Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement/Archive 2

Request for comment / Dispute resolution

IslandGyrl feels that discussions between her and JereKrischel have reached a point where the involvement and commentary of more editors would be helpful and constructive. She would like to see more people participate in expanding Wikipedia coverage of the Hawaiian sovereignty area in a way that does not so much take sides but is more exemplary of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The role of the US government to the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy is being questioned. Many cite the Apology Resolution as proof but this legislation is being challenged as to its accuracy.

Slade Gorton and Hank Brown, American Senators who voted against the Apology Resolution, have described it as being a piece of historical revisionism. They wrote, "The Apology Resolution distorted historical truths. It falsely claimed that the U.S. participated in the wrongful overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893. The U.S. remained strictly neutral. It provided neither arms, nor economic assistance, nor diplomatic support to a band of Hawaiian insurgents, who prevailed without firing a single shot, largely because neither the Native Hawaiian numerical majority nor the queen's own government resisted the end of the Hawaiian Kingdom." The full article can be found be found here:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007117

A rebuttal of the points claimed in this law can be found here:

http://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaHawaiiDividedFeinJune2005.pdf

As noted, this is still being very much disputed. Hence, a non-biased article that does not make alleged historical claims benefits all and supports the neutrality of Wikipedia. 172.165.51.80 02:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested reference found

IslandGyrl, I was able to find a master's thesis with Lili Kala Dorton's name.

LEGENDARY TRADITION OF KAMAPUA'A, THE HAWAIIAN PIG-GOD / BY LILI KALA DORTON. THESIS (M.A.)--UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII, 1982. PHOTOCOPY. (HONOLULU ; S.N., 1982)by DORTON, LILIKALA L. DORTON 1982 1982

1. Subjects Legends -- Hawaii.
2. SWINE (IN RELIGION, FOLKLORE, ETC.)-HAWAII
3. Kamapua'a (Hawaiian deity)

Description: 260P

Hawaii State Library R -- Hawaiian & Pacific H 398.2 D Non Circulating Add Copy to MyList

I will make the change from Lily to LiliKala. --JereKrischel

Please stop making POV-pushing edits

Sorry, I feel this material is simply out of place in the Preview. Editors are requested to re-read the Wikipedia policy on neutrality, particularly the section "Friendly and sympathetic tone" where it says "for example, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section." Inserting this material goes that one better—have the Queen appear to refute pro-independence views before they've even been stated? WP policy also requests we bear in mind that as editors we are called upon to characterize the dispute—not re-fight it. Mahalo.

Liliʻuokalani's response to her overthrow changed over the years.  
Although at first she worked to effect a counter-revolution, eventually she 
expressed satisfaction about the course Hawaii had taken.

:The best thing for [Native Hawaiians] that could have happened was to 
belong to the United States. - written in the 1903 autobiography of Senator 
George Hoar (R. Mass.), quoting Liliʻuokalani

:Tho' for a moment it [the overthrow] cost me a pang of pain for my people 
it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people. 
- former Queen Liliʻuokalani in her diary, Sunday, September 2, 1900

Although there was some controversy as to the accuracy of the second quote, 
research done by DeSoto Brown of the Honolulu Weekly, who was originally 
doubtful, was able to prove it's authenticity.  A further discussion of the two 
articles written by DeSoto Brown have been discussed on the 
Honolulu Advertiser discussion boards. --IslandGyrl 22:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

IslandGyrl, where on the page would this information be appropriate? I struggled trying to think of a good place to put it...do you have any suggestions? I think it's just as relevant as the apology information, which seems to imply a certain characterization of history. --JereKrischel

First, reiterating the importance of Wikipedia neutrality policy, my plea would be for self-restraint and more effort to conform to encyclopedic standards. WP works best when editors avoid making unbalanced edits that either leave an article "spoiled " by a badly integrated chunk of writing or cause work for other editors to clean up.

JereKrischel, may I address some concerns to you directly? You've done a good job stimulating coverage of the anti-Hawaiian-sovereignty activists and arguments. Some contributions, however, unnecessarily replicate Dr Conklin's or Mr Twigg-Smith's argumentation in Wikipedia or otherwise push links to related material into the foreground. Please avoid this. Except for the articles about the figures themselves and their advocacy activities, it should almost always suffice just to have links to sites with their material in the "References" or "External links" section. It is POV to employ them as if they were neutral authorities when they have long since made themselves major players in the controversy.

Aloha, IslandGyrl, I would be more than happy to address any concerns you have. You've been an excellent guide through this whole wikipedia thing! --JereKrischel

I would now propose expanding the Kenneth R. Conklin and Thurston Twigg-Smith articles with a discussion of their views, and splitting all the "anti" material here off to create a symmetrical article "Hawaiian sovereignty opponents" cross-linked with this one. Let this article be about pro Hawaiian sovereignty phenomena, as its name suggests; everything in this article should give the reader more information about advocates.

I'm not sure if I entirely agree with your proposal here...maybe if we had a "Hawaiian Sovereignty" parent page that linked to a "Hawaiian Sovreignty Advocates" and "Hawaiian Sovereignty Opponents" pages, that cross-referenced each other, that would be more equitable...but even that seems to be a virtual throwing up of hands and giving up at making a neutral article, and instead giving us permission to place POV pushes here, as long as they stay in their place.

The assumption that "Hawaiian Sovereignty" == "Advocates" I think is the most objectionable to me though. It would be equivalent to having a page on "U.S. Pro Life Movement" with another page on "U.S. Pro Life Opponents"...someone else may push the other POV by having "U.S. Abortion Rights Movement" and "U.S. Abortion Rights Opponents". --JereKrischel

In a sense, WP policy does indeed represent a "virtual throwing up of hands"—if by that you mean that in conflict situations we are not to try to play the arbiters of what is fact. Directly quoting Wikipedia policy:

The vast majority of neutrality disputes are due to a simple confusion: one party believes "X" to be a fact, and—this party is mistaken (see second example below)—that if a claim is factual, it is therefore neutral. The other party either denies that "X" is a fact, or that everyone would agree that it is a fact. In such a dispute, the first party needs to re-read the Neutral Point of View policy. Even if something is a fact, or allegedly a fact, that does not mean that the bold statement of that fact is neutral.

    Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.

This is not the same as condoning POV pushes. We are enjoined to label the source of assertions explicitly and as specifically as possible. A debatable assertion that "X is the case" (POV) is not at all the same as a verifiable assertion that "ABC representing such-and-such a perspective says X is the case" (NPOV). As for the notion of a neutral article, I think we must accept that in the area of Hawaiian sovereignty—ultimately a case of competing nationalisms—insofar as there is little agreement as to what is fact, a neutral article by Wikipedia's definition must of necessity confine itself to informing the reader of who asserts what. --IslandGyrl 04:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, you have further educated me. Thank you. From what I'm reading, even if the fact is that the Protocols of Elders of Zion was a work of fiction, a wikipedia article on some anti-Zionist movement should not contain any reference to that fact which is disturbing to the inherent POV of the article. Although I would wonder if the sovereignty advocates actually do dispute the fact of the queen's change of heart...in any case you are obviously right that the bold statement of such a fact can be seen as being against their POV. Perhaps there is some way to word that fact so that it seems less offensive and more sympathetic? We can't attribute that fact to anyone except the queen and the senator she talked to, since once source was directly from her own diary and the other from the senator's autobiography...but maybe we can place some context around it that "softens" the blow? I would be interested to hear your suggestions on that. --JereKrischel

Wikipedia guidelines deal extensively with the case of handling racist opinion under NPOV. I have no interest in trading sarcasm; this is not a blog; please desist. We should be working on the articles and trying to make it attractive for other editors to participate in expanding coverage of this topic. A two-person head-to-head dynamic usually ends up wasting editor energy and rarely does article quality much good. --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if what I wrote seemed sarcastic. I was being sincere. I do greatly appreciate your bringing up of the wikipedia policy on the bold statement of fact - I did not read that before, and did not previously understand that POV. You taught me something useful, and I thank you, with no sarcasm intended. I will endeavor to read more of the wikipedia guidelines myself, but when I stray, it is good to have someone expose my fault.

On that topic, did you see the edit I made to the "bold statement of fact" of the queen's change of heart? Did that help make things more NPOV? I really am trying here to be a good wikipedian - your guidance is appreciated and no doubt necessary. --JereKrischel

Does the Lili‘uokalani quote tell the reader more about the pro side? No; it's a point raised by opponents; so in the absence of anything illuminating the full context—what role the point plays in the whole discussion, who stresses this theme and who doesn't, and what equally important topics are also out there—it doesn't belong. The article on the Irish Catholic Sinn Féin does not, after all, devote a third of its space to the Ulster Protestant DUP's views; the DUP rates its own article.

I think maybe the problem here is that an artificial separation of facts and opinions may be occuring. I think maybe what we should discuss is Lili‘uokalani's reactions, starting from her abdication under duress, her attempt at a counter-coup, and her final acceptance. By censoring ourselves I think we do a disfavor to those interested in learning about the topic.

Insofar as the Catholic/Protestant example, I think perhaps if the articles were titled "Irish Independence Movement" and "Irish Independence Movement Opponents" it would be POV pushing. As it is, we identify the group, and talk about their agenda there. It would be equivalent to having each of the sovereignty movmenent parties with their own articles (perhaps a good idea?), and the anti-sovereignty movement parties with their own articles (Aloha For All, et al.). --JereKrischel

Well-rounded material on Queen Lili‘uokalani belongs in the article about her. Selecting "choice" facts for insertion here is suspect. Nothing to do with censorship; just an acknowledgement that all of us have our biases, and selectivity is one way those biases express themselves.

The more articles on the more parties, the merrier, provided they have substance and are encyclopedic, not puff pieces. An article about XYZ is not the same as an article merely echoing XYZ's official PR statements about itself. --IslandGyrl 04:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you're arguing at cross purposes here. An article about XYZ (Hawaiian Sovereignty) is not the same as an article echoing XYZ's (Hawaiian Sovereignty's) official PR statements. Shouldn't we strive for a Hawaiian Sovereignty article which is about the issue, and not assume the POV of the article should be slanted in one direction or another?

You are right that well-rounded material on the queen belongs in her article, but in regards to the sovereignty movement, aren't there a few "choice" facts that do belong naturally in the article? The whole sovereignty issue revolves directly around her overthrow in 1893, and we can't minimize her role.

I guess the selectivity bias goes both ways, and the original article with it's clear bias against those who held anti-sovereignty positions has been improved with the last couple of dozen edits. But there is a balance here, and I acknowledge it may be swinging past the midline.

What do you think about my proposal to have 3 pages, "Hawaiian Sovereignty Issues", and under that "Hawaiian Sovereignty Advocates" and "Hawaiian Sovereignty Opposition"? We can limit the top level to simply stating some of the basic undisputed history around 1893 (may be a challenge), and then link to the other pages. When there is some argument between the two lower pages, they can reference each other. For example, the advocate page may have a section which describes sympathetically the version of history they ascribe to, but at the bottom of that section have a link to the opposition page. Same with the opposition page. An assertion on either page can be linked to the opposing material, but we won't clutter up one page with both sides. Equal treatment, so although each article is clearly around a certain POV, we allow readers to navigate between the two if they choose.

Does that sound equitable? --JereKrischel

In an ideal universe it might work, but we are only two editors and look at the kerfuffle we already have. I thus doubt that a consensus on the content of "Hawaiian sovereignty issues" could be achieved in any time short enough to be useful. Any basic undisputed history, such as can be agreed on, already has a place in the article History of Hawaii (although there's no reason to object if the same material were precisely replicated in a Hawaiian sovereignty article). The various voices loosely categorised as the sovereignty movement actually reflect a multitude of different perspectives, and the issues group X considers crucial are not necessarily same as those important to group Y. For instance, at the moment OHA is lobbying heavily for the Akaka Bill while Ms Mililani Trask and Mssrs Blaisdell, Laenui, and Sai all oppose it (as do Aloha for All and Grassroot Institute, for different reasons obviously). But a reader would not learn any of that from the current article.

So no, in this specific situation and time I definitely favour a two-separate-worlds structure. It's a simple pragmatic way to allow the pro-sovereignty and anti-sovereignty discourses (e.g. you and me) to disengage right now. Editor energy needs to flow into expanding encyclopedia-standard coverage of all the players in the controversy. It follows that right now I'm against point-by-point cross-linking as just a further complication. When our article-text contributions start to manifest the length, detail, and loving care that our Talk page contributions do, then both of us may finally be getting somewhere ;-) . --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Splitting into a pro and an anti article would allow all the main players for or against the Hawaiian sovereignty movement and their arguments to be covered in equal depth. Thus, the Lili‘uokalani quote would belong in a section on the "anti" page, titled "<name of opponent>", prefaced with something like: "In response to sovereignty advocates who cite Queen …, <name> points to …" with appropriate bibliographic reference to where the Queen's quotation is documented. Note, however, that WP is an encyclopedia, not a blog and that linking to banter on a discussion forum or blog to back up an assertion absolutely does not measure up to encyclopedic standards as a source.

I apologize for linking to the blog itself...I would have copied the data entirely from the newspaper articles mentioned, but wasn't sure if that was appropriate, since we're not supposed to host source material. --JereKrischel

Regarding other small edits:

• What is the significance of the "Lily Dorton" reference? What is the nature of the objection to removing it? Doing a Google on "Lily Dorton" returns 7 hits, all of which can be traced back to Dr Conklin or to the information, apparently from Dr Conklin, in Wikipedia originally inserted by you (and later edited by me when I swapped the "Lily Dorton" article you had created with its Lilikala redirect).

I'm not sure what the policy of referring to people by their aliases are, but I guess I was imagining some future researcher looking at our encyclopedia and trying to match it with demographic data from other records sources (birth certificates, death certificates). Much like I think a Marylin Monroe page should note her name was Norma Jean Baker. --JereKrischel

But does it not seem strange that there would be no evidence anywhere on the entire Web that Lily Dorton is genuinely an alias of Ms Kame‘eleihiwa—only Dr Conklin's word? Why would he insist on referring to her by that name when no one else does? At the least it suggests disrespect. Why should Wikipedia want to reflect one man's personal attitude toward her? --IslandGyrl 04:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would assume that barring some for-pay search service, most aliases would not be readily available on the web. I will try to email both Conklin and Lily/Lilikala and see if I can get confirmation or denial. If Conklin cannot offer a corroborating source and Lily/Lilikala denies the alias, we should definitely remove it. --JereKrischel

• "Alleged" U.S. role: I feel inserting this "alleged" in the opening sentence is not in the spirit of describing the Hawaiian sovereignty advocates' position in a friendly and sympathetic tone in the few pages in all of Wikipedia devoted to them. Although perhaps technically defensible under WP NPOV policy, an equally defensible technical case might then be made for affixing to every article that refers to the "State of Hawai‘i" a disclaimer such as "The de jure status of Hawai‘i as part of the United States is disputed by some. See …" I would prefer we not go there. I also suspect that most people in Hawai‘i, even persons whose politics are 100% pro-U.S., would view a claim that the U.S. had no role whatsoever as laughable at best, and at worst about as plausible as Holocaust denial. --IslandGyrl 16:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Comparing the U.S. landing a small party of marines who never threatened anyone or fired a shot to the Holocaust is not plausible. Not to get into a detailed argument here, but I think there is a big difference between what the sovereignty movement advocates claim about the U.S. role and the actual facts. It's almost like having an article make claims about the Jewish role in instigating the Holocaust upon themselves without qualification (The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion). I would certainly refer to those as "alleged".

One of the problems with letting a statement like that stand without "alleged" is that people are literally accepting that as truth, and linking it in their minds to the trail of tears, or the holocaust, or an actual massacre. When people read the '93 Apology Bill, they assume that the U.S., through the direct use of force, shot their way to the palace, put a gun to the queen's head, and had her overthrown. This was not the case, and we should make that clear, even if that fact takes some of the wind out of the sails of pro-sovereignty advocates. --JereKrischel

Please do not twist my words. The comparison was in no way "overthrow" = "the Holocaust", it was "the plausibility to Hawaiian people of denying any U.S. involvement whatsoever in the overthrow" = "the plausibility to educated people today of Holocaust denial." Once again, regarding your or my conviction that we are in possession of the "actual facts" and those other folks aren't: for Wikipedia purposes,

"Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts." --IslandGyrl 04:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your intent, but it still seems like you assume that "educated" means your POV. Holocaust deniers have a very special place in the pantheon of evil for most people, and people who deny that the U.S. had any role in the overthrow do not deserve that vitriol. I consider myself educated and I see the U.S. as clearly a neutral party in the dispute, what with the conflict between the Cleveland administration and the McKinley administration. We were really on both sides of the issue, and were pulled into the conflict between the revolutionaries and the royalists. If we played any role, it was as a prop, not as an lead actor.

Of course, my view of the facts is irrelevant here, of course, but my umbrage at being compared to a holocaust denier has it's genesis in my POV. ---JereKrischel

Sorry, but you are again twisting my words. The analogy is between <the way Hawaiian people feel about "A"> and <the way educated people feel about "B">. There is no implication that educated people must feel as Hawaiians do about "A". And: I used "B" = Holocaust denial as an example in line with its two-fold use as an example in the Wikipedia policy page on neutral point of view, which I am assuming WP editors have read.

I am not asserting here that Hawaiians are right. I am asserting that if the slant in Wikipedia oversteps certain lines, most will reject Wikipedia as merely yet another venue for members of the dominant culture to propagate their version of events. In the real world, this strengthens the sovereignty folks' appeal, as they can argue: "Wherever Hawaiians are outnumbered by non-Hawaiians, even in 'alternative' projects such as Wikipedia, views prevail which insult the deepest core of who we are. We must therefore have our own set of institutions." --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Let me try and see if I can explain how no matter how you parse your original statement, it was offensive to me. You compared how "hawaiian" people should think about the obvious reality u.s. role the way "educated" people think about the obvious reality of the holocaust. So if I do not think of the u.s. role in a certain way, I cannot be considered "hawaiian". The phrase you used, most people in Hawai‘i, seems to include me on it's face, but demands that I hold a certain POV. It also implies that my POV is not a majority POV, which I would strongly argue. By comparing it to holocaust denial, you imply that the people that do not agree are not most people in Hawai‘i, and can be considered in the same way we consider holocaust deniers.

Maybe it would have been less offensive to me if I were a holocaust denier, because your analogy would merely validate any feelings of being a minority opinion struggling to be heard :). As it is, I happen to hold holocaust denial in contempt, but do not see my opinion about the alleged u.s. role as worthy of contempt.

It is most likely I am being too sensitive here, and I know you are not trying to attack me maliciously. But the comment hurt nonetheless. I will endeavor to grow thicker skin. --JereKrischel

Another editor

Folks, I could possibly help here (academic background in Hawaiian history, plus a LOT of research for a historical novel I'm writing) but I've been overwhelmed with my work on the Islam-related and Indian film articles. When I get time, I will look over the article and the controversies and see if I can help NPOV the discussion. I'm certainly not a favorite of Hawaiian activists (I've seriously pissed off a few people in other online discussions) but I think that many of the anti-sovereignty people are just as far off the mark. Praps I can serve (as I so often do) as the target for fire from both sides <g>. Zora 08:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Genuine Question

I am neither Polynesian nor American. I am not overly familar with the incorporation of Hawaii into the USA. As an "ordinary reader" can someone address the plain facts (according to other Wikipedia articles):

• that there are about 500,000 Native Hawaiians,
• that about 1/3 live in other US States,
• that the population of the State of Hawaii is about 1,200,000.

How do the advocates of independence "deal with" the fact that any independent Hawaii would, at least initially, have more than half its population being non-Polynesian. Isn't that a bit like an Israel where the Jews were in the minority?

The article doesn't seem to give the views of the "secessionists" on this question. Avalon 03:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the disparity is even more dramatic that you would think. There are about 500,000 part-native hawaiians, of which probably only 100,000 are >= 50%, and only 10,000 or less are 100%. One of the biggest problems I think faced by the statisticians which report on kanaka maoli (native hawaiian) problems is that they go by a 1 drop rule, where even though someone may be 1/64 kanaka maoli and 63/64 european they are counted as 64/64 native hawaiian for the purposes of drop out rates, crime rates, etc. The fact that hawaii has a tradition and history from the founding of it's first kingdom of inter-marriage and multi-racial culture makes the use of a 1 drop rule even more difficult to justify.

Even amongst the "native-hawaiian" population, the majority of the population is not native-hawaiian. There have been no good studies or statistics based on the mixed blood quantum percentages, but I would venture to say that any separation of "race" is artificial and arbitrary at best. --JereKrischel 09:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Lauloha's edits

Lauloha, I don't see the phrase "turning to" as implying that Hawaiians are looking for salvation outside themselves. If I'm cleaning cupboards and I get tired of it, I turn to another task. That doesn't mean I'm worshipping the other task. It means I'm changing what I'm doing. I don't mind your last change, but it seems to me that you're looking for offense and finding it. Zora 09:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lauloha, mahalo for your edits. Small correction on the period of dormancy - both Aloha Aina and Hui Kalai'aina abandoned their anti-annexation/"sovereignty" positions, June 7, 1900, when they formed the Independent Home Rule Party. Initially with Robert Wilcox at the helm (who said, "The question of the restoration of the Monarchy is gone from us forever. We are now a people, however, who can vote. You all know we have two-thirds of the votes in this country."), they participated with vigor in the Territorial Government, although after the first term, most native Hawaiians moved with Prince Kuhio to the Republican party. --JereKrischel 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Lauloha, it is not true that Hawaiian sovereignty advocates would enfranchise non-Hawaiians. I know someone in Bumpy Kanahele's community who said that they believed only Native Hawaiians should be able to vote in the new Hawaiian nation they would establish. He described a very emotional meeting at which this position was adopted. You're not giving due credit to the whackos in your movement. All movements have whackos, so I don't regard this as necessarily to the discredit of the non-discriminatory HS people. But we can't whitewash the existence of oddballs. Zora 23:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Aloha Jere & Zora --

Mahalo for your comments!

Regarding the "turn to" thing -- yeah, ok, I can agree itʻs a little nitpicky. However, I feel that it is often the general usage of everyday words which empowers and disempowers us all -- men, women, Hawaiians, Christians, atheists, Buddhists, punk rockers, whatever. To me, it didnʻt sound like "turning to" another task from cleaning the cabinets at all, it sounded much more like we were "turning to" groups/ideology for answers that OHA wasnʻt "giving" us...to me it kinda portrays us as followers. Iʻm sure that whoever wrote it originally didnʻt mean that, but I believe that where a better choice of words can be found that respects the meaning, it should be used.

Regarding "whackos": I wonʻt deny that there are probably "whackos" in the sovereignty movement (so youʻve met my ex! Just kiddinʻ), although I feel very confident that they are far less dangerous (and definitely have more aloha) than some of the "whackos" in the American government!

With regard to non-native "disenfranchisement"...I do not believe that the underlying intent of any group is to "take away" power from all non-natives, nor should it be portrayed as such. I think that many sovereignty advocates do perceive a need to correct the imbalance of power that would be caused by flatly "equal" majority-rule voting, which would logically lead to the native people being out-voted almost every time (as usually happens now).

I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any way to white wash the issue - if you assert there is an imbalance of power, than any race-based "balancing" of that is effectually "taking away" power from non-natives. The idea that we need to have two-tiers of citizenship to allow a single racial group to dominate politics without a majority is categorically disenfranchisement. --JereKrischel 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a very difficult problem indeed, and Iʻm not endorsing any one solution here. I would say from my own experience that the general intent is to protect as much equality as possible, while trying to find some effective solution to the very difficult problems that sovereignty seeks to address (like the disempowerment of Kanaka Maoli, militarization, destruction of sacred places, abuse of natural resources such as water, cultural persecution, land being bought up by rich foreigners with resulting homelessness, crazy prices, emigration pressure, etc. etc. etc...).

Hereʻs an excerpt from the Nation of Hawaiʻi constitution that Jere used as a "race-based" example:"Section 1. Protection against discrimination:

"...nor shall any individual person be deprived or denied the equal protections of these rights on account of race, creed, color, age, nationality, religion, gender or disability, without due process of law." ..."b. Citizens, Naturalized: "The Legislative General Assembly shall provide by law a naturalization process for all persons who qualify and choose to become citizens of the Nation".

That really doesnʻt sound to me like intent to disenfranchise, much less "ethnic cleansing". Havenʻt seen it in other constitutions, either. And Iʻve never yet heard activists talk about kicking people out based on race. Honestly, the only place Iʻve ever heard this from (okay, other than some kinda messed-up highschool kids and maybe an auntie here or there having a bad "venting" moment, which I gotta admit weʻve all probably had) is in the anti-sovereignty movement. I donʻt think itʻs good to say that people are saying whatʻs not being said; I believe the term for this is a straw man. I think thereʻs a lot of fear-based reaction to sovereignty that seems a bit more than a bit out of proportion to the problem.

That being said, I still really appreciate you guys. Aloha!!

E malama pono, Laualoha 09:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your citation, but I think it points to an underlying contradiction. Simply put, one section of the constitution claims equal protections, but then other sections specifically create two classes of citizenship, one with superior rights to the other. Regardless of intent (as I'm sure there were many Jim Crow proponents who honestly thought people would be happier if separated and kept among their own kind), the net effect is disenfranchisement. I think it is possible to be sympathetic to the sovereignty movement, but still be honest about the proposed solutions on the table. Hopefully we're getting closer to wording that we can all agree on. --JereKrischel 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Previously anti-annexation

I'd like to be as specific as possible on this one - Aloha Aina and Hui Kalai'aina were both dissolved and the two groups formed the Independent Home Rule Party. They abandoned their anti-annexation platform, and participated in the Territorial for 12 tumultuous years, after a first term marked by internal strife. Prince Kuhio took a big chunk of support from the Home Rule Party and moved to the Republican Party in 1903 which eventually led to the Home Rule Party's demise. Although modern incarnations of Aloha Aina and Hui Kalai'aina organizations have taken up their previously anti-annexation position, these are truly new organizations with the same name, without any continuity at all. I've made some edits, hopefully they flow better. --JereKrischel 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand what youʻre saying, Jere; I just think to be clear we should be careful not to let it sound like everybody just gave up & stopped being anti-annexation, because I do not believe that that is what happened. From my read of the same history, it seems to me that they just did what was most practical to achieve what they could under the circumstances. It would make very little practical sense to put energy toward an anti-annexation position, regardless of where they actually stood on the issue, after annexation had happened. At that point, it would not even be correct; once it occurs, you work internally (Home Rule, etc.) and externally (decolonization/deoccupation efforts, etc.) to correct the injustice the best you can and to control the damage that you know that injustice is gonna do. Weʻre talking about people in a very critical situation, with many, many considerations; I donʻt think they had much room to play with ideology, but it seems pretty clear where their hearts were. Aloha, Laualoha 23:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think your wording is much better, although I disagree with you on the historical motivations. It seems to me that justice was finally served by the lobbying of Wilcox and others to make sure no voting restrictions were put on kanaka maoli with the 1900 Organic Act - at that point, there was little practical sense in putting energy towards reducing kanaka maoli political power, since once we became a territory, the primarily white oligarchy had its wings clipped, and kanaka maoli reigned again. Successes came one after the other, including establishment of county governments, the founding of DHHL, and the election of many kanaka maoli to positions of power in government.

Of course, after the children of the asians who were left disenfranchised with the Organic Act grew up, and gathered political power, the tables turned - and I believe the history shows that it was after that Democratic revolution that discontent amongst some kanaka maoli grew, and the pre-1898 days were mytholigized.

This isn't meant to deny the legitimacy of grievances being claimed by sovereignty activists, but I think it is clear from the historical record that these positions have been "rediscovered", not continuously held. Individual cases may vary, of course. I sometimes wonder what kind of equivalent to the 1900 Organic Act will turn the tide again :). --JereKrischel 00:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a very interesting perspective, and I think you make some good points, although I disagree with some of them & definitely with the conclusion in regards to "rediscovery". But thatʻs to be expected, huh? Mahalo- Laualoha 01:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

June 2006 news

The vote in congress and occupation of the palace taking place in June 2006 should probably be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

??? Links? Justforasecond 04:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Level of support

I only briefly read it, but from what I did read, the article doesn't seem particularly clear on the level of support for the movement. Nil Einne 12:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged

Any U.S. role in the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 is clearly alleged, not bald fact. The assertion that the U.S. had any functional role in the downfall of liliuokalani is contested by both the Morgan Report and the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, and I think is unfairly stated in the recent version. One might just as well state that something like "the CIA's role in the assassination of JFK, alleged to have been part of a conspiracy by Cuban dissidents as payback for the Bay of Pigs." Just as it would be more appropriate to state "the CIA's alleged role", it is similarly appropriate to note that the any role of the U.S. in regards to the Hawaiian Revolution is alleged. --JereKrischel 09:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. I disagree completely. Obviously, by the very fact that U.S. troops were on site, they had a role. It is not alleged, it is a fact. It is alleged that they played a conspiratorial role, but that they played a role is a statement of fact. Arjuna 09:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I hope we can discuss this and come up with a reasonable interpretation of the events, which are a matter of historical record and really shouldn't be subject to whatever political agendas -- on either side -- may currently exist. So, I'm not going to rvv your edits, even though I take strong issue with some of them. Instead, let's try discussing first. Arjuna 10:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

On further reflection -- and continuing (as always) to act in and assume good faith -- I'm going to rvv "alleged". For sake of argument: one can assume that the U.S. minister had absolutely no role whatsoever in the conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy, but to argue that the U.S. had "no role" in the events is patently untrue -- indeed, a fact. The American troops did play a role -- if nothing else, they intimidated the royalists by their very presence. This is undeniable. And if nothing else, this is what the Apology Bill references. Your point about the CIA etc. -- erm, sorry, that is a non sequitur. Arjuna 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that blaming the U.S. troops for feelings of "intimidation" isn't a statement of their role, but more a statement of an interpretation of their role. It is undeniable that the royalists were unable to resist the Committee of Safety, and that the landing of U.S. peacekeepers may have been detrimental to morale for the royalists and supportive of morale to the Honolulu Rifles - could we just state that as the "role" they played? Also, FWIW, PL103-150 references specifically a conspiracy, not their mere presence. Let me see if I can come up with an appropriate compromise. --JereKrischel 07:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Arjuna for your recent edits - I have reverted them though. Your insistence that the U.S. role in the 1893 Hawaiian Revolution is "unambiguous" is unsupportable by the historical record. Over the past 100+ years, there have been three major reports and one piece of symbolic legislation, all which contradict each other on several major points. Regardless of which reports or legislation you choose to believe is accurate, there is certainly a great deal of argument and ambiguity there as to what, if any role, was played. --JereKrischel 14:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pretenders to the Throne?

Does anyone know if there have been any claimants to the throne of Hawai'i?

Yes. See Legal status of Hawaii#Modern claims to the Kingdom. --JereKrischel 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Apology Resolution

JK, your recent addition to the article that "Many sovereignty groups cite the Apology Resolution as the definitive guide to Hawaiian history, and use it to justify their claims" is absurd, insulting, and unacceptable POV-pushing. With all respect, you should be careful in making edits such as this one in the future as this does not reflect well on your overall credibility. Aloha. Arjuna 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't see it as insulting - could you please suggest a different phrasing that indicates that sovereignty activists believe that the Apology Resolution is a factual representation of history and therefore legally binding (as presented by Larsen v. Sai)? --JereKrischel 05:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see my latest edits Arjuna - I also converted things to refs. Any help in finding better phrasing is much appreciated, mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

JK, I agree your most recent edits are an improvement, but we can still probably work together to improve it further. As for the last round, it definitely did come across as editorializing, but mahalo for your speedy changes. Aloha. Arjuna 08:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Primary Sources

Aloha JK. I have a concern with moving the Morgan Report website that you created (http://morganreport.org/) from the "Opposition" section to "Primary Sources". Although it does indeed contain primary sources (and I do acknowledge all the hard work you must have put into doing that) and thus valuable in that respect, your site -- unlike the UH sites, which are strictly primary -- does also contain editorial material. For example, "Apparently unaware of the true historical record, they are ready to rewrite history without regard to accuracy" -- whether or not you are correct about that particular issue, it is still editorial/POV and not scholarly). It also -- and again unlike UH -- contains FAQ talking points intended to promote the Morgan Report as the definitive source of historial information on the events of 1893, rather than a more scholarly balanced examination of various sources. I suggest that http://morganreport.org/ should be moved back to the Opposition section unless the other material is removed and it becomes strictly primary sources. As it exists now, it is both primary source and POV. I will wait for your response. Mahalo, Arjuna 20:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna. The "primary sources" issue is a rather delicate one, and I think that if we are to separate out things on that list, and assert that they are "primary sources" regarding Hawaiian sovereignty, maybe we're doing ourselves a disfavor. For example, the anti-annexation petitions had absolutely nothing to do with "hawaiian sovereignty" in any common modern sense of the word. Neither do hawaiian language newspapers, from throughout the kingdom period, have anything directly to do with "hawaiian sovereignty" as we know it.

The anti-annexation petitions, for example, were organized by Aloha 'Aina and Hui Kalai'aina, both of which disbanded and became the "Hawaiian Independent Party" in 1900, embracing self-determination in the form of voting and participating in the Territorial government. While it is certainly true that the anti-annexation petitions are cited by modern hawaiian sovereignty activists, it seems to me that considering them as "primary" in regards to their cause and beliefs is a subtle bit of POV pushing.

Now, I also understand that there is some editorial content on the current morganreport.org site, (and I'll also note that UH links to it on their annexation documents page), but we could also simply deep-link to avoid that (perhaps http://morganreport.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Outline_of_Topics would be okay?).

Perhaps we should simply move the morganreport.org link back into opposition, remove the link to the newspapers (which although valuable, aren't directly germane), and create a "support" section, rather than a "primary source" section? How does that sit with you as an idea? --JereKrischel 07:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. Sorry, going flat out with other stuff at the moment -- haven't forgotten about this and that I need to get back to you on this, but I can't get to it for another couple of days. Cheers, Arjuna 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Intro Reformat needed

I really appreciate everyone's contributions and do not mean to dis anyone with changes. However, because this is the first place people will look for information on the subject, I really want the first few sentences to be really to-the-point and accurate, and also respectful to those about whom the article is written. If the Sovereignty movement was referrred to as a "loose coalition of groups" in the paper, people in Hawai'i (even those who are not activists) would be insulted. I know nobody means harm, but it is not biased to use positive language, so long as that language is not misleading. I ask that everyone try for a positive tone overall. And honestly, for those (not all editors meet this description, but some do) who have a personal problem with the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, this may require some honest self-examination. For others who are just trying to find a workable balance, don't worry, it will work out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laualoha (talk • contribs).

I think that it's misleading to assert that it's an "indigenous/aboriginal movement". The sovereignty claims are based on the downfall of the multi-racial Kingdom of Hawaii, not the downfall of pre-Kamehameha unification chiefdoms. Although most sovereignty groups insist on race-based superiority within the structure of any future government for Hawaii, they don't all insist on special treatment for pre-1778 immigrants de jure (even if some do de facto by excluding asians from consideration of citizenship because they were contract laborers in the Kingdom during the Hawaiian Revolution).

Anyway, I have no problem with edits to the intro, but I just can't buy into sweeping claims like that. Maybe you could try another version without the racial label? --JereKrischel 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'll try but I'm changing it back while I think. I'll come up with something in minutes (if my kids let me), don't worry.

In the meantime I just have to take out " with or without special privileges for people of whole or partial native Hawaiian ancestry" for now. I respect what you are trying to say, and I don't think you are factually incorrect, but it sounds misleadingly like the movement is all about racism, and that's not true.--Laualoha 06:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, Laualoha -- sounds like fair and NPOV wording to me as a disinterested party. Some of the sentences were getting long and convoluted so I made a copy edit for flow. Arjuna 09:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

is the seperatistmovement strong in Hawaii?

how many members are there, and are they considered to be a strong movement--Ezzex 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion suggestion in Groups and Organizations

Gotta love that BRD!

In response to Viriditas's request in ther reversion of my deletion of the sections on David Keanu Sai and Poka Laenui, I'm starting a conversation here on my reasons for deleting them in the hopes of fostering consensus.

I noted in my edit summary that the deletions were being done because those figures were not important enough, citing WP:N/WP:V and WP:UNDUE. I still believe this to be true, but I think the most effective way to present this will be by listing all the groups below:

ALOHA

Historical group, has lobbied Congress for reparations. Reported on in the New York Times ([1]), noted in scholarly article ([2]), discussed in books.

Office of Hawaiian Affairs

This one is fairly self-evident. Government-sponsored group, involved in lawsuit that made it to the State Supreme Court and subject of a case argued before the United States Supreme Court. They even have their own Wikipedia article.

Ka Lahui

According to the L.A. Times, they organized the largest gathering of native Hawaiians in the past 100 years. They appear to have been very active and visible in the movement and have been reported as being a driving force behind actualy legal petitioning for sovereignty. A Google News search gives 141 article.

Nation of Hawai'i

They occupied a beach and pressed the state to grant them lands that are still in use today. That one is also pretty self-evident.

Ka Pakaukau: Kekuni Blaisdell=

Involved in U.N.-related work. I'm not so sure about him, either, but given their work on a more official level, I'm inclined to let it be.

Poka Laenui (Hayden Burgess)

He seems to be eminently quotable but not particularly effective ([3] [4] [5] ). The only notable thing I could find was him chairing a conference that may or may not have been the one noted above.

Hawaiian Kingdom: David Keanu Sai

A search for "Hawaiian Kingdom" reveals a wealth of information both on the new sovereignty groups and on the old Kingdom of Hawaiʻi, so I am not opposed to having a section on that group. However, looking for David Keanu Sai is far less fruitful--he apparently had a request for arbitration rejected by the Hague and got in trouble with his company. Google News search gives 9 hits.

Militia of Molokai

Actually, this one should probably go as well. The only thing they do seems to be distributing a small newspaper, and that hasn't been written about anywhere that I could find.

While WP:N is not strictly applied to individual content within a notable topic, WP:BIO#Lists of people and WP:UNDUE both suggest that some basic level of notability or importance should be required for inclusion in this list (yes, I know WP:BIO concerns people, but the concept is the same). Given that Poka Laenui, David Keanu Sai, and the Militia of Molokai don't seem to be particularly important, at the very least they don't deserve to be written about as extensively as they currently are. --jonny-mt 09:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what criteria you are using to argue for deletion. Perhaps you can give me something to work with. A quick look at news sources shows plenty of coverage for Laenui and Sai. I haven't yet checked MoM, so I can't comment on it. —Viriditas | Talk 10:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, having looked into it, George Peabody, the publisher of the Molokai Advertiser, appears to be a notable Hawaii contrarian, known for his minority viewpoints, and his unsuccessful run for governor in 2002 and his attempt to secure the Republican nomination in the 2006 election.[6][7] From what I can tell, the term, "militia of Molokai" is used to refer to Peabody's supporters,[8] a collection of fringe libertarians[9], and according to Hamblin's Adventure Guide to Maui, Peabody's paper calls itself "The Militia of Molokai's Community Newspaper."[10]; it does not represent a real militia. From my vantage point, Peabody (and his militia) meets and exceeds the notability requirements. There are dozens of articles about him (and his odd views) in the popular press. —Viriditas | Talk 11:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

However, there does not seem to be much published about Peabody's militia as a "pro-Hawaiian sovereignty group" outside of his own paper, so if nothing more can be found, we might have to remove it. Looking at Mr. Peabody's history on the internet, I wouldn't be surprised if he added his name to this article in the first place. Harumph. —Viriditas | Talk 11:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All right, thank you very much for your response! Let's see if I can't explain my argument a little bit better.

What I'm looking for is coverage of the subjects in reliable second sources per WP:V and WP:N. A quick news search for David Keanu Sai, for example, yields only a handful of hits, but despite this his section is longer than the section on the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and filled with unsourced (and, in my opinion, largely unverifiable) errata such as his military service, what he did at university, and when he started his business, with external links pointing to broad websites rather than specific references. As I mentioned, I'm not opposed to having information about his group in there, as they do seem to be a proper Hawaiian independence movement, and after looking through the sources available I would be okay with cutting his section down to a note about his petitioning at the Hague. However, the mass of material there violates WP:UNDUE by providing an abundance of information on a subject that does not seem to deserve it. The same goes for Poka Laenui--unless information treating him as an important figure in the movement can be found, he's simply a commentator with a public-access show.

Naturally, as you pointed out, the entire article needs improved references. Seems to me there's no better place to start than here! --jonny-mt 06:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the reason you see it this way is because someone created a number of individual articles that were probably merged into this article, giving it the appearance of "undue weight", when it's just the result of a poorly performed merge. I haven't checked the history to see if that's true, but I've observed it so many times it wouldn't surprise me. I can help look for references. Please check back here later. —Viriditas | Talk 23:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed Militia of Molokai

Small movement based on the island of Molokai. It is a pro-gun rights, pro-Hawaiian sovereignty group, that claims to be protecting Constitutional rights (especially Second Amendment rights) and fighting against the "American police state." It encourages a calling to arms for the Hawaiian people, and is largely opposed to the current governor of the state. It publishes a weekly newspaper, called the Molokai Advertiser, on the island of Hawaii, which is mostly composed of various propaganda for their cause.

I removed this section due to a lack of secondary sources describing Peabody's connection with the sovereignty movement. The only source offered is a link to Peabody's newspaper which doesn't support the interpretive claim. I'm not opposed to adding the content back in if better sources can be found. —Viriditas | Talk 11:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected

The page is now protected for 5 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) 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The Queen needs a Wikipage

It cannot be created by someone not knowledgable as the title is very important. Her Majesty Mahealani Kahau, Mahealani of Hawaii, Queen Mahealani Kahau, some other phrase? I think someone whose knows how she is to be addressed and has some historical facts should creat the page Geo8rge (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

this article is farked

I recommend a rebuild from scratch, as it's not going to fix itself, ever. Definite conflict of interests all around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuapinmon (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge?

I have mixed feelings on this proposal. In many ways, combining the articles would make things easier for all involved as they are so closely related.

However, these are separate issues as well. The Hawaiian sovereignty movement exists because of their feelings towards the Legal status of Hawaii. One is a legal issue while the other is a response to that legal issue.

Companion articles to the Legal status of Hawaii include the Legal status of Texas and the Legal status of Alaska. Using many of the same arguments, these articles also assert the controversial legality of American ownership of these states.

Would it be appropriate to merge the Legal status of Texas with the Republic of Texas (group)? This is probably comparable to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement for Texas. How about merging the Legal status of Alaska with the Alaskan Independence Party? That is probably comparable as an Alaskan sovereignty movement.

So I agree there is some wisdom in this proposal. However, I can see a valid argument that a sovereignty movement article is ultimately separate from a legal status article. LarryQ (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

While there is certainly significant overlap (due to multiple editors, some of whom are unclear on the concept of summary style), legal status and sovereignty movement topics are separate but related. My limited understanding is that legal status of X articles are supposed to examine the arguments by Y sovereignty movement, so there is an entirely different approach. Legal status articles have more of an outside perspective, whereas the movement articles focus on the group or groups that are active in the dispute. Legal status articles are usually a historical overview of the dispute, with or without arguments. The major difference between the two is that the legal status articles are supposed to take a broad view while the sovereignty articles should take a narrow approach. At this point, Legal status of Hawaii needs a major cleanup, and should be used summary style in this article. I'll see what I can do to help out. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

BJ Penn

could somebody post a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.178.214 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Supporters / Opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty list

Just having a list of names isn't very encyclopedic. I believe it should be removed since there is no context.Mc kevins (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it makes sense to me if they have articles or citations. That is Wikipedia policy on notability. Ones that do not moved here:

Hawaiian sovereignty activists and advocates

• Keoni Agard
• Lynette Hiʻilani Cruz
• Scott Crawford [11]
• Mahealani Kahau, the chosen "Monarch" of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government.
• J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Ph.D.
• Poka Laenui, aka Hayden Burgess
• Rev. Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell Sr.
• Paul Christiaan Klieger (anthropologist, historian)
• Jon Osorio (scholar and musician)
• Rev. Kaleo Patterson
• B.J. Penn (fighter, not politician)
• Vicky Holt Takamine
• Dallas Keialiihooneiaina Mossman Vogeler

Opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty

• Earl Arakaki
• Robert M. Chapman
• Brian L. Clarke
• John Goemans (d. 2009)
• Patrick W Hanifin
• Richard O. Rowland
• Malia Zimmerman

W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Seriously?

Hard to take this article too seriously with the bogus map from some alternative history pasted down towards the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

US bias

The article is pro-US, and blatantly so. Most articles on independence movements are far less POV. The introduction is particularly baised, the statement that "the historical and legal basis for these claims is one of considerable dispute" is absurd. The US revolution and invasion was clearly illegal, and there can be no such thing as a retrospective legalisation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article is weird. Angry bee (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bishop Estate

The section on the Bishop Estate made it sound as though Charles Reed Bishop created Kamehameha Schools on his own. He was mandated as executor of Princess Pauahi's will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.10 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious NPOV Issues

I take serious issue with statements like the following which can be found in the article:

"Legally, the land belonging to the Hawaiian Government in 1898 has passed to the U.S. Government and back to the State of Hawai'i. People alive now have a democratic right to decide by majority vote how government land should be used now. No one deserves more than equality"

This statement isn't a quotation from a legal ruling--it's clearly just a normative judgement reflecting someone's opinion. This article needs some cleaning up. CharlesMartel (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Hawaii the Independent Nation

Hawaii, like Alaska, should be an independent nation, and will be eventually. Since the U.S. is an illegitimate nation, founded on lies and stolen land, it has no legitimate claim to Hawaii or Alaska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cetj98168 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian Nationalism

A search for "Hawaiian Nationalism" brings me to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement's page. The difference between Hawaiian Nationalism and Hawaiian Sovereignty is likely the current dispute between OHA and other Hawaiian Sovereignty Groups. See Haole Nationalism, and OHA infighting,

Also it may be worth pointing out that the difference between these two political ideologies has roots in American diplomacy. For example this race-based distinction: a native Hawaiian (opposed to a non-native Hawaiian?) is any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." (1921?) . Quash-asia (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Article re-write/update

The article is badly in need of work. I am going to be expanding on the article to be more encyclopedic and may be creating the article List of Hawaiian sovereignty groups and moving some content there with an smaller summary on this page.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an important article which ought to be comprehensive, neutral and well-referenced, Mark Miller. I trust your expertise and ability to do the job right. If I can be of any assistance as an interested non-Hawaiian, please let me know. Thank you, and Happy New Year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen and Happy New year to you as well!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it...this article being a basic list already may be easier to just move the article and keep the attributions where they are and then start a new article on the basic subject of the sovereignty movement with sources (there are a lot).--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Government in Exile

There is a difference between the Queen abdicating and being overthrown. And there is a difference between accepting the US military occupation, and maintaining a royal government - in exile or otherwise.

Currently the article confuses these four options : "Following her 1893 overthrow, Queen Liliʻuokalani did not formally abdicate the throne, so the Hawaiian Kingdom became a government in exile". This does not make sense. The Queen did not abdicate, so she remained the Queen de jure, if not de facto. As for the existence of the government in exile, that is another matter.... Incidentally the Queen is not the Kingdom, nor would a government in exile be the Kingdom!203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the section in question. Much of the above is point of view and does not substantiate the claims with a source itself...so......--Mark Miller (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

More NPOV Commentary

I just want to pile on the criticism about this article. I have never lived in Hawaii, though I am an American, so I really don't feel I have an immediate personal stake in this, but the tone and attitude this article has is often blatantly against the various sovereignty movements. Especially the "People alive now have a democratic right to decide by majority vote how government land should be used now. No one deserves more than equality" statement. It's not a quote from anyone; It's just dropped in as a matter of fact.

I don't have the expertise or time to fix the writing and perspective, but it is really poorly done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.100.86 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The above is actually true. Much of the article has the appearance of an inexperienced editor attempting "balance", however, balance is not a matter of adding any criticism or unreferenced claim on either side. Yes, I have already removed a good deal of POV on both sides. Lets move forward with an accurate and encyclopedic summary of ONLY the reliable sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources parking

• Honolulu Magazine--Mark Miller (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hawaiian Kingdom: David Keanu Sai

This section contains statements such as "An legally ill or un informed jury [sic]", which, besides being ungrammatical, seem to have obvious point of view issues. In addition, this section has a number of external links to personal web pages at UH & to an site obviously invested in one side of the debate. While these may be important to a balanced discussion, there are no external links to opposing points of view nor are there links to neutral sources typically used for citations. For further explanation of why this is inappropriate to Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Please also refer to Wikipedia:External links. Peaceray (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You made an accusation of COI. The tag directs readers to this discussion, but...there is no demonstration of a conflict of interest with an editor who may have a close connection to the subject. For this reason I am removing the tag from the article and am requesting that Peaceray show some proof of a close connection if it is possible. After 3 years...they may not remember this though.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the {{COI}} template states that a "major contributor to this section appears (my emphasis) to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." In June 2012, I stated what led me to suspect a COI; I stand by those statements & I do not see the need to repeat them. Anyone who want to check the state of the section at that time can go to that version to see if my statements above from June 2012 were accurate or not at that time regarding the appearance of COI. I believe them to be self-evident.

However, in the 2½ years since I placed the COI notice , there have been changes to the section. Specifically, there are more citations, the grammar & misspellings have been corrected, & some, although not all, "words to watch" have been removed. While I do not object to removal of the COI notice with the section in its current state, I still think that there are point of view issues with the section. There are also statements without citations.

Mark Miller, the COI is not nearly as important to me as the NPOV. It is entirely possible, albeit difficult, for someone with a close connection to a subject to still be able to write neutrally. One of the best examples is the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote remarkably neutrally about a war in which Athena was a major party. Write neutrally like Thucydides, resolve NPOV issues, & there will never be cause for allegations of COI.

Peaceray (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Look it wasn't against policy back then and it is still not against policy today. You only make accusations of this type when you have direct evidence against an individual...NOT when it is against the information in general (although, two years later it is also stale so...). I am not trying to drag this back out, but was asking for clarification as to an individual you suspected. Yes, the article had a lot of POV...on both sides and still does, not even close to being finished. This requires a great deal of reading and research. Opposition POV as well as supportive POV. You seem to have a great deal of interest and I hope you continue to edit the Hawaiian related pages. Please keep this page watch listed and feel free (of course) to edit as well if you feel there is something that can be verified.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And some of the content in the section we are discussing needs to be trimmed of entirely for undue weight.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way Peaceray I have no objection, whatsoever, to your deleting content that is not sourced at this point. Anything that can be verified would and will be re-added with the reliable source. I am trying to clean-up these articles to be encyclopedic. So, any help you are willing to contribute is much appreciated. I am going to be gone for the rest of the day until later this evening. Feel free to delete whatever is not sourced (even if you stub the article) and I will research out each section individually later tonight and over the weekend as time permits.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Brah, chillax! Howzit I do homework fo' you? Nah, that's hemmajang. I no like.

OK, just kidding, that was an attempt at levity. More seriously, I will concentrate on one editor in particular to illustrate my point. In the Revision as of 2005-07-01T14:31:43 by 216.235.61.132, this was changed from

Another leader who advocates for resistance against the State government is Keanu Sai. Trained as a U.S. military officer,Sai has claimed the title of "Regent" of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Sai has done extensive historical research, especially on the treaties between Hawai'i and other nations, and currently holds an associate professorship at the University of Hawai'i.

to:

Another leader who seeks to expose the prolonged occupation of Hawaii by the United States is [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/ Keanu Sai]. Trained as a U.S. military officer, Sai uses the title of Chairman of the Acting Council of Recency of the [http://hawaiiankingdom.org/ Hawaiian Kingdom]. Sai has done extensive historical research, especially on the treaties between Hawai'i and other nations, and [[military occupation]] and the laws of war. Sai currently holds an associate professorship at the University of Hawai'i, where he founded the [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/ Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics], which publishes the [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/journal.html Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics].

Besides the change from advocates for resistance against the State government to the contentious level of seeks to expose the prolonged occupation of Hawaii by the United States, the 216.235.61.132 editor added only links closely related to Kenau Sai. The 216.235.61.132 editor made 19 edits over a six month period in 2005. All edits involved Hawaii, e.g., involved Hawaii even in generally non-Hawaii articles, & 58% of the edits were about the U.S. possession of Hawaii.

whois.urih.com/record/216.235.61.132/ lists the owner of the IP range as Oceanic Cable, so any Road Runner customer could have been the editor, but definitely in Hawaii & probably on Oahu.

I can thus conclude that this editor focused exclusively on edits involving Hawaii, and most of the time made edits advocating the view that Hawaii was & is illegally occupied by the U.S. Government. My opinion is that this editor definitely did not adhere to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Does this violate the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline? The guideline states:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
— Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

I think that a reasonable reading of the guideline could lead one to conclude that there was a COI in this case. I certainly concluded that, although I also allow others may have other opinions. I certainly thought that there were other edits in the section that definitely violated NPOV, if not arising to COI. The totality of these edits together I believe rose to the "major contribution" to the section. At any rate, I will make a couple of additional edits to excise a couple of non-encyclopedic edits in the section. I think we can move on from this to concentrating on article edits, but I did want to respond to your questioning of my placement of the {{COI}} template.

Peaceray (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

First, thank you so much for taking the time to reply in the first place. This is what I was looking for and thought you could shed some light on. I will say that, at this point we can conclude that the editor was not neutral, but...we also have to take into account that many IP editors are unfamiliar with guidelines. At the time, it might well have looked odd but it was really only quaking a bit here and the article has many such non neutral issues that were far worse, such as the violation of BLP policy to use court documents only to source a huge chunk of legal issues that were not encyclopedic in nature and seemed a lot like character assassination. Can't say it was..but it was maintained in the articlealong with other things like links in the article directly to the websites and other promotional content as well as unfounded accusations etc. But...overall, much of the content was accurate. I kept a lot of the original text as all it needed was referencing. Look, members of the individual organizations can edit this article and the section on the group they belong to...within reason, as is true with any editor. A democrat can edit the Democratic articles as well as the Republican articles. A close association needs to be (I should say: "Should at least be.." something that can be confirmed by matching edits to accounts, usernames, long term abuse or disruption etc. I get what you are saying and you are not wrong. COI is a very odd area. I contribute to that guideline now and then and debate on the talk page but we have to always try to temper what we perceive with the knowledge that COI is not a guideline that can easily and plainly be violated all the time. we do allow editors who have close connections to edit the articles if they insist, but we do make sure they stick to policy, do not disrupt the article or talk page etc. I have caught several real COI editors who were editing political content they were directly involved in. We have a template we can place on the user talk page and one for the article talk page as well. I would not disapprove of adding the template, permanently to the talk page here.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if they recognize Obama as the incoming President?

Since a President is required by the Constitution to be a natural born citizen, and since Bam was born in Honolulu, I wonder if the Hawaiian sovereigntists recognize the president-elect status of Obama. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

DNFT. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It would still fall under the American diplomatic land use laws. So no.Quash-asia (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would they? He's just born there, without any special connection to hawaiian politics or culture. And why would they feel impressed by that whole 'natural born citizen' rule in the first place? He's the USA-president, i don't see any reason why Hawaiian sovereignists would see him as _their_ president Selena1981 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)