This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regarding other small edits:
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)
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):
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)
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, 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).
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Does anyone know if there have been any claimants to the throne of Hawai'i?
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)
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)
Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! -- JereKrischel 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
how many members are there, and are they considered to be a strong movement-- Ezzex 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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- m t 09:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
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 [1], on the island of Hawaii, which is mostly composed of various propaganda for their cause.
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)
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).
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)
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)
could somebody post a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.178.214 ( talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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:
W Nowicki ( talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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, [HN 1]
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?) [HN 2]. Quash-asia ( talk) 09:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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].
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.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. [HKDKS 1] 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
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)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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
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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
Regarding other small edits:
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)
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):
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)
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, 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).
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'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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Does anyone know if there have been any claimants to the throne of Hawai'i?
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)
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)
Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! -- JereKrischel 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
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)
how many members are there, and are they considered to be a strong movement-- Ezzex 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
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- m t 09:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
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 [1], on the island of Hawaii, which is mostly composed of various propaganda for their cause.
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)
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).
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)
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)
could somebody post a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.178.214 ( talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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:
W Nowicki ( talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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, 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)
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, [HN 1]
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?) [HN 2]. Quash-asia ( talk) 09:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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)
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.
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].
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.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. [HKDKS 1] 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
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)