User talk:Laualoha/RFC Discussion Continuation

Hello, Laualoha. I replied to you on the RfC and I appreciate the tenor of your remarks there. However, I am concerned about several aspects of your strong reaction ("Let the Undue thing rest!") to my initial comment. Now that several days have passed, I'm wondering if you've reflected on your reaction, and how I or others may have felt, and whether you are open to discussing it. Thanks. Please reply to my Talk. HG | Talk 05:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to ask whether I regret my reaction? No, I don't.  Well, ok, the part about "kicking butt" was unnecessarily antagonistic, coming from an Aloha practitioner. It's true I shoulda had a little nicer "tenor".  SORRY!  However, my position has not changed at all, from Day 1.  I know that reading the talk page for the article is torture I wouldn't wish on anyone, but in it I've said the same thing over and over -- hence my frustration & "strong reaction". I was tired of repeating myself and tried to get the point across that a big fight would just be a big waste of time.  I'm not conceding any unequal coverage to the uninformed majority, but I am fair. I don't want to offend anyone, but I honestly don't really feel that I am among those who most need to "reflect" right now.  I just hope we get to the actual page before everyone burns out on this discussion, which I feel is an unnecessary diversion from the work that needs doing.  Aloha,-- Laualoha 13:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Laualoha, thanks for talking about this. You haven't been as antagonistic in tone with me since, so that's ok. However, I am concerned about three other aspects of your reaction....

First, it sounds like you're trying to exercise inappropriate control over the editing of the page, and the flow of Talk. You deserve to be proud of your work on the article, and your long efforts in Talk. However, it's a bad reflection on you if you come across as if you own the page, especially since you personally identify with one of the viewpoints discussed in the article. Is there a way you can dispel this impression? Secondly, I think you were too quick to throw around hyperbolic claims about people's motivations. You talk about "bulldozing indigenous peoples" and that it would be "racism" to interpret WP policy differently than you. This makes you sound intransigent, not assuming good faith, and like you're (disruptively) making for a more heated conversation. I'm hoping that you just lost your temper and will somehow diplomatically distance yourself from such claims about my (or others') good faith efforts here. Finally, maybe due to your anger or impatience, you jumped to the conclusion that I (and LarryQ, as it turns out) was saying (like Jere?) that the/your nationalist view is a "fringe" view. This misunderstanding has dragged us down a bit and confused some other commentators. As I think you now realize, I agree that it's a "significant minority" view. LarryQ and Arjuna say something similar. So, as I've now replied on Talk, the key question is whether a "significant minority" view should be given proportionate coverage (owing to WP:UNDUE) or "equal coverage" as you are arguing. I certainly don't know you well, but I respect your knowledge and passion for the topic. I hope we can end up with a collaborative working relationship. Sincerely, HG | Talk 16:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC) --- Ok, to address your points:

re:#1)I understand that it may feel to you as though I sound like I think I "own the page". However, I don't think this and it's already been explained quite thoroughly.  I believe that some misconceptions were created by the way this particular situation came about, with Larry editing while Jerry and I were in a truce pending a discussion that was supposed to happen last week.  I was asking that other editors hold off until Jere & I could do that work, because neither of us could reconcile other people's edits in the meantime, and Larry's edits had serious problems that could not be fixed without touching the rest of the text, which I could not do. I guess I did try to exercise a little temporary control (though with full explanation) because I felt that it was a priority that Jere and I stop edit-warring for the sake of the page. We were so close to getting through it, and the thought of the 2 of us making some kind of peace was a big deal! I also felt that anyone who had been following the situation (which Larry had) would understand. Obviously, I was wrong.

Then of course you could be referring to my refusal to compromise on equality, which some would perceive as "inappropriate control". Yes, I do have a bottom line of equality for this particular page, which is ABOUT an argument. I feel that anything less in terms of balance would be bias for this reason (among others), and I'm not prepared to allow for injustice based on what I feel is a questionable application of policy and misunderstanding of a complex matter (ironically, I feel that there would be a much better understanding if some of the page were written first, but this "undue weight" discussion is keeping this from happening). However, I realize I am being a bit of a hypocrite as I'm ignoring all my own peacemaking training right now by getting locked into a position rather than focusing on building positive outcomes. It's just hard because I keep getting slammed with the same "weight" thing and I'm sick of it(you know, I'm actually pretty damn good at neutral writing when I'm not backed up to a wall). I do not feel that I am being given enough space to work cooperatively toward the positive outcomes that this page needs. As a peacemaker by profession, I know that people tend to fight when they are exhausted, because too much of their creativity is drained. That's me right now. Maybe I need a break...I'm just having a hard time taking one in this situation, which moves way too fast for this island mama...

re:#2)Honestly, I feel that you are somewhat misconstruing what I've said. I am not calling anyone racist, but pointing out that systemic racism does indeed manifest when minority views are deliberately portrayed as less valid, especially when the population discrepancy is at least partly a direct creation of the forces of the majority (colonization, various forms of direct and indirect oppression, etc.).  I realize that any use of the word "racism" seems to be affecting some people very negatively, so I'll stop using it.  I didn't mean to offend, just to alert everyone that it really is a serious problem. People's feelings are important to me; I'm just not as careful of them when I'm pressured to communicate while I feel I should be doing somenthing else.

3)First of all, I am not a nationalist. It says so on my user page, you know.  I must say that this is an example of the sort of assumption that I ask you to look more carefully before making, although I do appreciate what you're trying to do. I don't mean any offense, but it kind of shows that you may not understand the complexity of this issue.

I absolutely agree that proportionate and/or equal coverage is the key question. I wish this had been clearer in the RFC. I believe that these are not exclusive, and that for this page, both are warranted. It's a complex thing, but it does make sense if you follow the whole logical "lei" through. The problem is that I can't even sew this lei, because I'm forced to justify every flower before I even start, in terms of a set of criteria that are designed for a very different kind of quality control.

You know, I must be honest with you: while I appreciate your efforts to do good things here, I'm having some problems with your style. I feel rather unfairly judged at times, to tell the truth. I know that you find some of the comments I have made in frustration excessively abrasive, and that's fair on your part. They are. However, I would expect a greater acknowledgment of context. Also, I've felt rather "ganged up on" by you & Larry in the whole launch of this undue mess. Most of all, you seem to desire and expect me to change, yet, in absolute honesty, your comment raises questions in my mind about your own efforts of this kind. I assure you, I do assume good faith on your part, and I appreciate your hard work. However, HG, I think some "self-reflection" is called for in your mirror, too, to be honest. Please read for yourself the last two comments you wrote to me, pretending that someone was writing this to you. Wouldn't you find this patronizing? Even my arch-nemesis Jere K. can be credited with making an honest effort to grow in some significant ways, even though he still maintains views that I passionately disagree with. When he genuinely tries, even though we're in opposing positions that neither is going to change much, human respect is built, and this helps us to get through stuff. I'm certainly not asking you to be like Jere (one of him is way plenty for us all!), but  I'm pointing out that when asking someone to change, it's important to examine your own stuff, preferably beforehand or alongside that request! I know that I need to chill out and get over how pissed I am at getting dragged into this "undue" thing again (with nothing even written yet to call "undue weight"!). I can be honest about that. Now, can you see that some of your comments to me sound rather patronizing? Or that you may be building assumptions a bit too fast? I'm just asking you to look inward as well as outward.

I really want to move on. I hope things can be fixed here (in terms of relationships between editors as much as the page), but this will take effort on all sides. I'll be honest; I'm hoping I don't burn out and ditch the whole thing, because the edit work I was proposing was already more time than my kids, family, job, band, kalo, extensive real-world volunteer work and health can afford, and this forced discussion on "undue weight" is causing me to lose momentum fast. If Wikipedia policy really does not support the equal status of the indigenous voice, then maybe I don't belong here. But if I go, I think you really need to think about the fact that this particular failed attempt at including a genuine, balanced native perspective exemplifies the very problem that underlies the overall majority perception of Hawai'i's status as legal.

Aloha, -- Laualoha 05:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

-- Hi. Thanks very much for your detailed response. I'm especially interested in your concerns about my style and welcome any further help in that regard. (If it doesn't to add to your time/energy drain.) Perhaps an "editor review" will help me reflect more on my style. In my 1st comment, I struggled with what to say and I apologize that it ended up patronizing, especially "I'm wondering if you've reflected on your reaction etc." Do you think it would have been better just to say something like, "I was bothered in several ways by what you wrote, would you mind discussing it with me?" In my 2nd comment, I'm not entirely sure where it sounds off. Instead of "You haven't been as antagonistic in tone with me since, so that's ok." I could just say "Yes, it seemed more antagonistic to me than what you wrote beforehand or since." Otherwise, I am wondering what you didn't like about how I worded the 2nd comment. Do comments like "you deserve to be proud" or "it's a bad reflection on you" sound too judgmental? At the time, I also couldn't figure out what to ask about WP:OWN besides the awkward "Is there a way you can dispel this impression?" Partly because it isn't just a question of folks agreeing that they don't own the page, there are subtle and less subtle ways that we need to communicate it.

You also say, after mentioning your frustration, "However, I would expect a greater acknowledgment of context." Do you mean I should acknowledge the context of you and others already discussing NPOV:Undue policy in Talk? Or the context of indigenous issues in WP? Something else?

I'd like to think I'm open to changes in my style, thinking, and as a person. Personally, I comfortable with what you've said above and I don't need to ask much of you, i.e. to change. Typically, I see folks rush to accuse each other of incivility etc without any real conversation or relationship. I didn't want to do that with you. However, since I appreciate what you've said to me here, I would ask you to do something about your use of "racism" in your comment on the Talk page. Such comments can get and do get misconstrued. If you're willing to strikeout or delete the "racism" remark, and/or rephrase your thinking in a different way, I'd appreciate it. (The people I know are quite cautious and strategic about "playing the race card" because of its intensity. Whatever your strategy, I'm asking about this specific instance.)

Thanks again for your time in talking to me about this at length. Let's not deal with the equal/proportionate issue here, unless you want. I don't want you to feel that your being "backed up to a wall." Tiamut has been good at slowing down the pace and trying to open up the conversation. Maybe this will buy some space to think of some elegant ways to write the actual article and still meet people's underlying interests. Take care. HG | Talk 21:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)