cause was the proposed new constitution, while the underlying cause was that those who planned and carried out the overthrow were motivated by a desire for annexation to the United States. These are not controversial statements, and you would certainly benefit from familiarizing yourself with the material in the future so as to avoid these pointless re-hashing of the obvious. 3. The page number for Russ is already there. Please check before asking.
 * Hopefully you will not fall prey to the spurious tactics of previous editors. I am very willing to work with someone who shows good faith, which I will assume you are. Mahalo. Arjuna (talk) 08:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: page number: I'm assuming that it's page 90. I saw that but didn't realize that it was the page number. Thanks for pointing that out.


 * Second, "pointless rehashing". I thought Wikipedia encouraged editors to work out wording on the talk pages. A discussion as this is healthy and productive.


 * Third: "as there is no controversy whatsoever that the proximate cause was the proposed new constitution". Then why did you feel you had to change his wording (which said that very thing)?


 * Fourth: you haven't responded to the questionable use of "note". I take that to mean you are in agreement with me.


 * Fifth:I feel more comfortable with the previous language. It was a direct quote from Kuykendall that you yourself (as stated above)feel is non-controversial. Your edit is your interpretation of Kuykendall.


 * Sixth: I agree that various historians may reach the same conclusions. That doesn't mean they are always interchangeable. They word their tomes differently and even small differences can carry enormous weight.


 * I've provided valid reasons why the previous wording was preferred. I have done this *before* editing. I am now going to change it. If, after having read this, you still feel compelled to alter it, please lay out your reasoning *before* changing the encyclopedia article (as I did). Mahalo.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. Your nitpicking over frivilous points is starting to rub me the wrong way. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with the material before editing as though you understand it.
 * 2. Re: "note". First, this is nitpicking. Second, to re-state: that the conspirators sought annexation is NOT a controversial statement. It was their stated objective. Russ presents this information on p. 90 (which, I'm glad to hear, you were able to glean from the bibliographic format) as a list. It's not an "argument", therefore "notes" is more appropriate.
 * 3. You are barking up the wrong tree by trying to make this a serious issue of historical presentation. There certainly are some in relation to these events, but these ain't them.
 * 4. I would like to think that you're a serious and reasonable person with something to add, and if you show that you are I am most happy to work with you. It is most unfortunate that you have not displayed these characteristics thusfar, and I urge you to reconsider your approach. Mahalo. Arjuna (talk) 19:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted Yosemitesam25's recent changes to the article, because his insertion of language that valorizes the perspective of the COS is inappropriate. Y is presumably aware that the COS was the party that characterized the "threat" that existed, and saying that it was "American citizens" is a misleading representation of history. I ask Y to please refrain from continued POV pushing.


 * As for Y's specific objections to the changes I made (ie., changing the direct quote from Kuykendall to a paraphrase), those were straightforward and I fail to see any justification to Y's objection. I simply changed the wording from a direct Kuykendall quote to a paraphrase (ex. "proximate cause" to "precipitating event", etc.), since it is not only Kuykendall who would maintain that that was indeed the preciptating factor. I kept the citation, as it remains appropriate. I suspect that if Y is familiar with the scholarship s/he would see that this is not a controversial representation. Indeed, his/her continued harping about this pointless at best. I would like to move onto something more substantive. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted A's recent changes after asking A to review some Wikipedia guidelines WP:AVOID, WP:ASF, and WP:NOR. Here are excerpts that I pasted from messages I left on A's talk page:

Please review WP:AVOID, Specifically, section 2.1.2. The section reminds us: "These words (i.e. "note") are often used to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments."

In much the same way, you've bestowed extra weight on the aspect of "the underlying motivations" by: 1) Replacing the phrase "proximate cause" with "precipitating event". 2) Removing Kuykendall's name and authority as a scholar

Moreover, you still haven't answered the question as to why you changed it in the first place. In fact, you said just above that, "...there is no controversy whatsoever that the proximate cause was the proposed new constitution."

That stated, is there any more accurate way for the article to read?

I appreciate your honest efforts to improve this article. Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your changes to the article, as the language inappropriately valorizes the perspective of the COS. You are presumably aware that the COS was the party that characterized the "threat" that existed, and saying that it was "American citizens" is a misleading representation of history. Please refrain from continued POV pushing. As for your specific objections, the changes I made were straightforward and I fail to see any justification to your objection. I simply changed the wording from a direct Kuykendall quote to a paraphrase (ex. proximate cause to precipitating event), since it is not only K who would maintain that that was indeed the preciptating factor. Again, if you were familiar with the scholarship you would see that this is not a controversial representation of the scholarship, and your continued harping about this pointless at best. We should move onto something more substantive. Seriously. I'm cross-posting this on the Overthrow talk page, and further discussion should continue there. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:AVOID.

1) Section 2.3 covers the word "despite". Using "despite" when two alternatives are contrasted is "dubious use implying preference”. You wrote "despite the fact that no apparent threat existed."

2) Section 2.2 covers the word "supposed". Using "supposed" is dubious as it casts doubt upon an assertion. You wrote, "informed about the supposed threats".

3) Section 2.2 covers the word "however". Using "however" when two alternatives are contrasted is "dubious use implying preference”.

4) You inserted the word "hyperbole" to describe the reference cited. This is your opinion. It is an evaluative term serving to advance your position. see WP:NOR

Please review WP:ASF

1) You wrote, "despite the fact that no apparent threat existed." This is your opinion. You have not attributed it to anyone or to any verifiable source. In fact, you inserted into directly into a sourced, verifiable fact about an opinion which states: "At the request of many citizens, whose wives and families were helpless and in terror of an expected uprising of the mob, which would burn and destroy, a request was made and signed by all of the committee, addressed to Minister Stevens, that troops might be landed to protect houses and private property." By substituting your opinion in this way you mislead the reader into thinking that the sourced opinion matches yours, when in fact, they are opposite.

2) You wrote, "informed about the supposed threats". "Supposed" is your opinion. You have not attributed it to anyone or to any verifiable source. In fact, you inserted into directly into a sourced, verifiable fact about an opinion which states: "At the request of many citizens, whose wives and families were helpless and in terror of an expected uprising of the mob, which would burn and destroy, a request was made and signed by all of the committee, addressed to Minister Stevens, that troops might be landed to protect houses and private property." By substituting your opinion in this way you mislead the reader into thinking that the sourced opinion matches yours when in fact, they are opposite.

If you feel compelled to assert that there was no threat Wikipedia allows for you to do that by attributing that opinion to someone (a verifiable source). Otherwise it is just speculation and opinion on your part. WP:NOR states: " Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemitesam25 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is Arjuna's response:

It is unfortunate that you continue JereKrischel's policy of trying to game the system in order to push your POV. This attempt will not be successful. Arjuna (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arjuna808"

Now, here is my response to A's latest comments:

To start with the last item first, please focus on the content not the person. Drawing comparisons to me and anyone else has no place here.

Second: there may be room for some leeway with respect to who actually "expressed concern for the safety and property of American residents in Honolulu". Clearly, it was the COS who formalized the request, but from the excerpt of Wilder, this was done at the behest of citizens concerned for their safety. So the wording could be changed to reflect the fact that it was not one or the other, but both.

Third: I provided clear Wikipedia guidelines and links to A regarding A's chosen wording. I won't repeat that here as it is outlined above. Arjuna did not respond other than to revert, draw personal comparisons, and assert what sounds like an ultimatum. Is this how to improve an article on Wikipedia?

Fourth: Arjuna says: "As for Y's specific objections to the changes I made (ie., changing the direct quote from Kuykendall to a paraphrase), those were straightforward and I fail to see any justification to Y's objection. I simply changed the wording from a direct Kuykendall quote to a paraphrase (ex. "proximate cause" to "precipitating event", etc.), since it is not only Kuykendall who would maintain that that was indeed the preciptating factor."

That statement is incorrect. A also removed Kuykendall's name from the body of the article.

That statement also does not stand because A is interpreting what Kuykendall may or may not agree with. In fact Kuykendall may not agree with A's opinion at all. But we do know for a fact what Kuykendall agreed with - what he wrote. If Kuykendall agreed with "precipitating event", he would have wrote "precipitating event".

"Causing" something to happen is different from an "event". One (cause) is active, with consequences. The other (event) may be passive. In addition, the actual usage seems incorrect to me. As I understand it, precipitating means abrupt or hasty. One might speak of a hasty or rash decision, but to speak of a hasty event or a rash event seems muddled. In short, the usage is ambiguous, unwarranted, and not a paraphrase.

Finally, A says: "You are presumably aware that the COS was the party that characterized the "threat" that existed, and saying that it was "American citizens" is a misleading representation of history."

Here is what the cited source says: "At the request of many citizens, whose wives and families were helpless and in terror of an expected uprising of the mob, which would burn and destroy, a request was made and signed by all of the committee, addressed to Minister Stevens, that troops might be landed to protect houses and private property".

A then continually reverts this passage to a preface which reads, "one testimonial, hyperbollically...". It would seem to me to be easy to cite some other historian who argues that there was no threat instead of a constant stream of reversions flowing from failing to adhere to basic Wikipedia guidelines. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please refactor your comments per WP:TALK.  Comments should be short and to the point.  Otherwise, I will refactor this page to make it readable.  Thank you. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not trying to be rude, but Yosemite's comments are so long-winded and involuted as to be virtually unreadable. S/he seems simply unable to accept the logic of what I have put forth as justification, and (like another editor from the past) is cherry-picking and quoting unreferenced statements. So at this point I have to throw up my hands at this stonewalling, and request a third party to comment. Mahalo. Arjuna (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Yosemitesam25 appears to have replaced User:JereKrischel of the Grassroot Institute shortly after his extended vacation from Wikipedia. I have asked the user if he is connected to this group or has a WP:COI but he has repeatedly refused to answer. Without declaring a COI as JereKrischel did, his future editing is in question.  Jere declared his COI and was open about it, and was allowed to edit as a result.  Unless Yosemitesam25 declares a COI on his user page, I'm afraid his future here is going to be short. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I look forward to Yosemitesam shedding some light. For the record: although I am officially anonymous, others can verify that they are aware of my identity and that I do not have any COI. There's a role for an editor representing this particular POV, but if it is not in a manner more fair, less ideological, and with less sense of "article ownership" than in past discussions, it's going to go nowhere fast. To wax philosophical: one problem is that reality -- in this case, historical reality -- is often rather complex, ambiguous, and not easily amenable to the facile interpretations sometimes put forward in these and other similar articles. I look forward to working with other editors who recognize this and are open to seeing this ambiguity represented in the articles. Arjuna (talk) 01:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Viriditas, welcome back. Your statement is incorrect. I did answer you on February 11th. It's on my talk page but I'll post it here: "Thank you for the link. After reviewing the policy, I've concluded that there is no need to recuse myself from editing these pages." I believe that was immediately following your attempt to associate me with Kenneth Conklin because you thought the cartoon character Yosemite Sam bore a resemblance to Mr. Conklin. I still chuckle when I think of the two pictures you provided. LOL :)--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You never answered any of my questions concerning COI, other than to say "I've concluded that there is no need to recuse myself". Sorry, but that's not an answer to any of the questions I asked you.  So, are you connected to the Grassroot Institute or any other Hawaii-related organization? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 07:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there anything you have to know other than my direct statement that I do not have a conflict of interest?--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I want you to answer the question I asked you about your membership in the Grassroot Institute and/or any other related Hawaii-based groups. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me reassure you that I take the COI policy seriously. Beyond that, I am anonymous like both you and Arjuna and many others here. Clearly I have no control over your obsession with who I am. I don't mean obsessed in a pejorative sense but in the sense that you're speculating left and right, up and down, back and forth, and on and on. I suppose I could reward your tenacity with some personal information but would that do any good? --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Arjuna: You're asking me to be fair and yet you openly flout the rules. You are clearly too sharp and experienced to be doing this by mistake. It would be awfully cynical of me to conclude that you actually use the "words to avoid page" to select words to use. I agree that there is ambiguity and complexity but deliberate equivocations slipped in under false pretense won't pass muster. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Finally,Viriditas: I want to offer a real thank you for your patience and explanations when I first started editing. Looking back, I realize I probably really tried your patience. I hope I didn't cause you to stress out to much. Regards --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed evaluative terms and opinions: "hyperbole", "despite", "however", "supposed". Please see WP:AVOID Thanks--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 03:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I acknowledge that some of these concerns are valid, but at the same time I do not accept the current wording either. Much of this problem can be solved simply by removing the primary source material, which I intend to do. Primary source material must be handled very carefully as the selection of what material to include and reject is by its nature akin to WP:OR. The current text overstates the nature of the putative threats that were the basis for the landing of the marines. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 08:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion, Continued
No justification has been offered for the following sentence placed prominently in the first section: "The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and the subsequent annexation of Hawaiʻi has recently been cited as the first major instance of American imperialism.[2]"

Arjuna did say that it was "well-cited" and "appropriate" but both the content and the placement violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia no original research says, "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." This is not an article about imperialism, what constitutes imperialism or where imperialism may have occured. If Kinzer has an opinion or new facts about the circumstances of the overthrow itself - its causes or effects, for example - then perhaps those might be added. But this is not the article to represent the conclusion that the overthrow "is the first major instance of American imperialism...from Hawai'i to Iraq". Inserting Kinzers opinion here adds nothing of insight to the actual overthrow and serves only to advance an entirely seperate idea: that the overthrow was American imperialism.

Even if the citation was acceptable as original research it would still violate WP:UNDUE which says, "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to...prominence of placement". As the concluding sentence in the first section, Kinzers comment takes center stage. It sets the tone for the rest of the article and binds together "overthrow" with "imperialism" at the outset. Even if the comment was acceptable it would have to be countered right away with something much stronger than the Inouye quote. A counter citation could be found but then the whole flow of the first section, not to mention the article itself, would change. And the topic - instead of the overthrow - would become whether or not the overthrow was imperialism.

For these reasons, I will remove the line. If you feel compelled to add it back in, you must explain how concluding that the overthrow was American imperialism is directly related to an article discussing the overthrow itself.


 * Thank you for your explanation, however, your reasoning is spurious. The material is not even close to WP:OR. The title of the book in question specifically mentions Hawaii, and contrary to your assertion, the article is indeed about an event that is viewed by many as an imperialist act. I don't want to put too fine a point on this, since no serious editor would want to see the article turn into a soapbox. Indeed, I would fight any attempt to do so by the "other" side. The point is that the many (perhaps most) scholars view the events of 1893 as actions of U.S. agents acting on behalf of a covert agenda to expand American influence and/or territory, i.e. consistent with a definition of imperialism. Thus the citation is both relevant and appropriate.


 * In fact Kinzer's work is, as far as I know, the first to synthesize the insights of a variety of historical texts that critically examine the actions of U.S. agents acting (legally or otherwise) to enhance American power and influence abroad, and to cite the overthrow in Hawaii as the first instance of a series of imperialist acts that continue to the present day. Maybe it isn't the first; and no doubt that it is not a work of strikingly original scholarship, but it doesn't have to be either one. As for the placement of the material, it is entirely appropriate where it is as a general summary of the prevailing scholarly opinion as to the nature of the events in question.


 * You contradict yourself in saying that "If Kinzer has an opinion...then perhaps [that] might be added", then that "Inserting Kinzers opinion here adds nothing of insight". First you acknowlege that an opinion, if one exists, would be appropriate, then that his opinion is not legitimate. Which is it, then? I have already demonstrated its relevance; my point here is your inconsistent logic.


 * In short, nice try.


 * Btw, I don't know who added the Inouye quote -- it snuck in there somehow -- but it is a distinct non sequitor and I will remove it on the next round. If you wish to include a counter-citation after the Kinzer one, go for it. I'd agree in principle that it would be appropriate to include it. However, I think you may find it a challenge to find a scholarly work that supports an assertion that the role of U.S. agents was an innocent one. (Twigg-Smith is unacceptable; so is Bruce Fein [someone I would otherwise agree is credible and legit], since his work was commissioned at the by the Grassroots Institute; the Morgan Report is completely unacceptable too, but I assume you have the good sense not to even try that route).


 * As for the COI tag, it will remain until you have demonstrated to a neutral editor that you indeed have no COI. Some suspect that you may be User:JereKrischel, in which case I don't think anyone would have a problem with your editing here. If so, come out and say hello old friend. However, until you can clear this up, the suspicion will remain that you are someone with ties to the Grassroots Institute and thus having COI issues. Simply asserting that you have determined that you do not have a COI is insufficent.


 * Finally, please sign your name at the end of your posting by adding four tildes (~&#126;) at the end. That will automatically tag your entry with your name and time it was posted. And also, mind your use of the colons -- your entries should line up consistently to make it clear which belong to whom and from when.


 * Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 09:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aloha and thanks for the commentary. This article is about "X" and Kinzer's opinion is about "Y". As you say, the title of the book specifically mentions Hawai'i so the book and the article are related. However, the standard set by WP:NOR is that the information provided is "directly related to the topic of the article". To see how "directly related" plays out in the context of the article, one need only examine the "sections": the Bayonet Const., Lili's Const, the Overthrow, Amer. response, Intl. response, the prov. gov, the annexation. The article is rather narrow in scope. The article does not broaden in scope to include a section dedicated to "the morality of the overthrow".


 * Secondly, I appreciate your offer to "to include a counter citaion". You say, "I agree in principle that it would be appropriate to include it". But as you are the one defending the Kinzer inclusion, it's up to you to include a "counter citation" so that as a whole, the information is presented without violating WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:UNDUE. You can't and ought not to simply throw in a sentence violative of those rules and then leave it up to other editors to scramble around trying to make it work.


 * Third, someone else (perhaps Eekadog) has now added another Inouye quote which again hints at the morality of the overthrow rather than the overthrow itself. If this downward spiral continues, we're headed for a pointless edit war, a "tit for tat" profoundly off topic. I'm going to remove the entire paragraph until someone proves Kinzer is directly related to the overthrow and presents Kinzer with a counter citation.


 * Fourth, please provide a valid reason why Morgan, Grassroots, Fein, Twigg are unacceptable. Each one individually. And please provide a reason other than "they are the opposition" - that is not a valid reason according to WP:V.


 * Fifth, regarding COI. I'm willing to share some information. If you want to prepare a list of questions, I'll review them and answer those I feel are appropriate. Mahalo, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have read my reply but did you understand it?. I have demonstrated Kinzer's relevance and appropriateness. One last time: Kinzer's work does not consist of "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" (quoting from WP:OR). Quod erod demonstrandum. Your continued refusal to acknowlege its self-evident validity does you no credit in terms of credibility. I encourage you to find another tree to up which to bark. There are plenty.

Morgan: primary source material and from a highly tendentious and politically motivated individual with some of whose main conclusions even other members of his commission could not agree. Fein: work commissioned by GI and thus a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Twigg-Smith: vanity publication as well as possessing the same unacceptable qualities as Fein in his connection to GI.

Your attitude towards demonstrating your non-COI is unaccepable. The onus is upon you to demonstrate your status, not me or other editors.

I'm a patient person with regards to these edit tit-for-tats; I can go as long as you want. You are the one who started these unjustified reverts, and so it is up to you to provide the justification which you have so far failed to do. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aloha Arjuna and thanks for your comments. I don't think I ever said that Kinzer's work consisted of "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". One of the points I made, or was trying to make, was that the inclusion of Kinzer represented the editors attempt to synthesize A (the overthrow), with B (imperialism), to advance C (the overthrow was immoral). Please see WP:NOR, WP:YESPOV.


 * I would be willing to accept the introduction of moral perspectives with respect to Hawaiian history somewhere in the series so long as they comply with WP:NPOV, WP:YESPOV and all the rest of Wikipedias guidelines.


 * Regarding COI: How do you propose that I "demonstrate my status"? I've directly stated that I do not have a COI and have now offered to answer questions. You characterize that as an "unacceptable attitude"?


 * I'm changing the article back now. Mahalo, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It's highly unfortunate that you continue these pointless reverts when I have already demonstrated that your objections have no justification. As for your COI status, I already outlined one such strategy on your talk page; feel free to take it or leave it, but your questionable COI status will linger until you clear this up, and will make all your edits suspect to the other editors. If you enjoy working in this way, that is most unfortunate. Your revert will be reverted back to the consensus version. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 01:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in. Yosemite, why did you remove the Inouye melting pot statement that you insisted on including in the article after I added the other Inouye quote? It seems like you want to have it both ways. The article still needs more work but most of your edits are unacceptable.Eekadog (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Aloha Eekadog, thanks for your comments. I agree that the article needs more work. Please revert your changes to the article as they are not in line with WP:NPOV, WP:YESPOV, and WP:NOR. See the above discussion for further details. Oh, also, it would be helpful if you could provide some reasoning behind your reverts. Mahalo --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Title
Why was the article title changed from Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the current title? &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * that is an easy one. Political in nature, probably changed by people holding JK/YS's minority opinion.  The overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy insinuates that the Kingdom government was still intact and that it was an internal issue propagated by Kingdom citizens.  Unfortunately, the loyalties of those "citizens" was not with the Kingdom. Eekadog (talk) 08:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like JK made the move. Surprised? :( &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. I agree with Eek's reasoning. I once went around and around and around with JK when he was trying to assert that the events of 1893 were a mere "change in government", not an overthrow or a revolution. I'll let that speak for itself. When did this title change happen? Recently? I don't even know how to do that! Arjuna (talk) 09:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like I was wrong. JK only moved Overthrow of the Hawai'ian Monarchy to Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy .  What is interesting is that banned user User:Petri Krohn redirected Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom to Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy at 07:41, 8 February 2007.  Regardless of my erroneous information, Arjuna seems to have fixed the problem. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Apologies to JK then. Yes, I've changed the title and am now working on a few changes to minimize redirects. Arjuna (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected
The page is now protected for five days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If edit-warring resumes, editors involved may temporary lose their editing privileges, or the article may be protected again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note:

Let's focus
I think a lot of the concern with WP:NPOV here seems to be based on the addition/subtraction of quotes from various scholars on different sides of the issue. Essentially, they're being given undue weight by being placed prominently in the article, obscuring the factual content presented as skewing us away from neutrality.

So if possible, I'd like to propose that we move the quotes and related material to the end of the article, possibly in an "analysis of the events" or "effects of the events" subheading. Our task here should first and foremost be to present the facts what happened in a neutral manner, not try and show how the scholarly world reacts to it today. If the issue is with the name of the article, then we can hash that out here.

Any thoughts? -- jonny - m t  07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree jonny. I just suggested a similar approach on my talk page (I think you were adding a comment there at the same time): ::Thanks jonny and Arjuna. For the time being, I added some sourced opinions from Hanifin and Fein rather than reverting. I'd like to go into more detail on the talk page about how we can improve the article but won't be able to do that until tomorrow. For the moment, please let my additions stand. But briefly, I would suggest adding a section (perhaps at the bottom of the article) entitled "moral and legal implication of the overthrow" or something to that effect. That way, the reader could focus on the facts and circumstances of the actual overthrow first (which seems to be the primary focus) and then, with some idea of what actually occured, would then review the viewpoints with respect to morality/legality. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 08:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Didn't affect a square inch?" come on JK, how can you be serious about including that Fein quote?Eekadog (talk) 08:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I reverted Yosemitesam's changes, as they were blatant POV pushing of a "fringe" or "significant minority" viewpoint, and thus in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP. As I previously explained to YS above, Fein's paper was commissioned by Grassroot Institute, a well-known partisan source and activist organization. (Were it not for this fact, I would agree that Fein is -- no pun intended -- a fine scholar who is eminently citable.) The fact that he knows this and still attempted to cite the work is disappointing. That the citations were from a newspaper is immaterial, since they were quoting Fein's original (commissioned) paper; in either case, they thus are a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" and violate Undue guidelines. Similar justification for rv of Hanifin, and adding in that case that no reputable publication other than Ken Conklin's personal website is cited. Inclusion of the quote "No Hawaiian lost land because of the Revolution and few permanently lost power" is blatant POV pushing, a non-sequitur, and egregious mischaracterization of the events.

Aside from all that, I truly appreciate jonny-mt's effort to mediate and feel he makes some good points. However, it would not be appropriate to move all cited material to the end, as, for example, the Kinzer reference represents the mainstream scholarly position regarding the events in question. However, I don't have a problem with a section on "significant minority" perspectives at the end. And I agree with jonny that presentation of the moral aspects of the events is probably quite problematic.

Finally, I would like to point out that Yosemitesam has repeatedly been making these kinds of blatant POV edits, and has refused to address suspicions among myself and others that s/he may have major COI and/or sockpuppet issues. So in short, although I would like to think that appealing to a "let's focus" spirit is healthy, I fear -- based on the evidence of past YS edits and rants on talk pages -- that this may be naive given the nature of the individual. I try to assume good faith of other editors, and have done so with those such as JK even during past edit wars, but the recent pattern of behavior by YS makes this a difficult challenge even to those editors who possess ample endowments of patience. Arjuna (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Arjuna: Please stop attacking me personally. You are about to violate 3RR. Your attempt to disparage Hanifin and Fein is indefensible. Please let it be and do not revert scholarly works added to an encyclopedia. Please leave it up to the reader to decide what to make of the opinions cited. Thank you --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 10:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yosemite, note that you have already violated 3RR and will be reported. I have not attacked you personally. I have challenged the rationale of your edits and called into question your COI as well as whether your edits have been made in good faith (because of 3RR and your apparent defiance of editorial consensus that your edits are unworthy). That is not a personal attack -- I'm sure you are a fine person otherwise. It's unfortunate that you still attempt to assert that Fein and Hanifin are acceptable sources after I have demonstrated that they are not. They are non-scholarly, from a COI source, and thus constitute undue weight and POV material. Finally, you seem to misapprehend the nature of Wikipedia, and I would encourage you to explore Conservapedia as it may be a better fit for your efforts. I regret that I have to report you for 3RR, but you have left no other option since you insist on reverting other's material and against consensus. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a difficult issue. We have many reliable history books at our disposal.  And yet, look at the sources Yosemitesam25 relies upon: self-published books, interpretations of primary source documents, and obscure journal articles written by biased authors.  This has got to stop. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. This is not a difficult issue. Hanifin's article was published in the Hawai'i Bar Journal. Very respected, widely distributed to Hawai'i's movers and shakers, and clearly mainstream. As for Hanifin himself, he was a native-born Hawaiian who died in the same place where he was born (Queens Hospital, Honolulu). He was a partner in the law firm Im Hanifin Parsons LLLC, along with Kyong-Su Im and Chris Parsons. His specialties were environmental law, water and land use, eminent domain, and civil rights. He was the Hawai'i attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit public interest law firm. He was also an adjunct professor of environmental law at William S. Richardson School of Law (University of Hawai’i). Patrick was a graduate of St. Louis High School (Honolulu, 1973), Notre Dame College (1977, magna cum laude), and Harvard University Law School (cum laude, 1980). He practiced law in Hawai’i for four years (Goodsill); then returned to Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government where he earned a master’s degree in Public Policy with specialization in environmental policy (1986). He then worked with the New England Legal Foundation for 9 years. Upon returning to Hawai’i he worked with the law firm of Cades, Schutte, Fleming and Wright for five years. He left on August 1, 2000 to join the law firm of Im, Caliboso, Yamamoto, soon becoming partner in the reorganized firm Im, Hanifin, Parsons. In 2001 he was recommended for a Presidential nomination to fill a vacancy as judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, and was interviewed for that position at the White House. His candidacy for that nomination was an acknowledgment of his strong credentials as lawyer and scholar, especially since he had never been a judge. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give me one example of a reliable, neutral academic source on this subject. Then explain to me why you refuse to use it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * But Viriditas, I could ask the same question of you. The fact is, Fein and Hanifin are unassailable sources here on Wikipedia: mainstream, widely read and distributed, eminent, and meticulous legal scholars. And Hanifin has the added "qualification" of springing from Hawai'i itself. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are talking about history, so please provide me with a notable, reliable source written by a historian. If I require the opinion of a legal scholar, I will let you know. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 14:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many ways to restate your question but the fact remains that Fein and Hanifin are eminently qualified in all ways for inclusion in this article. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias
It is amazing how biased people are who look back on Hawaii's history. Dole was born and raised in Hawaii. So how was his involvement in the revolution an American intervention? The president of the U.S. at the time of the revolution even refused to recognize the new government. Do we forget that? Many of the people involved even outside Dole were of native Hawaiian ethnicity. So we need to be careful how we continue to blame Americans for the overthrow when Hawaiian citizens were behind it.Todd Gallagher (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the President of the U.S. at the time of the overthrow was Benjamin Harrison, a supporter of annexation. Grover Cleveland won the election in November, 1892, but wasn't sworn in until two months after the overthrow.  Your claim that "Hawaiian citizens" were behind the overthrow is not accurate, as the Committee of Safety (Hawaii) page, in all its bias, makes clear.  The reason newly elected President Cleveland did not support the overthrow was because Native Hawaiians were against it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I must need to go back to school and take simple arithmetic. I seem to count that at least SEVEN of the eleven members were Hawaiian. Then Dole himself was Hawaiian. Now, you can claim they were of European ancestry, which is fine, but they were Hawaiian. And let's not forget, Cleveland was opposed only from what he learned under the initial report. He later rescinded his opposition when he learned the full details.Todd Gallagher (talk) 02:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Name these seven Kanakas, if you don't mind. Cleveland was an anti-imperialist and did not support the overthrow nor calls for its annexation.  In fact, after Cleveland learned the "full details", he sent a new minister to Hawaii to restore the Queen to the throne.  You said he "rescinded his opposition"?  No.  Cleveland had no choice but to formally recognize the new government when Dole refused to back down with Congress on his side.  Contrary to what you claim, the majority of Native Hawaiians were disenfranchised and could not vote or serve in the new Republic.  According to William Adam Russ, Jr. in The Hawaiian Republic, Native Hawaiians who could meet the strict requirements refused to support or participate in the Republic.  It was William McKinley not Cleveland who annexed Hawaii.  It is important to put this period of American history in perspective.  It was a time of American expansionism: Hawaii was only one of many sovereign nations that were taken over for the purpose of promoting U.S. national defense.  "Hawaiians" did not support the U.S. overthrow of Hawaii. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I see we must have a racist here; I did not say any were "Kanakas." I said seven at least were Hawaiian: Crister Bolte, Charles Carter, William Castle, John McCandless, William Smith, Henry Waterhouse, and William Wilder. All seven of these were Hawaiian subjects. So unless I cannot count, you are wrong. Even Dole was Hawaiian.Todd Gallagher (talk) 04:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Before making personal attacks that can get you blocked, I suggest you look up the word racist since you don't understand what it means. Nor do you understand the word Hawaiian.  According to Haw. Rev. Stat. S 10-2, a Hawaiian is commonly defined as: "any descendant of the aboriginal peoples inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778, and which peoples thereafter have continued to reside in Hawaii."  Native Hawaiian means "any descendant of not less than one-half part of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778, as defined by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, as amended; provided that the term identically refers to the descendants of such blood quantum of such aboriginal peoples which exercised sovereignty and subsisted in the Hawaiian Islands in 1778 and which peoples thereafter continued to reside in Hawaii."   None of the people you mention were Hawaiian. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Viriditas is entirely correct here. First of all you should review WP:CIVIL and refrain from making these kinds of out-of-left field personal attacks; secondly, you need to get your facts straight. Otherwise, please go find someplace else other than Wikipedia to propagate your views. Arjuna (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You assume I am talking about Hawaiians of Polynesian descent, and like my sergeant major used to say in the Hawaii Army National Guard--but, oh, according to you I better not use the term "Hawaii" Army National Guard because he was Filipino and I am white: when you assume, you make something out of you and me. I do not care what laws from the State of Hawaii define "Hawaiian" as. I go by the good ol' Merriam-Webster Ditionary: "a native or resident of Hawaii." I hope you know what "or" means. Then the Supreme Court specifically ruled in Rice v. Cayetano: "Petitioner Rice, a citizen of Hawaii and thus himself a Hawaiian in a well-accepted sense of the term." Seems to me they are saying any resident of Hawaii is, perhaps . . . "Hawaiian." So do we need to be educated on what "racist" means? I do not need a Wikipedia article to define it. The High Court ruled that these laws cited by Viriditas are "racial" and violate the 15th Amendment. So these seven men were subjects of Hawaii and were thus Hawaiian. They were not foreigners. Many were born and raised in Hawaii. It is as if I am talking to a Neo-Nazi here where people are judged by their ancestors. According to you, a person born in Mongolia and raised there for 50 years whose parents happened to be of Native Hawaiian descent, is more "Hawaiian" than a guy who was born and raised in Hawaii whose parents were from Japan or Europe. Let's wake up.Todd Gallagher (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments like, I see we must have a racist here, and It is as if I am talking to a Neo-Nazi will get you blocked no matter how you wiggle around it. I suggest you read WP:NPA.  Most if not all of your above comments are wild distortions and misinterpretations.  You claim that you refuse to recognize legal terms used by the State of Hawaii and only recognize words used by a dictionary.  You claim that "seven men were subjects of Hawaii and were thus Hawaiian" and that "they were not foreigners...many were born and raised in Hawaii".  These comments are all false, as can be seen by looking at the membership section of the Committee of Safety page.  That you persist in making distorted, false statements while appealing to personal attacks says a lot about your moral character.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You state: "These comments are all false, as can be seen by looking at the membership section of the Committee of Safety page." Hmmm. . . here is the article that YOU cited:

Members of the Committee of Safety


 * Henry Ernest Cooper Sr., arrived in Hawaiʻi 1890 from Indiana, named chairman at mass meeting January 14, 1893
 * Crister Bolte, German national, Hawaiian subject, member
 * Andrew Brown, Scottish national, member
 * Charles L. Carter, American, naturalized Hawaiian subject, member, died during 1895 counter-revolution
 * William Richards Castle, born in Honolulu 1849, attorney general for Kalakaua 1876, Hawaiian legislator 1878-88, member
 * John Emmeluth, American citizen, member
 * Theodore F. Lansing, American citizen, member
 * John A. McCandless, American, naturalized Hawaiian subject, member
 * F. W. McChesney, American citizen, member
 * William Owen Smith, born on Kauaʻi 1838, sheriff on Kauaʻi and then Maui, deputy attorney general and legislator 1878-1892, member
 * Edward Suhr, member
 * Henry Waterhouse, Hawaiian subject of Tasmanian birth, came to Hawaiʻi 1851, member
 * William C. Wilder, American, Hawaiian subject, member

Your own source says seven were Hawaiian. So how is it that "These comments are all false"? Todd Gallagher (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You said, "seven men were subjects of Hawaii and were thus Hawaiian" and that "they were not foreigners...many were born and raised in Hawaii". None of these men were "Hawaiian", some were foreigners, and "many" were not born and raised in Hawaii as you claim.  You also say, "I do not care what laws from the State of Hawaii define "Hawaiian" as. I go by the good ol' Merriam-Webster Ditionary" which shows you have no interest in correcting your ignorant view.  You obviously have preconceived views that cannot be changed or modified by any amount of correct information.  Don't let the facts get in the way, your mind is already made up. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 06:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Todd, thanks for serving in the Hawai'i Army National Guard and keeping us and our freedoms safe from harm. I applaud your dedication to protect the Constitution of the United States and we appreciate all the sacrifices you and your loved ones have made in doing so. And thank you for reminding us that the Supreme Court, in Rice v. Cayetano, stated that "Petitioner Rice, a citizen of Hawaii and thus himself a Hawaiian in a well-accepted sense of the term." As it's clear you've done your research, your fair views are welcome here anytime. I'll also mention that I know it can be difficult to avoid assigning labels to people when the debate gets heated; it's easy to lapse into the use of these terms. As a soldier, you are probably used to charging straight ahead. My view is that it's acceptable, even though some might consider it impolite, to describe similarities between political movements. For instance, some have compared proposed Hawaiian sovereignty to apartheid and/or Nazism, but these comparisons ought to be done in careful context. Carefully worded, it may also be acceptable to compare an individuals percieved attitude as similar to, or representative of, a similar way of thinking. Viriditas and I differ on many issues but Viriditas is a good person and has not only remained civil and polite, Viriditas has helped me understand the mechanics and policies of Wikipedia. I'll bet Viriditas would be a great friend if I knew Viriditas personally. I don't mean to lecture or sound high minded but I'm guessing you have a lot to offer and wouldn't want to see us get sidetracked with personal attacks when we ought to be discussing the issues. Thanks, and we look forward to your future contributions if you have the time and inclination. Mahalo, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Classy. My suggestion to everyone else: DFTT. Arjuna (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. See also: WP:DFTT. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to know, WHEN did these Hawaiian subjects become Hawaiian subjects? was it before or after the revolution? And there is no mention of John L. Stevens and Lorrin Thurston who I believe had more to do with the overthrow than this committee. In addition these men did not have the might to do this alone, it was with the backing of the military of the United States which was operating under the guise of protecting American descended Hawaiians from Hawaiian descended Hawaiians. These facts came out in hearings after the fact. US admitted to overthrowing the country and tried to reinstate the monarchy. If the American Warship had not been their this coup would not have occurred. Marcia "Overthrown, America's century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aicram62 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

This was part of a hacking attack http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20090331/BREAKING/90331025/1352. I think I changed it back but I apologize if I messed things up. I appreciate what you all do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.247.59 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Refocus
Aloha, everyone. I've read through this talkpage, and I have a few points to make. Relata refero (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Arjun, I think you're mistaken here. WP:SYNTH is not a valid objection to make against a source. It's an objection against the behaviour of another editor. If editor X is picking facts from point A and point B and adding them up to make C, that's impermissible; but if source Y is doing it, WP:OR doesn't come into play, if Y is reliable.
 * On the matter of the first section, which appears to be the focus of the current dispute: It should summarise the article. It is emphatically not the place to put long quotes, and even more so not the place to put duelling quotes. If a particular quote is agreed by consensus to be somehow emblematic - see the lead for Holocaust - then its OK, but those are rare occasions.
 * On the reliability of Fein and the other chap. Fein is a controversial libertarian lawyer and legal scholar, and Hanifin appears to have had a decent career himself. However, I wouldn't quote Alan Dershowitz in a lead section in a history article; indeed, I would avoid quoting him on history at all. Note also the reliability of sources depends not only on who is saying something but where they are. If the only sources in a matter of historical interpretation are two lawyers, both of them writing in non-peer-reviewed fora, then that is unsatisfactory.

Delete
This article seems rather pointless. It's the epitome of a stub, while the Bayonet Constitution article already has a discussion of the overthrow. I think this should be deleted. KarlM 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My main object is the tone. It's written as if the information provided is conclusive that the otherthrow of Hawai'i was "OK". "thrwarted by a friend of Lil..." and other such language is just completely biased. I just cleaned up some of what I felt was the most discriminatory language. I hope that we can have a neutral, or at least balanced, article. Kaihoku 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's focus on specific sentences you have tone problems with, and address them. As a note, simply pushing POV in the other direction isn't helpful.  I'm sure we can find an appropriate middle ground. --JereKrischel 07:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Regarding comments made by editors in these pages (you know who you are): '''There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.'''

Some suggestions:


 * Discuss the article, not the subject;
 * Discuss the edit, not the editor;
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
 * If you feel attacked, do not attack back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sex/age?

 * 'over 75% of the native Hawaiian population could not vote due to sex, age ... requirements"'

This doesn't make any sense. How would discriminating by age and sex would disenfranchise any specific ethnic group? Hawaiians have less women, or something? -- int19h (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverting anonymous edits
I am reverting the edits by User:74.235.128.240. I feel they are Tendentious editing to introduce a narrow point of view – without providing any new references. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)