This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 17, 2012, January 17, 2015, January 17, 2018, January 17, 2019, January 17, 2021, and January 17, 2024. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Just a heads up that I am expanding the article, adding content, references and additional sources for some material lacing RS but still accurate. Aloha.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This sentence confuses me (and the grammar needs fixing): "The 1893 Constitution would have reduced suffrage by reducing some property requirements, clarification needed and eliminated the voting privileges extended to European and American residents." I added a clarify request because I cannot see how reducing an obstacle to voting causes suffrage to reduce. It allows more people to vote, therefore suffrage increases, no? Maybe a rewording is in order to help clarify. - 84user ( talk) 20:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This controversial move/change needs further discussions and a request move before a move or a change of name. I personally oppose any change on the ground that this event is known predominantly in Hawaiian historiography as the Overthrow not the "coup d'état." The two terms are interchangeable and our article coup d'état states "A coup d'état...literally "blow of state"; plural: coups d'état, pronounced like the singular form), also known simply as a coup, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a state." -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR, it doesn't have to be a third-party editor. If you contest the move, then move it back, it's as simple as that. There is no further protocol to observe on a contested move that did not result from a WP:RM. If the redirect prevents it, then tag the redirect with {{Db-move|Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii|page moved without RM}}. Softlavender ( talk) 04:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR, thank you for mentioning me on this thread. I've actually pondered this myself quite a bit. I can definitely say that "overthrow" is by far the most popular word used in Hawaii by anyone when discussing the coup/overthrow in 1893, but as someone who's studied modern political history, I've only become familiar with the term coup d'état because of my college education and find that the phrase resonates more with me, since it describes what happened in Chile in 1973 or Brazil in 1964—a U.S.-backed, capitalist-led overthrow of an existing populist regime. Coup d'état, being a translation for "strike/hit/blow of/against (the) state", highlights to me the violence that underlies the proceedings of 1893. Now, I won't comment on whether I support the move, but will comment that "overthrow" is what the people on the ground use, while "coup d'état" may transform our conception of the overthrow, perhaps more accurately. We can discuss the implications of how speaking of an 1893 coup d'état would transform discourse, but I'm interested in hearing from folks who are more knowledgeable about this particular subject. The Obento Musubi ( t · c) 05:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
--- I have three comments against moving this to the inappropriate title of Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii .
“ | Foreign words and ... are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i. e., e. g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. | ” |
—
George Orwell, "
Politics and the English Language" (1946) [see "PRETENTIOUS DICTION".
Politics and the English Language (PDF). {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
Coup d'état is simply foreign to Hawaiʻi.
Peaceray ( talk) 15:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Since all of this current discussion is in my opinion a meaningless waste of time in the absence of a public WP:RM, I'm not going to pay attention to the edits on this talk page, even though it's on my Watch list. Unless, that is, a WP:RM happens to pop up -- in which case, could someone ping me, and it won't be canvassing. it'll just be alerting me to actually take notice again. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 02:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
requested move/dated|Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii Withdrawn as "snowball chance" for the following reason: The request itself was ill thought out as the "overthrow" includes the coup d'état as part of how the Kingdom was eventually "taken over" or "overthrown".
Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii →
Hawaiian coup d'état of 1893 – Per
Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title I am requesting that this article be moved from its current title to
Hawaiian coup d'état of 1893 for the following reasons based on guidelines and per:
* Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
* Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
::In this instance the term is French but used in English references to a political tactic that this subject falls under.
* Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
::"Coup d'état " does actually distinguish the act of overthrowing a monarchy with the actual events of that are clearly defined by academia.
* Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
::It is actually needed to be concise to the actual events that led to an apolgy some 100 years later by the president of the
United States.
* Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as
topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
::"Coup d'état " is consistant with similar articles on this tactical, political maneuver.
:
Mark Miller (
talk) 02:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kingdom of Hawaii which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems clear from the citations that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was executed primarily by Honolulu residents. It seems almost certain that they conspired with the U.S. Minister to Hawaii, the Republican John L. Stevens who sent a note to the commander of the Boston, Gilbert C. Wiltse, that stated:
In view of the existing critical circumstances in Honolulu, including an inadequate legal force, I request you to land marines and sailors from the ship under your command for the protection of the United States legation and United States consulate, and to secure the safety of American life and property. [1]
In 1890, the populations of Honolulu, Oahu, & the Kingdom were 22,907, 31,194, & 89,990, respectively. [2] The forces of the marines & sailors from the Boston numbered 162. There is no source that indicates that any military force from the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor that was a mere ten miles away was called into action.
I am unaware of any source that indicates the incursion of the 162 marines & sailors was anything permanent, nor have I seen anything that indicates U.S. forces occupied any building belonging the the Kingdom.
While it is true that, on the face of it, Liliʻuokalani concluded that the U.S. troops were there to support the revolutionists, as the current version of the article states, The American sailors and Marines did not enter the Palace grounds or take over any buildings, and never fired a shot, ...
I find it unsupported, therefore, that a temporary incursion of 162 troops in a city of approximately 23,000 can be characterized as an occupation by the United States, especially when the U.S. had more troops at its beck & call at Pearl Harbor. To call this a U.S. occupation without verification from reliable sources seems to me original research at best & biased at worst.
It is true that there was an overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by a cadre of non-native Hawaiian born & foreign residents, but I think it is clear that it is they & Minister Stevens who played the U.S. Military & not the other way around. Peaceray ( talk) 23:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
References
The excerpt followed by source [69] is not correct. The excerpt comes not from the speech, but an appendix issued some time after the speech to go more in depth towards the situation.
With this being a simple issue, I will just make the edit for proper attribution. Userusermar ( talk) 21:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
67.8.169.171 removed the reference to the US Congressional Record, the source of the quote Six of them were Hawaiians, one English, and one German; five were Americans, but residents of Honolulu; a majority alien to us.
[1] The Overthrow was clearly promulgated by these men with the duplicity of the American minister, John L. Stevens, who they coordinated with. As the article states, Advised about supposed threats to non-combatant American lives and property by the Committee of Safety, Stevens obliged their request and summoned 162 U.S. sailors and Marines from the USS Boston to land on Oahu under orders of neutrality and take up positions at the U.S. Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall on the afternoon of January 16, 1893.
Let us be clear that this was not a coup d'etat that was initiated by the American government, but rather Honolulu resident businessmen of varied citizenship, the minority of which were American. The US military force was called in on the pretext of protecting American life & property, & not to overthrow Liliʻuokalani. Peaceray ( talk) 14:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
References
67.8.169.171 inserted treaty-violating
& replaced the body of a citation of a ref (but not the "Congressional Record") with a citation to the text of the
Reciprocity Treaty of 1875.
[1] The Reciprocity Treaty went into effect in 1876 & was to have a term of seven years. In 1884, it was extended for another seven years, meaning that it would have expired in 1891.
[2] The Overthrow occurred in 1893, by which time the treaty had expired. In addition to the treaty having been expired, what in the language of the treaty would have prohibited US armed forces from protecting the US Legation & Consulate?
Peaceray (
talk) 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
67.8.169.171 has again inserted treaty-violating
into the
lead sentence & used the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875
[1] as a citation.
I will revert the edit, & the other edits containg wikilinks attempting to buttress the argument, since it all appears to be original research. 67.8.169.171 may seek consensus here to reinstate the material provided that there is verification from reliable sources that are secondary or WP:TERTIARY sources
As the Wikipedia:No original research policy states in its section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
Peaceray ( talk) 03:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.A statement that a particular action violated a treaty requires interpretation of the treaty's text, which per policy, requires a reliable secondary source. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 19:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I just got back to Wikipedia and need to catch up. Let me read through this. Mark Miller ( talk) 04:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
References
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 17, 2012, January 17, 2015, January 17, 2018, January 17, 2019, January 17, 2021, and January 17, 2024. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Just a heads up that I am expanding the article, adding content, references and additional sources for some material lacing RS but still accurate. Aloha.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This sentence confuses me (and the grammar needs fixing): "The 1893 Constitution would have reduced suffrage by reducing some property requirements, clarification needed and eliminated the voting privileges extended to European and American residents." I added a clarify request because I cannot see how reducing an obstacle to voting causes suffrage to reduce. It allows more people to vote, therefore suffrage increases, no? Maybe a rewording is in order to help clarify. - 84user ( talk) 20:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This controversial move/change needs further discussions and a request move before a move or a change of name. I personally oppose any change on the ground that this event is known predominantly in Hawaiian historiography as the Overthrow not the "coup d'état." The two terms are interchangeable and our article coup d'état states "A coup d'état...literally "blow of state"; plural: coups d'état, pronounced like the singular form), also known simply as a coup, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a state." -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR, it doesn't have to be a third-party editor. If you contest the move, then move it back, it's as simple as that. There is no further protocol to observe on a contested move that did not result from a WP:RM. If the redirect prevents it, then tag the redirect with {{Db-move|Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii|page moved without RM}}. Softlavender ( talk) 04:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR, thank you for mentioning me on this thread. I've actually pondered this myself quite a bit. I can definitely say that "overthrow" is by far the most popular word used in Hawaii by anyone when discussing the coup/overthrow in 1893, but as someone who's studied modern political history, I've only become familiar with the term coup d'état because of my college education and find that the phrase resonates more with me, since it describes what happened in Chile in 1973 or Brazil in 1964—a U.S.-backed, capitalist-led overthrow of an existing populist regime. Coup d'état, being a translation for "strike/hit/blow of/against (the) state", highlights to me the violence that underlies the proceedings of 1893. Now, I won't comment on whether I support the move, but will comment that "overthrow" is what the people on the ground use, while "coup d'état" may transform our conception of the overthrow, perhaps more accurately. We can discuss the implications of how speaking of an 1893 coup d'état would transform discourse, but I'm interested in hearing from folks who are more knowledgeable about this particular subject. The Obento Musubi ( t · c) 05:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
--- I have three comments against moving this to the inappropriate title of Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii .
“ | Foreign words and ... are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i. e., e. g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. | ” |
—
George Orwell, "
Politics and the English Language" (1946) [see "PRETENTIOUS DICTION".
Politics and the English Language (PDF). {{
cite book}} : |work= ignored (
help)
|
Coup d'état is simply foreign to Hawaiʻi.
Peaceray ( talk) 15:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Since all of this current discussion is in my opinion a meaningless waste of time in the absence of a public WP:RM, I'm not going to pay attention to the edits on this talk page, even though it's on my Watch list. Unless, that is, a WP:RM happens to pop up -- in which case, could someone ping me, and it won't be canvassing. it'll just be alerting me to actually take notice again. Thanks. Softlavender ( talk) 02:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
requested move/dated|Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii Withdrawn as "snowball chance" for the following reason: The request itself was ill thought out as the "overthrow" includes the coup d'état as part of how the Kingdom was eventually "taken over" or "overthrown".
Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii →
Hawaiian coup d'état of 1893 – Per
Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title I am requesting that this article be moved from its current title to
Hawaiian coup d'état of 1893 for the following reasons based on guidelines and per:
* Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
* Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
::In this instance the term is French but used in English references to a political tactic that this subject falls under.
* Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
::"Coup d'état " does actually distinguish the act of overthrowing a monarchy with the actual events of that are clearly defined by academia.
* Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
::It is actually needed to be concise to the actual events that led to an apolgy some 100 years later by the president of the
United States.
* Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as
topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
::"Coup d'état " is consistant with similar articles on this tactical, political maneuver.
:
Mark Miller (
talk) 02:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kingdom of Hawaii which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It seems clear from the citations that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was executed primarily by Honolulu residents. It seems almost certain that they conspired with the U.S. Minister to Hawaii, the Republican John L. Stevens who sent a note to the commander of the Boston, Gilbert C. Wiltse, that stated:
In view of the existing critical circumstances in Honolulu, including an inadequate legal force, I request you to land marines and sailors from the ship under your command for the protection of the United States legation and United States consulate, and to secure the safety of American life and property. [1]
In 1890, the populations of Honolulu, Oahu, & the Kingdom were 22,907, 31,194, & 89,990, respectively. [2] The forces of the marines & sailors from the Boston numbered 162. There is no source that indicates that any military force from the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor that was a mere ten miles away was called into action.
I am unaware of any source that indicates the incursion of the 162 marines & sailors was anything permanent, nor have I seen anything that indicates U.S. forces occupied any building belonging the the Kingdom.
While it is true that, on the face of it, Liliʻuokalani concluded that the U.S. troops were there to support the revolutionists, as the current version of the article states, The American sailors and Marines did not enter the Palace grounds or take over any buildings, and never fired a shot, ...
I find it unsupported, therefore, that a temporary incursion of 162 troops in a city of approximately 23,000 can be characterized as an occupation by the United States, especially when the U.S. had more troops at its beck & call at Pearl Harbor. To call this a U.S. occupation without verification from reliable sources seems to me original research at best & biased at worst.
It is true that there was an overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by a cadre of non-native Hawaiian born & foreign residents, but I think it is clear that it is they & Minister Stevens who played the U.S. Military & not the other way around. Peaceray ( talk) 23:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
References
The excerpt followed by source [69] is not correct. The excerpt comes not from the speech, but an appendix issued some time after the speech to go more in depth towards the situation.
With this being a simple issue, I will just make the edit for proper attribution. Userusermar ( talk) 21:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
67.8.169.171 removed the reference to the US Congressional Record, the source of the quote Six of them were Hawaiians, one English, and one German; five were Americans, but residents of Honolulu; a majority alien to us.
[1] The Overthrow was clearly promulgated by these men with the duplicity of the American minister, John L. Stevens, who they coordinated with. As the article states, Advised about supposed threats to non-combatant American lives and property by the Committee of Safety, Stevens obliged their request and summoned 162 U.S. sailors and Marines from the USS Boston to land on Oahu under orders of neutrality and take up positions at the U.S. Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall on the afternoon of January 16, 1893.
Let us be clear that this was not a coup d'etat that was initiated by the American government, but rather Honolulu resident businessmen of varied citizenship, the minority of which were American. The US military force was called in on the pretext of protecting American life & property, & not to overthrow Liliʻuokalani. Peaceray ( talk) 14:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
References
67.8.169.171 inserted treaty-violating
& replaced the body of a citation of a ref (but not the "Congressional Record") with a citation to the text of the
Reciprocity Treaty of 1875.
[1] The Reciprocity Treaty went into effect in 1876 & was to have a term of seven years. In 1884, it was extended for another seven years, meaning that it would have expired in 1891.
[2] The Overthrow occurred in 1893, by which time the treaty had expired. In addition to the treaty having been expired, what in the language of the treaty would have prohibited US armed forces from protecting the US Legation & Consulate?
Peaceray (
talk) 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
67.8.169.171 has again inserted treaty-violating
into the
lead sentence & used the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875
[1] as a citation.
I will revert the edit, & the other edits containg wikilinks attempting to buttress the argument, since it all appears to be original research. 67.8.169.171 may seek consensus here to reinstate the material provided that there is verification from reliable sources that are secondary or WP:TERTIARY sources
As the Wikipedia:No original research policy states in its section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
Peaceray ( talk) 03:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.A statement that a particular action violated a treaty requires interpretation of the treaty's text, which per policy, requires a reliable secondary source. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 19:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
I just got back to Wikipedia and need to catch up. Let me read through this. Mark Miller ( talk) 04:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
References