Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom/Archive 1
![]() | This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Organization
You know, one of the things we might want to do is to reorganize this series of articles. I'm not sure if I really understand the point of this particular stub...I think KarlM might be right. --JereKrischel 07:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Dispute
POV tag
Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the tag since it's been over a month without an explanation. —Viriditas | Talk 23:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I have been busy. The POV tag was (re)added as there are a number of issues that JK and I (and others) have had disagreements on, and which are common to both this article and several others related to the general history of the period around the overthrow. The article is generally rife with a tendentious portrayal of events, with ample use of weasel words. There are many examples of what I consider to be a very NPOV state of the article, but to pick a couple:
- The statement that "The 1887 constitution, drafted by Lorrin A. Thurston, Minister of Interior under King David Kalākaua, was in response to what was seen by his critics as Kalākaua's abuse of power" is not untrue, but is highly selective in its attribution of motivation; clearly Thurston et al were motivated by factors other than simply Kalakaua's incompetence or corruption: most scholars agree they also wanted a greater share of power. Not to include this fact is a tendentious presentation of history.
- Including the mention that "As United States Marines marched past ʻIolani Palace on their way to their peacekeeping stations, they dipped their U.S. flag while passing by, as a sign of respect to the Queen. The sailors and Marines did not enter the Palace grounds or take over any buildings, and never fired a shot" without also mentioning that the only fatality in the 1893 events was the result of one of the conspirators shooting a royalist. But the bigger issue, as JK and I have discussed, is that the very fact that the marines were present was intended to intimidate the royalists (and indeed was very successful in this objective).
- In short, this article is a biased reading of history that does not reflect mainstream historical scholarship that indicates U.S. agents played a key role in the conspiracy to overthrow the queen. The article as currently written presents a radically different view of events than, for example, the one depicted in the highly regarded book "Overthrow".
- Alas, I don't have time at the moment to get back into an editing discussion with JK, the main author of the current article, but this is a short summary of the issues as justification for re-insertion of the POV tag. It also characterizes the basis of editing disagreements on other related articles, and I will repost this on those as requested. Cheers, Arjuna 08:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Could you provide references for your assertions? For example, where do you find any reference that "most scholars agree they also wanted a greater share of power"? Of course, by definition, to remove power from the King and invest it in the legislature is "wanting more power", but it seems you are trying to attribute it to a lust for power alone, which does not seem to be present in the respectable literature on the subject (Daws, Kuykendall, Kirch, Andrade for example). Explicit references would bolster your position, and perhaps help alleviate concerns you may have regarding POV.
- In regards to the shooting of a royalist, the shot was not fired by any of the U.S. peacekeepers - to attribute the one injury (not a fatality) to the U.S. is simply not factual. Furthermore, as we've argued before, the marines were not present to intimidate royalists - their explicit orders were to protect lives and property, and they remained scrupulously neutral. You may consider their lack of overt support for the failing government of Liliuokalani as "intimidating" to her cause, but that was never their purpose.
- Regarding the book "Overthrow", I would enjoy hearing any direct quotes you'd like to cite from there. I believe that you may be misreading it.
- Would you mind removing the POV tag until you are able to provide explicit references supporting the points you've made? I think the best way to proceed is to be very careful about citation - if there are specific passages you'd like a clearer citation for, I'd be more than happy to provide it. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm "mis-reading" Overthrow? It's amusing that you argue that that book bolsters your position and not the views I articulate. You are again both taking a very selective approach to the facts and misrepresenting what I said (ex. I explictly did not say "the U.S." but rather "U.S. agents", which is quite a different thing). And I do not need to get back into the "whether the marines were there to intimidate royalists" argument again. I have already demonstrated that clearly that was one of their intended purposes, and that they were successful in doing so. I put the POV tags up at the legitimate request of Viriditas, in order to demonstrate that there is a different view of events not reflected in the article. And my short summary above, as I said, was a short summary to justify re-insertion, not to get into additional extended debates with you at this stage. I am increasingly of the mind that such good faith attempts are futile. In any case, the point of a POV tag is to point out that the article is disputed and not the result of a consensus-based approach, not that I have to take the time to argue point by point to your requests. It most certainly is a very tendentious reading of history, as has been pointed out by numerous people over a long period of time, but most of whom simply give up in the face of your attempts to intimidate as well as your admirable tenacity. You know as well as I do that this article is POV and does not reflect mainstream views -- despite your agenda as part of the advocacy organization Grassroot Institute. I will not remove the POV tags, and will resist any attempts to do so. However, I will be happy to put the articles up for independent review if you like. Arjuna 09:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mahalo Arjuna. Although you did explicitly say "U.S. agents", I do believe that assertion is unfounded and unsupportable by any citation - unless you're going to try and make the argument again that Stevens, who had pro-annexationist leanings, was somehow connected with the Committee of Safety, or any part of the Hawaiian Revolution. Clearly the record shows that this was not true, although it was alleged in the Blount Report. For example [1], shows clearly that Trousseau, who alleged to Blount that "Almost daily, to my personal knowledge, meetings were held at Mr. Stevens's house in which the possibilities of a peaceful revolution with the prospects of annexation were discussed. Prominent at these meetings were the chief justice, Mr. Dole, Mr. Thurston, Mr. Hartwell, Charles Carter, and others, also Capt. Wiltse.", recanted his statement and claimed it was heresay, stating Dear Sir: When I made to Mr. Blount the statements you refer to in your letter of the 27th, I believed them to be correct, as my information came from a source that I could not consider but reliable..
- Please, quote "Overthrow" if you'd like - I simply don't see what you seem to read into his work. And please, demonstrate that the landing of peacekeepers had an "intended purpose" to intimidate royalists by providing citation, not simply opinion.
- Although you continue to attempt to characterize the view of intimate and direct U.S. involvement in the Hawaiian Revolution as "mainstream", I believe you're using a stretched definition of that - radical activist scholars and organizations intent on rewriting history by ignoring source materials and developing a mythology without basis in fact is not "mainstream".
- Insofar as any agenda regarding "advocacy" related to the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, the only thing I am advocating here for is a fair, balanced, well cited article. Whether or not you see it as POV because it does not align with your own beliefs on the matter doesn't seem to be sufficient to place a POV tag.
- You've already admitted well enough that my citations are accurate, and the statements in the article are true. I think that the only way that you're going to be able to make any progress on your "POV" concerns is to provide accurate and true statements and cite them. I certainly hope that your intent to "resist any attempts" to remove the POV tags does not preclude coming to an agreement and compromise here - please, I'm asking at this point for concrete citations, quotes from "Overthrow", and any other citations you can roust up to make your point. I think that if we don't go back to the source materials, and simply argue in terms of rhetoric, we won't get anywhere.
- Your kokua is greatly appreciated. Please remove the POV tag, or provide more specific citations to bolster your claims. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 09:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- JK, mahalo for your comments. I have yet to decide whether I find them more amusing or more shocking in their turning-reality-on-its-head. Obviously, "Overthrow" supports my position, not yours, as I know you are intelligent enough to understand. It is definitely amusing, however, that you choose to use Fox News' catch phrase to characterize your own opinion of your contributions. Quite telling. I will not remove the POV tags, and I have demonstrated Q.E.D. that the article is disputed and POV. We can take it to informal mediation from here if you like. Cheers, Arjuna 09:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- JK, thanks for your amusing comments on my talk page. As you are smart enough to know, but failing other ammunition than to request repeated re-iteration of facts already expressed and demonstrated, there is already ample sufficient and specific cause, and that the views therein are not simply "my opinion". The POV tags will stay. Aloha, Arjuna 09:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- JK, thanks for your comments, and perhaps we are both pushing each others' buttons again. My regrets if so, but it is very frustrating that it seems to me that you seemingly refuse to accept that I have already provided sufficient justification for the tags. Your request for further "specific examples" is a red herring, as I presume you are aware but are attempting to use as a rhetorical device. My point in the original request by Viriditas for justification of the POV tags was to make the point that the article as currently written presents a POV -- and therefore misleading -- interpretation of events. This point needs no further reiteration here, and in fact I have already requested Viriditas' assistance on this. I look forward to working with you to demonstrate that the minimal requirement of the article is that it reflect the fact (via POV tag) that the interpretation of events is seriously disputed. Until then, all the best (and I mean that -- let's cool off a bit for the next day, shall we? The article isn't going anywhere) and aloha, Arjuna 10:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- As per your suggestion, I have also asked Viriditas to weigh in. I look forward to more specific citations from you, even if as you claim, they have already been provided - I have looked through your contributions, and have not found any such citations, but you may have a better idea of what edits to look at. Maybe for future work, we can create a page Talk:JereKrischel/Arjuna's citations so we can keep them handy. I assume your intent is not to leave a permanent POV tag here, but to improve the article so that neither you nor I feel it is necessary. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 10:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
(Sigh.) Ok, JK -- here is one citation to your request on the Kalakaua power play, even though that you request it reflects the fact that you don't understand my point that the bias is subtle, pervasive, and presents an overall misleading picture of mainstream scholarship (though you are, in my book, deserving of much kudos in your mastery of the details and ability to manipulate those details into the picture you wish to present). The citation is from that hotbed of radical left-wing separatist sentiment, Aloha magazine, May 1994, by Pat Pitzer. I know you know this one as it's often cited (if hardly scholarly, it is most certainly mainstream). The quote is "In 1887, during the reign of Lili`uokalani' s brother, King Kalakaua, a group of planters and businessmen, seeking to control the kingdom politically as well as economically, formed a secret organization, the Hawaiian League." Now that I have provided this citation, I do not intend to rise to the further baiting on the "specific" red herring. I have already provided ample specifics to justify the tag, at least until such time as others weigh in. Now, let's please take a bit of a step back -- both of us -- and recognize that this isn't a world-ending issue and perhaps it can await further discussion until such time as we have all had time to enjoy the weekend. Which, I hope, you have a very nice one. Arjuna 10:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Arjuna, thanks for explaining. I think the easiest solution to this conflict is to represent both positions in the article(s) with the best sources available. Can the both of you do that? If anyone needs help with research, let me know and I'll try to contribute to the effort. —Viriditas | Talk 11:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, V, and I agree. It may be that the two positions are entirely incommensurable -- I hope not to go there, but do I correctly assume that what you're suggesting could, in the end, result in "parallel interpretation", along the lines of the material on Legal Status of Hawaii? That is not my first or even second option for sure, but although I am hopeful that JK will agree to work collaboratively with me (and obviously any others are most welcome) to fairly represent the viewpoint that U.S. agents were complicit in the overthrow, I regret to say that based on prior and ongoing discussion with him, I'm somewhat skeptical that this will be successful. (As an illustration, how anyone could suggest that Kinzer's Overthrow supports his perspective and not the one I'm seeking to have represented is nothing short of bizarre.) However, I hope to be proven wrong. Cheers and mahalo, Arjuna 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- See NPOV and undue weight. We don't have to give equal time to perspectives and opinions that don't meet minimum standards for inclusion. Not all opinions are equal, nor should they be treated as such. If one viewpoint has less weight than another, we can briefly describe it, but it shouldn't outweigh the dominant viewpoint. However, if the established view is controversial or disputed, and is covered adequately in reliable sources, we can allow equal time for the dispute. —Viriditas | Talk 22:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mahalo, Viriditas. I have read NPOV and agree with you entirely. In my view (JK will likely have another), the crux of the issue seems to be that JK views his perspective (to take another example, his inappropriate valorization of the Morgan Report over other sources) as mainstream, historical "truth" (JK, I am not being insulting, but I know of no other way to characterize your approach). No radical am I, but in my view and that of many others in several different contentious debates on related issues on various Hawaii articles (a brief perusal of the talk pages can confirm this), I argue that his is a highly selective presentation of facts that results in an overall distorted view of history, and thus highly insidious. In other words, I argue that the material as currently presented does indeed give undue weight to (JK's) minority perspective -- the majority mainstream view being that the U.S. and agents acting on its behalf had a complicit role in the overthrow. Despite this, I recognize that JK's is a significant minority view that should not be excluded -- merely put into a larger context and given proper weight. I am not trying to put words into JK's mouth, but after sporadic bouts of this over months and months, my fear is that his role at an advocacy group skews his perspective, based on fears that any admission of a U.S. role opens up a can of worms that will ultimately lead to Hawaiian sovereignty or independence. In contrast, I see the U.S. role as tragic and highly unethical -- but probably inevitable -- with U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii as a complete, non-negotiable fait accompli. (I would also agree that what happened was much better than other alternatives at the time -- but that is neither here nor there). Thus, presenting the warts-and-all view of what really happened does not present a challenge to the legal status of Hawaii, and thus, it is not threatening to anyone. Ok, I'm getting off my soapbox now. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, Arjuna 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Arjuna, are you saying that WP:COI is an issue in this argument? Jere, I don't know anything about this, so don't take this as a criticism or an attack; I'm just trying to see that all of the cards are on the table and that all issues are addressed in an open manner. If Arjuna has an outstanding issue related to WP:COI, we need to discuss it. —Viriditas | Talk 04:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mahalo, Viriditas. I have read NPOV and agree with you entirely. In my view (JK will likely have another), the crux of the issue seems to be that JK views his perspective (to take another example, his inappropriate valorization of the Morgan Report over other sources) as mainstream, historical "truth" (JK, I am not being insulting, but I know of no other way to characterize your approach). No radical am I, but in my view and that of many others in several different contentious debates on related issues on various Hawaii articles (a brief perusal of the talk pages can confirm this), I argue that his is a highly selective presentation of facts that results in an overall distorted view of history, and thus highly insidious. In other words, I argue that the material as currently presented does indeed give undue weight to (JK's) minority perspective -- the majority mainstream view being that the U.S. and agents acting on its behalf had a complicit role in the overthrow. Despite this, I recognize that JK's is a significant minority view that should not be excluded -- merely put into a larger context and given proper weight. I am not trying to put words into JK's mouth, but after sporadic bouts of this over months and months, my fear is that his role at an advocacy group skews his perspective, based on fears that any admission of a U.S. role opens up a can of worms that will ultimately lead to Hawaiian sovereignty or independence. In contrast, I see the U.S. role as tragic and highly unethical -- but probably inevitable -- with U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii as a complete, non-negotiable fait accompli. (I would also agree that what happened was much better than other alternatives at the time -- but that is neither here nor there). Thus, presenting the warts-and-all view of what really happened does not present a challenge to the legal status of Hawaii, and thus, it is not threatening to anyone. Ok, I'm getting off my soapbox now. Thanks again for your help. Cheers, Arjuna 22:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Viriditas, I must disagree with Arjuna's characterization of what is the "majority" perspective. Although he cites Kinzer and an article in Aloha Magazine, neither of them seem to be particularly well established "majority" perspectives - Kinzer, to his credit, is a popular author, but his sources for his material on Hawaii are questionable, and his general thesis in his book "Overthrow" is arguably a polemic, and an article in a magazine hardly seems as definitive as an in-depth bi-partisan congressional report, much less two of them.
- If I were to characterize the situation, the accepted scholarly view is that the Hawaiian Revolution (if you start the clock from 1887) was primarily motivated by the well documented corruption of the Kalakaua dynasty, and that it is the "minority" view of radical sovereignty activists who have been highly vocal since the 1970s, but hardly representative of the scholarly work on the subject. Just as Arjuna may see my perspective as "highly insidious", I must admit that his foundational premise, that the U.S. had a "tragic and highly unethical" role, seems quite insidious to me. For nearly 30 years, a focused effort has been made by many to revise the historical record, and enter into the popular consciousness a mythology that has no basis in fact. For example, the recent passage of April 30th as "Hawaiian Restoration Day" by the Hawaii State Legislature is based on a fictitious proclamation by Grover Cleveland - should we consider this now a "majority" view, and abandon actual scholarship?
- Okay, stepping off the soapbox, I think the only way we can move forward on this is to assume good faith, and deal with details, not simply assert that the other person is being insidious or disingenuous. --JereKrischel 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Aloha Arjuna, mahalo for the reference. First of all, I don't object to including a quote of Pitzer, with an appropriate reference (a URL would be helpful). That being said, do you think we should rely on a magazine article, rather than established scholarship on the topic, by people such as Daws? From Shoal of Time, p245:
The opium scandal broke at the end of May 1887, while Premier Gibson was trying to get out from under the wreckage of his program for the primacy of the Pacific. This combination of troubles abroad and at home was enough to create a crisis for the government, and the Hawaiian League and the Honolulu Rifles were more than ready to take advantage of it.
- Daws also prominently mentions Gibson on page 240:
Ever since Kalakaua came to the throne the planters and businessmen had been telling him, through their newspapers at Honolulu, that it was a wise ruler tho paid attention to well-meant advice from the influential inhabitants of his kingdom. Some of the king's native admirers took an opposite view. White men who criticized the Hawaiian monarchy were overstepping themselves...Premier Gibson was magnanimous in the face of criticism. The monarchy, he was fond of saying, was willing to give anyone a hearing...Gibson was at his most irritating when he spoke like this. It was clear to his opponents that he and Kalakaua had run roughshod over the constitution: they had subverted the legislature, purged the civil service of all but sycophants, and they were planning to pack the supreme court; and to top it all off they were on their way to bankrupting the kingdom.
- In regards to the formation of the Hawaiian League, the following passage on page 243 is helpful:
Toward the end of 1886 Thurston had a conversation about clenched fists and Reform with one of his friends, a physician named S. G. Tucker. As Thurston recalled the occasion in his memoirs, he was standing at his front gate when Tucker drew up his buggy and said: "Thurston, how long are we going to stand this kind of thing?" "What kind of thing?" asked Thurston. "The running away with the community by Kalakaua," said Tucker, "his interference with elections, and running the Legislature for his own benefit, and all that." "Well," said Thurston, "what can we do about it?" "I suggest," said Tucker, "that we form an organization, including all nationalities, which shall force him to be decent, and reign, not rule, or take the consequences."
Thurston talked things over with a number of trustworthy men - his friend William A. Kinney; Sanford Dole, William R. Castle, Nathaniel B. Emerson, and W.E. Rowell, all of them descended from Protestant missionaries; Peter Cushman Jones of C. Brewer and Co.; Clarence W. Ashford, a Canadian-born lawyer; Alatau T. Atkinson, a schoolteacher and opposition journalist; and several others. They all agreed that Tucker's idea was a sound one, and in January 1887, the first meetings oft he Hawaiian League were held.
- Perhaps citing Daws somewhere is more appropriate than citing a magazine article? What do you think, Arjuna? --JereKrischel 19:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your attempt at sarcasm is humorous. (Of course it is better to cite a scholarly work. You know that, and asking the question is either sarcastic or something else that I will not point out.) The magazine reference is to show that the mainstream POV supports my position that U.S. agents played a role in the conspiracy, rather than yours.
- I assume you agree with me that Kinzer does the same. Previously one of your comments sounded as though you were suggesting that Kinzer's work supports your POV, which would be nothing short of a bizarre interpretation. Btw, Daws' work also supports the perspective I am trying to see fairly represented. Perhaps you read Daws but did you understand it? His scholarship is far more nuanced -- as well as being more a straightforward narrative rather than primarily analytical (this is not a criticism) -- than to give pre-digested propagandistic summaries for the Fox News Generation, along the lines of "the U.S. backed the overthrow". To take one example from last night re: whether the , Daws on p. 265 says "The Reformers of 1887 had asserted that their solid property rights gave them the right to rule..." and on p. 251: "the reformers were not about to turn the country over to a masterless rabble...". Obviously they were also intending to end the excrable corruption and incompetence of the Kalakaua regime, but were they also intending to consolidate power in their own hands? Yes. Does Daws come out and say this quite so crudely and bluntly a la Fox News? No, that would be shoddy scholarship. You get my point.
- At this point, although I do not have a lot of spare time, I will start working on what I consider to be a fair representation of both perspectives, which I'm sure you will find things to disagree with, but we can try to hash it out. If that is unsuccessful, I think we should consider having separate sections with separate interpretations, since clearly I consider mainstream scholarship such as Daws et al to support the perspective that the U.S. had a role in the overthrow (and yes, this includes the marine presence as an intended intimidation, which seems rather obvious). Until then, cheers and have a good weekend, Arjuna 21:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Aloha Arjuna, I did not intend to be sarcastic - my apologies if you took it that way. If you also feel it is better to cite a scholarly work, rather than a more popular one, perhaps you can help make some specific Daws citations. I think it is possible to rationally argue that scholarly works are somehow less appropriate than popular ones, and was simply giving you the opportunity to do so if you wanted to.
- That being said, rest assured, I do understand Daws work, and I believe that perhaps you are not accepting the nuance that he lays out for the complex nature of the fall of the Hawaiian monarchy. Your quote regarding the desire of property owners to have significant say in government seems perfectly appropriate - and far from a spurious assertion that their actions were simply a unabashed power grab.
- For example, also from p265:
The Reformers of 1887, who had not done well in the elections of 1890 and who looked forward to the elections of 1892 with even less optimism, were getting ready to make the great leap to the solid ground of the United States. They saw an unreasonable queen on one side and irresponsible agitators such as Wilcox and Bush on the other, and they concluded that the only course that offered any hope at all for the future was annexation to the United States.
- Arguably, Daws is making it very clear here that the concerns of the Reformers was not their own personal power (unlike someone like Walter Murray Gibson), but the continued economic viability and sustainability of the Hawaiian islands. Daws elaborates further on page 266-267:
Thurston thought he could distinguish several groups of people at the islands who had an interest one way or another in annexation - foreigners with a financial investment in the country; permanent settlers; the native leaders of the Liberal party; the common natives; and the queen and her faction. The first three groups, by and large, were for annexation; the common natives were undecided; and the queen's party was against the idea. The sugar industry was in such bad condition that any change would be welcomed; the planters would be willing to give up cheap contract labor and abide by the labor laws of the United States if this meant that they could get a bounty like the one enjoyed by American producers. The Liberal leaders, snubbed by the queen, were ready to pu their faith in universal suffrage under the American flag; this would give them control of the legislature, and they would also control patronage - and "loves and fishes" were important to them.
- The nuance Daws is exposing here is that there were multiple factions - not simply royalists and annexationists, nor simply planters and businessmen and natives. It seems this might be a difficult thing to condense well, but your help in the matter would be appreciated.
- Finally, the full quote from page 251:
Having curbed an irresponsible native king, the reformers were not about to turn the country over to a masterless rabble of mixed origins.
- Although certainly there were white supremacists around in the late 1800s, that particular tar brush cannot be equally applied to all those involved in the Hawaiian League or the Committee of Safety - Oleson, for example is a total racist, but it would be hard to make the same characterization of Dole or Thurston, who were elitists, but not racists.
- I appreciate all the time you can spend on this, and since we both have a copy of Daws, I think it will be helpful to discuss specific quotes, and pay attention on appropriate ways to characterize them. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Jere, I would like to refactor this discussion to make it easier to read and follow. Right now, it is very difficult to see who is saying what. —Viriditas | Talk 04:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate all the time you can spend on this, and since we both have a copy of Daws, I think it will be helpful to discuss specific quotes, and pay attention on appropriate ways to characterize them. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 23:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
COI
Viriditas, thanks for your message above. Boy. It was not my intention to go there. I am confident that I have the facts and analysis on "my" side, and I do not want to "win" by getting JK, in effect, disqualified. My mention of his (apparently unpaid?) position as Senior Fellow with the advocacy group Grassroot Institute of Hawaii was to make the point that this organization, which is involved in native Hawaiian issues, has a decidely minority political perspective, and that this may negatively affect his approach to viewing other, more mainstream, perspectives -- and thus editing the articles -- fairly. However... since you mentioned it (I suppose I did actually, but was I not thinking explicit COI), you prompted me to re-read WP:COI and to have a closer look at the GI website. I find reason at least for concern, though I'm not sure I want to "go there", and seek your counsel.
The GI website contains several recent essays by JK here, here, and here. I find some of this material somewhat disturbing. The first essay, for example, in effect calls native Hawaiian activist groups -- with whom I have no connection, and Lord knows probably don' t like me either -- not only racists but implicitly compares them to Nazis and their agenda to apartheid. Now, I find much of the radical Hawaiian activist movement to be troubling in many ways as well, but the rhetoric in that essay is not just overheated, it is propaganda and evidence of serious bias. Of course JK is fully entitled to his personal views, and it is his right to publish whatever he wishes; this by itself probably not grounds for dismissal as an editor on a particular set of articles. But what is potentially more problematic (which I wasn't previously aware of) is the fact that GI is apparently at least tangentally involved in ongoing advocacy and legal battles here in the state and federally over Hawaiian issues (i.e. Akaka Bill, Kamehameha lawsuit). Put together, this is reason to at least give pause that JK not only comes from a non-mainstream perspective that colors his approach to editing, but that perhaps this falls over that fine line in terms of possibly serving in a capacity to propagate and advance GI's perspectives and interests. Indeed, I do feel that there are examples in which JK uses Wikipedia articles to propogate a minority perspective. I am not here to get JK into trouble; despite our battles, I think he thus has something significant to contribute.
In short, I don't know where I stand on this. I do not wish to make a formal accusation, yet at least, and would very much appreciate your best judgement and assessment. And for that, thanks much in advance, Arjuna 11:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Update as of 4 October 2007. The material on the first link provided above, in which JK's highly divisive and beyond-the-pale comparison between Native Hawaiians sovereignty groups and apartheid and Nazis, has since been moved here. Arjuna 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
- The only reason I brought this to your attention is because you wrote: "...I recognize that JK's is a significant minority view that should not be excluded -- merely put into a larger context and given proper weight. I am not trying to put words into JK's mouth, but after sporadic bouts of this over months and months, my fear is that his role at an advocacy group skews his perspective, based on fears that any admission of a U.S. role opens up a can of worms that will ultimately lead to Hawaiian sovereignty or independence." So, you seem to be concerned about a COI. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but JK has declared his interest on his user page via an external link to the GI. I am also assuming that he has declared his interest to you and others, perhaps on discussion pages. I find this preferable to editors who have not declared an interest, as I am sure you do as well. I think the real solution here is to determine, once and for all, using brevity as our guide, the actual positions in question, both minority and majority, and go from there. If we can agree on what is considered a majority and a minority position in respect to the POV disputes occurring on multiple pages, we can take the first step towards solving this dispute. One thing I want to bring to JK's attention, in regards to the previous discussion above this one, is the important difference between citing primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia. This can be problematic, which is why we rely on good secondary sources rather than interpreting the meaning of primary sources. —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- Aloha, my title as "Senior Fellow" with GRIH is simply honorary - I believe in their mission of education and equal rights, and have had the privilege of having some of my articles published by them. I have never been paid by GRIH for anything. Although they have been tarred and feathered by rather prominent and powerful political groups in Hawaii, including KSBE and OHA, I think it is difficult to assert they have a "minority" view (if you can derive a view from their educational work). GRIH is a non-partisan, non-profit public policy think tank, and my association with them has been in helping advance the study, analysis, reporting and investigation of issues related to Hawaii. I am also not involved in any way with any pending or past lawsuits regarding civil rights in Hawaii, although I will state unequivocally for the record that I am for equal treatment regardless of race, creed or color - I believe strongly in the 14th and 15th amendments, and I can understand how some people may find those ideals quaint and impractical.
- As to my views and what Arjuna finds disturbing, I think we can clearly agree that anyone who advocates for superior rights on the basis of race is a racist, although we may disagree as to whether or not the racism of native Hawaiian victimhood groups is benign racism, or malign racism as compared to the Nazis and apartheid. I stand by my article cited, and I don't believe it can be read as propaganda or overheated - certainly no more than any of Arjuna's comments, or the comments of sovereignty activists who want to lay the blame for the overthrow of Liliuokalani squarely on the shoulders of the U.S..
- That being said I think if I were to suggest good secondary sources, it would be Kuykendall, Kirch, Daws and Andrade. Post-1970 activist literature doesn't seem like proper sourcing, although it is prevalent in UH Manoa work since the 70s. I think Arjuna and I both agree on Daws, and maybe that's a good place to hang our hat for now. I'd add to the mix Hawaiian Sovereignty:Do the facts matter?, but since I can appreciate that some people may not see Twigg-Smith's book as neutral.
- In any case, I would make the assertion that the demarcation of a "minority" and "majority" POV is complex in this case. For example, the "majority" viewpoint, as evidenced by the last 114 years of history, governance, international recognition and law is that the Provisional Government of Hawaii, the Republic of Hawaii, the Territory of Hawaii and the State of Hawaii have all been legal governments. However, the "majority" viewpoint of Hawaiians Studies literature coming out of U.H. Manoa since 1970, is that all of these governments are illegal according to international law. Similarly, the "majority" POV amongst mainlanders, exposed only to the propaganda of sovereignty activist entertainers like Hapa or Iz, is that native Hawaiians are an oppressed race who had their lands stolen by the white man and are identical to Native Americans with their trail of tears and reservations. The "majority" POV amongst serious historians (Kuykendall, Daws, Andrade), as well as congressional reports and the deliberation of the U.S. civil rights commission, is that the parallel between Native American and native Hawaiian is not a strong one.
- With new attention being paid to the topic in the past decade or so, now that the Akaka Bill, the Apology Resolution, Rice v. Cayetano, I think we can both be honest and admit that there is a competition between various POVs being played out in the public sphere, and that the "majority" and "minority" positions are still in flux for various cuts at the problem. I think the only way we can avoid becoming a part of this battle is to be specific in our citations, and careful of in-line editorializing. I think that Arjuna's fear is that by defining the rules of the road that way, what he sees as an important and proper POV will be undercut and marginalized. I believe that if that is so, it is only because that POV is not well founded in the scholarship on the topic.
- So let's pick one detail - Thurston's motivation for moving forward with the 1887 constitution against Kalakaua. I believe that the "majority" POV of scholarship is that it was done in response to Kalakaua's corruption and Walter Murray Gibson's influence - I believe Daws backs that up quite nicely. I believe that is is a "minority" POV to assert that Thurston moved forward with the 1887 constitution for the sake of gaining power for himself, or because of some racist tendencies. I believe, however, it is notable that one of the primary reasons for the 1887 constitution and the provisions which expanded voting rights to the wealthy, was to give power in government to those people who were responsible for the majority of its tax revenue. Perhaps Arjuna will agree to this compromise, which accurately notes both the corruption of Kalakaua, and the philosophical belief in rule by the elite characterized by Thurston and his fellow Hawaiian League members. --JereKrischel 21:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I've put forward some changes in the 1887 constitution section - Arjuna, could you look at those and see if you'd like to alter it further? Maybe we can come to agreement just on that one section, and then move to the next one. --JereKrischel 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have family business to attend to, so this is just a short preliminary response for now. Thanks, Viriditas, for your comments, and that sounds eminently reasonable to me in principle. The problem lies in its implementation. For the record, as implied by my previous comments, I do not have any connection whatsoever with, or personal interest in, the issues or groups who are active on these issues. Happy to clarify this further, but basically, I'm merely someone interested in seeing history accurately represented in the article. Now, as for determining what this the majority vs. minority position in respect to the POV disputes: ay, there's the rub, as JK has again illustrated above. I could but will not resort to labels. However, JK is notable in use of logical fallacies to attempt to define the terms of debate in favor of his POV -- ex. that the "'minority'" POV [is] to assert that Thurston moved forward with the 1887 constitution for the sake of gaining power for himself, or because of some racist tendencies", which is not what the alternative interpretation (at least what I was arguing for) was (and either JK knows that and is stonewalling again, or has read but failed to understand what I wrote, which was that T was the leader of a group of Euro-American elites wishing to seize political control in order to protect their economic interests. Was it also to end corruption and incompetence? Yes, of course. Was it something deeper and more structural as I argue. Yes to that too. It is perhaps one of the marks of an ideologue that they are seemingly incapable of accepting that something can have more than one -- and often contradictory --meaning at the same time.
- As for JK's attempt to compare the substance and style of his rhetoric to mine, I will not lower myself to his level to respond, except to say that I have never made analogies to Nazis or apartheid. The facts speak for themselves.
- I do not accept his incomplete list of acceptable secondary sources, which leaves out, for example, Russ and (more recently) Kinzer, among others.
- Now, where to go from here? JK's remark that "Arjuna's fear is that by defining the rules of the road that way, what he sees as an important and proper POV will be undercut and marginalized. I believe that if that is so, it is only because that POV is not well founded in the scholarship on the topic" speaks volumes. He truly believes his to be the correct and unassailable POV, a position I do not find in the least credible. It is quite telling that JK seems to believe that Kinzer's book supports his position. I regret to say that after many months of this wheel-spinning, I simply do not think the actors in this debate can come to any agreement as to who represents the majority vs. minority position. The wise advice of other parties is encouraged, and thanks in advance. Aloha, Arjuna 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm going to make this really easy. Arjuna and JK, please fill in the following sections with what you consider the majority and minority positions, including sources. Please do not add comments. I'm currently adding information as I find it, but I can't vouch for its accurate representation, so please change whatever you see as appropriate beneath your name heading. —Viriditas | Talk 03:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Now, where to go from here? JK's remark that "Arjuna's fear is that by defining the rules of the road that way, what he sees as an important and proper POV will be undercut and marginalized. I believe that if that is so, it is only because that POV is not well founded in the scholarship on the topic" speaks volumes. He truly believes his to be the correct and unassailable POV, a position I do not find in the least credible. It is quite telling that JK seems to believe that Kinzer's book supports his position. I regret to say that after many months of this wheel-spinning, I simply do not think the actors in this debate can come to any agreement as to who represents the majority vs. minority position. The wise advice of other parties is encouraged, and thanks in advance. Aloha, Arjuna 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Majority v. Minority
Majority v. parallelA big mahalo for your efforts here, Viriditas. I took a very preliminary stab at what my positions are, and eliminated some that I do not hold and/or contest. Taking a step back, though, I wonder if the most appropriate way to handle the dispute is a process such as this to determine "what is the majority on issue X?" (Note that I completely acknowlege I am as guilty as anyone in framing the issue in this way.) How would this possibly be decided -- polling historians? What weight is given to earlier, rather than more modern material? At what scale -- local, national, international -- is the "majority opinion" decided? You get my point: hall of mirrors. This will not comply with WP:UNDUE, but I propose we consider a parallel approach, along the lines of Legal status of Hawaii (note that I am talking about it as a tempate; I do not contest the legal status of Hawaii!). The article itself would be a straight recitation of relevant events upon which both sides can agree, and then separate sections for details and interpretation for both sides. This is admittedly sub-optimal, and has problems itself, but I don't know a better way given the issues. Recall that the proximate cause of all this was simply my desire to retain the POV tags that I added, not to get into this whole mess. I think separate but equal may be the only solution that can keep both sides from antagonism. I am skeptical that this will be amenable to JK (not to put words in his mouth), since I gather he thinks his perspective is "truth" and all others inferior. I feel the same, but am willing to compromise just to get some resolution here and have everyone move on to something more productive. I just have more than a suspicion that we will never get to agreement on either "truth" or "majority". Thoughts from you or JK? Again, thanks to V -- your mediation efforts here are very much appreciated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna808 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Mahalo Viriditas - thank you very much for putting together the table, I think after a few of my edits, it fairly represents my view of the matter. I have no problem with presenting alternate assertions as to what the historical record shows, but I do have concerns about properly attributing statements to their sources. For example, Kinzer, as secondary source, does not seem particularly scholarly, and although certainly a popular book, does not seem like it should hold as much weight as something by Daws or Andrade. Similarly, magazine articles or post-1970 activist literature doesn't seem particularly scholarly...that being said, so long as they were properly attributed and characterized, I wouldn't mind their inclusion. On the other hand, I think that there are some points under Arjuna's column that I'm not sure are appropriate characterizations - for example, the "Euro-American" label really only applies very roughly - there were many "Euro-American" royalists as well (Spreckels for example, or Gibson); dividing things on racial lines seems less accurate than explaining things in more detail - Reform Party versus royalists for example. It also seems that some points under arjuna's column aren't what he really means - e.g. "Those who deny that coup plotters were solely motivated by a desire for good government", I think he means "Those who insist that coup plotters were solely motivated by a desire for good government. I think this is a good start, and I believe there are large areas of agreement between Arjuna and I. Maybe you can suggest some specific item we can try to find common ground on, and work from there. --JereKrischel 21:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Aloha all. JK is right of course about the "deny" vs. "insist" -- I have had time to put in all of about five minutes on all of this so far (I have yet to take more than a perfunctory stab at "my" section above). My professional life is particularly frenetic at the moment so I appreciate your patience. I think there is some progress here, but as I said from the outset, the devil is in the details. I take issue with JK's premise that a secondary source book such as Kinzer is necessarily inferior to "scholarly" ones -- actually some of the latter are remarkably thin on analysis or context, being mostly narrative accounts of events. This is not to dismiss or insult those books, just to point out they have their limitations as well. I would agree with him however that "activist" literature is not particularly useful in that there is an overt political agenda driving the text, but I suppose the issue may come down to what the definition of "activist" is, and that obviously it can apply to parties on both extremes of the issues. As for how to characterize the plotters, I think it is not only perfectly appropriate, but would actually mischaracterize the historical context at the time to suggest that anything other than that perceptions of race were part of the mix for many (not all). "Reform Party versus royalists", in terms of presenting the big picture, misses the forest for the trees. The question is what was driving the overthrow -- surely JK is not suggesting it was party affiliation. (Btw, I find his #3 odd -- these facts are not contested, but if this is the only information provided in the description of how U.S. troops came to Honolulu, it misrepresents both the motivation behind and (intended) effect of their deployment. I will add something to the list to this effect.) In general, though, I agree however that the racial aspect should be done sensitively, in a way that tries not to unnecessarily fan any flames. But while not all Euro-Americans were plotters, all plotters were Euro-American, and race was a factor, and so not to mention this -- in proper context, with sensitivity -- is only obvious. Btw, for the record I (mostly) agree with JK's #7 myself. My motivation in all this is that history should not be white-washed. I will try to get around to fleshing out my section in the next week. Mahalo to all for your constructive comments and input. Arjuna 02:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please link all claims found within the Majority v. Minority to a primary and/or secondary source and I will link them to the proper footnotes. —Viriditas | Talk 01:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Apparently the other side is now acknowledging that the U.S. played at least an "indirect" role in the overthrow. Clearly this means agreement that the weasel words "alleged" can now be removed from the various articles, unless there is some intention on the other editor's part to engage in Clintonian parsing over what the word "role" means. Since -- alas, one step forward, two steps back: now the other editor seems to want to dispute whether 1893 was an overthrow or a "change in government". I will have more to add on this later, but for now, just be amused. O manna from heaven! Arjuna 12:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you really think the article (much less the historical truth, because your contempt for that has already been made abundantly clear) is well-served by such Clintonian parsing? Further adjectival qualifications are inappropriate, but now that you have acknowledged there was a role, that is what the article shall refer to. Mahalo! Arjuna 05:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It would be a benefit to all of humanity if you were to refrain from your idiosyncratic definitions and tendentious adjectival qualifications of what is, after all, a matter not just of the historical record. I did not violate 3RR after all, but to be on the safe side I am not going to revert your wholescale, destructive, and unfounded reverts to my very careful and meticulously cited additions and copy edits -- until later. Arjuna 09:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Chronological orderIs there a problem with the chronological order of events laid out currently around the days of the Hawaiian revolution? Or is there a different reason for recent reverts? --JereKrischel 03:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC) Ah -- really? If so, my bad. I thought you were adding stuff back that had been taken out, which I suppose reflects the fact that there's still a lot of objectionable POV stuff in there. We've yet to get to a good NPOV in this article. Anyhow, sorry for not paying closer attention. Have a good one. Arjuna 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
What's Going On?Looks like there's some crazy reversion warfare going on. Honestly, I do not have all the facts and refs for this level of detail to butt in at this oment (plus my daughter is sitting on my lap trying to hit random keys). However, reversion without solid explanation is not good. Can somebody explain? Aloha, --Laualoha 06:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Is this POV?Okay, pop quiz to help us move forward here: How many ways can we say "As these events were unfolding, American citizens living in Honolulu expressed concern for their safety and property.", and which way is NPOV? 1) As these events were unfolding, American citizens living in Honolulu expressed concern for their safety and property. (no change) 2) As these events were unfolding, annexationist Americans part of the Committee of Safety begged the U.S. to protect them. 3) As these events were unfolding, foreign conspirators against the Queen made up stories about public safety to provide cover for the illegal and immoral landing of U.S. Marines armed with vicious looking gatling guns. 4) As these events were unfolding, innocent Americans, afraid of the unruly mobs which might descend upon them after being rabble roused by race-baiting politicians and ne'er do wells, feared for their lives and of the threat of rape and plunder weighing over their heads, and pleaded with the U.S. to provide them some protection. My guess is that #1 is probably the best way to say it, but I'm open to alternatives. I'll leave you with this from Kuykendall, The Hawaiian Kingdom, Vol 3, p629-630: Blount did not realize that time had been running out for the monarchy for years. Without the presence of the Boston's troops the revolution might have been delayed, but only until the committee of safety had sufficient time to prepare, as the Hawaiian League had done in 1887. While Blount correctly believed that native sentiment was for the queen as opposed to the provisional government, he seemed not to have understood that there were large numbers of footloose whites, half-castes, and natives who favored neither side. Had these elements had a choice between annexation or rule by oligarchy, annexation would have been their choice. Under universal manhood suffrage they would have controlled the government and the patronage that went with it. I'll try to figure a way to work this Kuykendall quote in somewhere, it seems particularly relevant. --JereKrischel 07:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC) Is this really accurate?I took this out: "As these events were unfolding, the Committee of Safety requested that United States Government Minister John L. Stevens land US troops to prevent any threat to public safety in response to the Committee's actions. " Where did the Committee ever say that threats to public safety were due to its actions? Certainly they blamed the queen for the unrest! What they would have said was, "As these events were unfolding, the Committee of Safety requested that United States Government Minister John L. Stevens land US troops to prevent any threat to public safety in response to the Committee's resistance to the illegal actions of the queen." If we stick to the facts, they are as follows (a) The queen attempted to promulgate a new constitution; (b) A committee of safety was formed in response; (c) This committee asked Stevens for the landing of troops to protect the peace; (d) Stevens passed on this request to Capt. Wiltse, who had already decided to land troops based on his own assessment of the situation; (e) The committee asked that the landing of the troops be delayed; (f) Stevens and Wiltse ignored the committee's request, and landed troops anyway; (g) these troops acted in a completely neutral manner, although their presence may have been demoralizing to the royalists. Am I missing anything? Can we stick to the facts, and cite them? --JereKrischel 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG, Jere, I gotta say I think you're worked up to the point that you would not even agree with your own wording if you were calmer. I know it's a 2-way thing, and I've gotten all nuts myself (um, kinda recently, too) when I was pissed off, but you gotta calm down! Even though I disagree passionately with even the part of this that I really do think you believe, I have no desire to have people dismiss your point just because of how lolo it sounds. Sorry to be rude, but I'm telling you this because I believe you deserve to be heard fairly, even if I myself disagree with you. Your behavior may be kina belligerent, but I don't believe you're a lunatic, and you seriously gotta read your own #1 above and see how you might sound like one to other people. You can totally delete this comment if you like, but please calm down & look at it honestly, okay? Aloha,--Laualoha 11:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)
Jere, there will always be at least a few citizens who will side with the power; that's pretty much universal. Kauhi was speaking after the Queen's death, which means that the Territory was already in effect, children were already getting beatings for speaking their language in school, and there was a well-entrenched campaign to rewrite history. But that's not my point. The point is that using words like "race-baited violence by demagouges" sounds so reactionary as to be out of touch with reality. Jere, seriously, I'm begging you: take a good, hard look at your friend Kenneth Conklin. Is this what you want to be? Can this man ever be expected to be taken seriously? Will you ever be taken seriously if you sound just like him? If he got his way, what would Hawai'i really look like? Is this good for ANYONE? This is not an attack, it is sincere concern. At some point, I think that you are going to have to face the fact that there is a major gap in the logical strategy toward your collective aims, if indeed the goal is greater happiness and harmony in Hawai'i. You are very intelligent (I mean, hello, it's taking like, what, 5, 6 people to oppose you and we can barely keep up), and I do not think there is any chance that you will not figure this out, once you put the fear blinders down. So in the mean time, I think you should try not to say loony-sounding stuff that will ruin your reputation. That's just my mana'o. Aloha, --Laualoha 20:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Aloha Laualoha, but Kahui was speaking immediately after the overthrow - his testimony was included in the Morgan Report, well before Liliu's death. --JereKrischel 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
P.S.: Noenoe K. Silva (author of the star bulletin article which completely lacks any references, nor acknowledges that the organizations which did the anti-annexation petitions later renounced their opposition to annexation, and disbanded to become the Hawaiian Independent Party under Robert Wilcox in 1900) is about the same POV extreme as Ken Conklin - I'd love to include any sources she references, but she is hardly as useful as Russ, Kuykendall, Andrade or Twigg-Smith. --JereKrischel 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
JK, I'm afraid the credibility question is reversed. TTS's book is a vanity publication, Q.E.D. So is Conklin's. And it's telling that there appears to be a certain anti-intellectual stance regarding recognized scholarship (although one is certainly free to disagree with any particular scholar's analysis) versus amateurs with a personal axe to grind. And, yes, according to Wikipedia guidelines I do assert that Pitzer qualifies as a mainstream, though non-scholarly source, whereas TTS or Conklin fail in both tests. This is, in fact, rather obvious and undeniable. TTS and Conklin are thus "fringe". As I said elsewhere, I do however appreciate that these facts are rather inconvenient from your perspective. I urge you to spare yourself further embarassment. Arjuna 00:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Specifics
c/m/t --JereKrischel 13:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC) New discussionI am copying a recent ongoing discussion between myself and Yosemitesam25 that has been on my talk page, but which is more appropriate here and so am pasting it here for the record. Arjuna (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I reverted A's recent changes after asking A to review some Wikipedia guidelines WP:AVOID, WP:ASF, and WP:NOR. Here are excerpts that I pasted from messages I left on A's talk page: Please review WP:AVOID, Specifically, section 2.1.2. The section reminds us: "These words (i.e. "note") are often used to elevate one side in a dispute by bestowing extra weight on its arguments." In much the same way, you've bestowed extra weight on the aspect of "the underlying motivations" by: 1) Replacing the phrase "proximate cause" with "precipitating event". 2) Removing Kuykendall's name and authority as a scholar Moreover, you still haven't answered the question as to why you changed it in the first place. In fact, you said just above that, "...there is no controversy whatsoever that the proximate cause was the proposed new constitution." That stated, is there any more accurate way for the article to read? I appreciate your honest efforts to improve this article. Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC) I reverted your changes to the article, as the language inappropriately valorizes the perspective of the COS. You are presumably aware that the COS was the party that characterized the "threat" that existed, and saying that it was "American citizens" is a misleading representation of history. Please refrain from continued POV pushing. As for your specific objections, the changes I made were straightforward and I fail to see any justification to your objection. I simply changed the wording from a direct Kuykendall quote to a paraphrase (ex. proximate cause to precipitating event), since it is not only K who would maintain that that was indeed the preciptating factor. Again, if you were familiar with the scholarship you would see that this is not a controversial representation of the scholarship, and your continued harping about this pointless at best. We should move onto something more substantive. Seriously. I'm cross-posting this on the Overthrow talk page, and further discussion should continue there. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Please review WP:AVOID. 1) Section 2.3 covers the word "despite". Using "despite" when two alternatives are contrasted is "dubious use implying preference”. You wrote "despite the fact that no apparent threat existed." 2) Section 2.2 covers the word "supposed". Using "supposed" is dubious as it casts doubt upon an assertion. You wrote, "informed about the supposed threats". 3) Section 2.2 covers the word "however". Using "however" when two alternatives are contrasted is "dubious use implying preference”. 4) You inserted the word "hyperbole" to describe the reference cited. This is your opinion. It is an evaluative term serving to advance your position. see WP:NOR Please review WP:ASF 1) You wrote, "despite the fact that no apparent threat existed." This is your opinion. You have not attributed it to anyone or to any verifiable source. In fact, you inserted into directly into a sourced, verifiable fact about an opinion which states: "At the request of many citizens, whose wives and families were helpless and in terror of an expected uprising of the mob, which would burn and destroy, a request was made and signed by all of the committee, addressed to Minister Stevens, that troops might be landed to protect houses and private property." By substituting your opinion in this way you mislead the reader into thinking that the sourced opinion matches yours, when in fact, they are opposite. 2) You wrote, "informed about the supposed threats". "Supposed" is your opinion. You have not attributed it to anyone or to any verifiable source. In fact, you inserted into directly into a sourced, verifiable fact about an opinion which states: "At the request of many citizens, whose wives and families were helpless and in terror of an expected uprising of the mob, which would burn and destroy, a request was made and signed by all of the committee, addressed to Minister Stevens, that troops might be landed to protect houses and private property." By substituting your opinion in this way you mislead the reader into thinking that the sourced opinion matches yours when in fact, they are opposite. If you feel compelled to assert that there was no threat Wikipedia allows for you to do that by attributing that opinion to someone (a verifiable source). Otherwise it is just speculation and opinion on your part. WP:NOR states: " Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions or experiences." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosemitesam25 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Here is Arjuna's response: It is unfortunate that you continue JereKrischel's policy of trying to game the system in order to push your POV. This attempt will not be successful. Arjuna (talk) 20:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arjuna808" Now, here is my response to A's latest comments: To start with the last item first, please focus on the content not the person. Drawing comparisons to me and anyone else has no place here. Second: there may be room for some leeway with respect to who actually "expressed concern for the safety and property of American residents in Honolulu". Clearly, it was the COS who formalized the request, but from the excerpt of Wilder, this was done at the behest of citizens concerned for their safety. So the wording could be changed to reflect the fact that it was not one or the other, but both. Third: I provided clear Wikipedia guidelines and links to A regarding A's chosen wording. I won't repeat that here as it is outlined above. Arjuna did not respond other than to revert, draw personal comparisons, and assert what sounds like an ultimatum. Is this how to improve an article on Wikipedia? Fourth: Arjuna says: "As for Y's specific objections to the changes I made (ie., changing the direct quote from Kuykendall to a paraphrase), those were straightforward and I fail to see any justification to Y's objection. I simply changed the wording from a direct Kuykendall quote to a paraphrase (ex. "proximate cause" to "precipitating event", etc.), since it is not only Kuykendall who would maintain that that was indeed the preciptating factor." That statement is incorrect. A also removed Kuykendall's name from the body of the article. That statement also does not stand because A is interpreting what Kuykendall may or may not agree with. In fact Kuykendall may not agree with A's opinion at all. But we do know for a fact what Kuykendall agreed with - what he wrote. If Kuykendall agreed with "precipitating event", he would have wrote "precipitating event". "Causing" something to happen is different from an "event". One (cause) is active, with consequences. The other (event) may be passive. In addition, the actual usage seems incorrect to me. As I understand it, precipitating means abrupt or hasty. One might speak of a hasty or rash decision, but to speak of a hasty event or a rash event seems muddled. In short, the usage is ambiguous, unwarranted, and not a paraphrase. Finally, A says: "You are presumably aware that the COS was the party that characterized the "threat" that existed, and saying that it was "American citizens" is a misleading representation of history." Here is what the cited source says: "At the request of many citizens, whose wives and families were helpless and in terror of an expected uprising of the mob, which would burn and destroy, a request was made and signed by all of the committee, addressed to Minister Stevens, that troops might be landed to protect houses and private property". A then continually reverts this passage to a preface which reads, "one testimonial, hyperbollically...". It would seem to me to be easy to cite some other historian who argues that there was no threat instead of a constant stream of reversions flowing from failing to adhere to basic Wikipedia guidelines. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
New Discussion, ContinuedNo justification has been offered for the following sentence placed prominently in the first section: "The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and the subsequent annexation of Hawaiʻi has recently been cited as the first major instance of American imperialism.[2]" Arjuna did say that it was "well-cited" and "appropriate" but both the content and the placement violate WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia no original research says, "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research." This is not an article about imperialism, what constitutes imperialism or where imperialism may have occured. If Kinzer has an opinion or new facts about the circumstances of the overthrow itself - its causes or effects, for example - then perhaps those might be added. But this is not the article to represent the conclusion that the overthrow "is the first major instance of American imperialism...from Hawai'i to Iraq". Inserting Kinzers opinion here adds nothing of insight to the actual overthrow and serves only to advance an entirely seperate idea: that the overthrow was American imperialism. Even if the citation was acceptable as original research it would still violate WP:UNDUE which says, "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to...prominence of placement". As the concluding sentence in the first section, Kinzers comment takes center stage. It sets the tone for the rest of the article and binds together "overthrow" with "imperialism" at the outset. Even if the comment was acceptable it would have to be countered right away with something much stronger than the Inouye quote. A counter citation could be found but then the whole flow of the first section, not to mention the article itself, would change. And the topic - instead of the overthrow - would become whether or not the overthrow was imperialism. For these reasons, I will remove the line. If you feel compelled to add it back in, you must explain how concluding that the overthrow was American imperialism is directly related to an article discussing the overthrow itself.
You seem to have read my reply but did you understand it?. I have demonstrated Kinzer's relevance and appropriateness. One last time: Kinzer's work does not consist of "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" (quoting from WP:OR). Quod erod demonstrandum. Your continued refusal to acknowlege its self-evident validity does you no credit in terms of credibility. I encourage you to find another tree to up which to bark. There are plenty. Morgan: primary source material and from a highly tendentious and politically motivated individual with some of whose main conclusions even other members of his commission could not agree. Fein: work commissioned by GI and thus a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position". Twigg-Smith: vanity publication as well as possessing the same unacceptable qualities as Fein in his connection to GI. Your attitude towards demonstrating your non-COI is unaccepable. The onus is upon you to demonstrate your status, not me or other editors. I'm a patient person with regards to these edit tit-for-tats; I can go as long as you want. You are the one who started these unjustified reverts, and so it is up to you to provide the justification which you have so far failed to do. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
It's highly unfortunate that you continue these pointless reverts when I have already demonstrated that your objections have no justification. As for your COI status, I already outlined one such strategy on your talk page; feel free to take it or leave it, but your questionable COI status will linger until you clear this up, and will make all your edits suspect to the other editors. If you enjoy working in this way, that is most unfortunate. Your revert will be reverted back to the consensus version. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 01:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to chime in. Yosemite, why did you remove the Inouye melting pot statement that you insisted on including in the article after I added the other Inouye quote? It seems like you want to have it both ways. The article still needs more work but most of your edits are unacceptable.Eekadog (talk) 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
TitleWhy was the article title changed from Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom to the current title? —Viriditas | Talk 06:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
ProtectedThe page is now protected for five days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If edit-warring resumes, editors involved may temporary lose their editing privileges, or the article may be protected again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Let's focusI think a lot of the concern with WP:NPOV here seems to be based on the addition/subtraction of quotes from various scholars on different sides of the issue. Essentially, they're being given undue weight by being placed prominently in the article, obscuring the factual content presented as skewing us away from neutrality. So if possible, I'd like to propose that we move the quotes and related material to the end of the article, possibly in an "analysis of the events" or "effects of the events" subheading. Our task here should first and foremost be to present the facts what happened in a neutral manner, not try and show how the scholarly world reacts to it today. If the issue is with the name of the article, then we can hash that out here. Any thoughts? --jonny-mt 07:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I reverted Yosemitesam's changes, as they were blatant POV pushing of a "fringe" or "significant minority" viewpoint, and thus in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:SOAP. As I previously explained to YS above, Fein's paper was commissioned by Grassroot Institute, a well-known partisan source and activist organization. (Were it not for this fact, I would agree that Fein is -- no pun intended -- a fine scholar who is eminently citable.) The fact that he knows this and still attempted to cite the work is disappointing. That the citations were from a newspaper is immaterial, since they were quoting Fein's original (commissioned) paper; in either case, they thus are a "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" and violate Undue guidelines. Similar justification for rv of Hanifin, and adding in that case that no reputable publication other than Ken Conklin's personal website is cited. Inclusion of the quote "No Hawaiian lost land because of the Revolution and few permanently lost power" is blatant POV pushing, a non-sequitur, and egregious mischaracterization of the events. Aside from all that, I truly appreciate jonny-mt's effort to mediate and feel he makes some good points. However, it would not be appropriate to move all cited material to the end, as, for example, the Kinzer reference represents the mainstream scholarly position regarding the events in question. However, I don't have a problem with a section on "significant minority" perspectives at the end. And I agree with jonny that presentation of the moral aspects of the events is probably quite problematic. Finally, I would like to point out that Yosemitesam has repeatedly been making these kinds of blatant POV edits, and has refused to address suspicions among myself and others that s/he may have major COI and/or sockpuppet issues. So in short, although I would like to think that appealing to a "let's focus" spirit is healthy, I fear -- based on the evidence of past YS edits and rants on talk pages -- that this may be naive given the nature of the individual. I try to assume good faith of other editors, and have done so with those such as JK even during past edit wars, but the recent pattern of behavior by YS makes this a difficult challenge even to those editors who possess ample endowments of patience. Arjuna (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
BiasIt is amazing how biased people are who look back on Hawaii's history. Dole was born and raised in Hawaii. So how was his involvement in the revolution an American intervention? The president of the U.S. at the time of the revolution even refused to recognize the new government. Do we forget that? Many of the people involved even outside Dole were of native Hawaiian ethnicity. So we need to be careful how we continue to blame Americans for the overthrow when Hawaiian citizens were behind it.Todd Gallagher (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
You state: "These comments are all false, as can be seen by looking at the membership section of the Committee of Safety page." Hmmm . . . here is the article that YOU cited: Members of the Committee of Safety
Your own source says seven were Hawaiian. So how is it that "These comments are all false"? Todd Gallagher (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know, WHEN did these Hawaiian subjects become Hawaiian subjects? was it before or after the revolution? And there is no mention of John L. Stevens and Lorrin Thurston who I believe had more to do with the overthrow than this committee. In addition these men did not have the might to do this alone, it was with the backing of the military of the United States which was operating under the guise of protecting American descended Hawaiians from Hawaiian descended Hawaiians. These facts came out in hearings after the fact. US admitted to overthrowing the country and tried to reinstate the monarchy. If the American Warship had not been their this coup would not have occurred. Marcia "Overthrown, America's century of regime change from Hawaii to Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aicram62 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
RefocusAloha, everyone. I've read through this talkpage, and I have a few points to make.
Relata refero (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC) DeleteThis article seems rather pointless. It's the epitome of a stub, while the Bayonet Constitution article already has a discussion of the overthrow. I think this should be deleted. KarlM 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC) My main object is the tone. It's written as if the information provided is conclusive that the otherthrow of Hawai'i was "OK". "thrwarted by a friend of Lil..." and other such language is just completely biased. I just cleaned up some of what I felt was the most discriminatory language. I hope that we can have a neutral, or at least balanced, article. Kaihoku 01:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding comments made by editors in these pages (you know who you are): There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Some suggestions:
Sex/age?
This doesn't make any sense. How would discriminating by age and sex would disenfranchise any specific ethnic group? Hawaiians have less women, or something? -- int19h (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC) Reverting anonymous editsI am reverting the edits by User:74.235.128.240. I feel they are Tendentious editing to introduce a narrow point of view – without providing any new references. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC) |