Talk:Morgan Report

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Morgan Report, or visit the project page for more details.
NB: Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritising and managing its workload.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. To add the summary, please edit this article's ratings summary page.
WikiProject Hawaii priority open tasks:


Contents

[edit] Information

Any help appreciated. Started so as not to reference a certain inherently biased website.M.ana 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! I've migrated some information over, limiting the contribution to NPOV material. Please feel free to copy whatever you wish from http://morganreport.org --JereKrischel 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective Witnesses

The same way you would like to assert Morgan's Neutrality, so too we should be uniform with Blount. Blount was not a royalist. Blount was an agent of the US. Jere, Please read Information Suppression. Your view is hardly a majority view, please stop pushing it as such. M.ana 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Blount specifically claimed his support for the queen during his testimony and his earlier report, and can be considered just as much of a royalist as Cleveland was. In response to the question from Senator Dolph, "Who were the people representing the Queen's cause—her side of the controversy?", Blount replied, "Do you mean before me?". And I am not asserting Morgan's neutrality, I assert that you correctly state, some sovereignty activists dismiss the Morgan Report solely because of his connection to the history of racism and bigotry in this country. --JereKrischel 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Insofar as "majority view", I think you are mistaken, but welcome any evidence you have to back up your claim. Although in certain circles, the view that the State of Hawaii is illegal, Blount is unimpeachable, Morgan is dismissable, and the U.S. directly overthrew the queen is taken as fact (and such folk have also managed to get symbolic legislation passed like 103-150, without any debate on the merits), the overwhelming majority of the world accepted the overthrow, the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii as legitimate, and the findings of the Morgan Report as accurate. Certainly over the past 100 years the majority of people have lived in accordance with those views, including nearly 50 years of Statehood. --JereKrischel 00:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Majority view, may be debatable in definition, but not debatable in general concensus. For source, look at the Apology Resolution, had the Morgan Report been popular enough or authoritative enough, it would have been referenced. I would also challenge your view of "although in certain circles" as one that should characterize the Morgan Report. The Morgan Report's unpopularity can also be seen by the fact that it has only recently be made available on the internet, by you none the less. It is apparent to me that you have an inherent bias to play up the Morgan Report as you are the engineer behind it's internet access. Please maintain appropriate NPOV. M.ana 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I guess I would assert that had the whereas clauses in the Apology Resolution been compelling enough, U.S. policy would have been altered long ago, and the international community would recognize claims of reinstated Kingdom governments. The Morgan Report's alleged "unpopularity" was not the reason asserted by the University of Hawaii curators for their failure to get it digitized - a flood destroyed many of their computers in 2002, and apparently set their program back. Certainly the Blount Report was never so popular as to be digitized by volunteers to bring its information to the public. I understand the the transition from sovereignty comment boards to Wikipedia can be a difficult one, and I hope you are able to clearly differentiate between the rhetoric appropriate on one, and the collegial spirit required on the other. --JereKrischel 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terribly one sided

Just to let the other contributor know, I am not ignoring this report. Right now, the apologist rhetoric is really prevalent. I am swamped with work and will probably be able to do some editing this weekend. I forsee alot of petty bickering on inclusions, exclusions, and subtle nuances in terminology; most of which have already started with you entirely revising my writing. Once I am done pruning what you wrote, I would like to prevent that in the future by discussing anything that is to be included and/or excluded before making changes. M.ana 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, please feel free to discuss your suggested prunings beforehand, and we can work it out on the talk page first. --JereKrischel 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it prudent to edit your POV before we begin discussion; either by me or another person with an adverse view to yours. The alternative would be to wipe it clean and start with a clean slate. You pick, I'm not particular. M.ana 01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Specific issues with original text

The Morgan Report sought to exonerate The United States and US Minister John L. Stevens from their involvment in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy.

Assertion of nefarious intent POV pushing - better to state the reasons for the commissioning of the Morgan Report (Cleveland's referral after Liliuokalani's refusal for clemency, and the simultaneous refusal of President Dole to accede to such demands), and then talk about the various opinions regarding its intent

The Morgan Report was conducted by Senator John Tyler Morgan of Jim Crow political fame.

Subtle character assassination pushing POV, as well as factually inaccurate - Morgan was only the chairman, and voted against his fellow Jim Crow Democrats in the final majority report.

Senator Morgan's inquest was done in Washington, far from the scene of the crime.

Again, assertion that there was a "crime" POV pushing - best to state that hearings were held in Washington D.C., Blount's primarily royalist report was admitted into evidence, along with PG/annexationist affadavits, and live in person testimony.

Whereas the Blount Report was conducted for several months in Hawaii and questioned both sides of the issue.

Factually incorrect POV pushing - Blount in his testimony in front of the Morgan Committee clearly indicates his failure to interview critical PG members, even those who offered themselves as witnesses.

Most notable about the Morgan Report is the absence of Royalist testimony from Senator Morgan's inquisition.

Factually incorrect POV pushing - Blount's report was submitted as evidence, and several anti-annexationist witnesses were brought by Senator Gray. Also POV pushing to assert that that factor was "most notable".

The legitamacy of the Morgan Report has been and continues to be refuted by Hawaiian Sovereignty activists.

Factually correct, and the specific critiques all deserve their own treatment - i.e., it's bad because Morgan was racist, it's bad because the Queen didn't testify, etc, etc. In order to maintain NPOV, we should make it clear that there is dispute here, and characterize both sides' best arguments.

--JereKrischel 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These are all legitimate concerns, however erasing my edits and imposing yours without first discussing them is hardly conducive of a collaborative environment. You are also neglecting the fact that your current version infers your POV. Without citing specific areas in the current text (because of time constraints), your version hardly constitutes NPOV. Perhaps you can keep this in mind for future collaboration: what we should strive to do is to relay the facts of the matter and not try to impose our conclusions on others; taking into consideration relevancy and topical information. I think the point of NPOV is to have others draw their own conclusions. Your current revision suggests a persuasive style, it should be re-written to resemble impartial reporting. Suggesting Cleveland accepting the report "explicitly" does not confer a certain neutrality that I believe wikipedia would like to exemplify. Your article is riddled with like statements that resembles an extension of your morganreport.org website. Please be mindful that this is not an extension of your site.
If you don't agree with wiping the slate clean, when I post my edits I will give you detailed reasons why the edits were necessary. M.ana 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully my post-mortem discussion is sufficent for you to understand the edits I did. If there are specific POV pushing issues you'd like to raise, I'd love to hear them - although you claim the current version infers my POV, I'm not quite sure what specifically you object to - perhaps you could edit one portion of it as an example? Insofar as "wiping the slate clean", I think it's better for us to continue on with what we have - at least we have gotten a general format and layout going. Even if every word changes, we can work incrementally. I'll see what I can do regarding "persuasive style". --JereKrischel 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
For starters, the section I started "what's wrong with the report" has turned into a "why its alright, in spite of..." and would probably fit into a "argument for" type category. I think it may be best to have an outline of the report, and then have two sections below with "Aruments for", and "Arguments against" or something to that effect. Like I mentioned before, I probably won't get to it till this weekend. I don't want to do minor edits, so I'll withhold editing entirely until I have time to ingest the text as a whole. M.ana 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I tried changing the wording so that each specific critique was mentioned, with its common refutation, giving neutral mention of both. I'm not sure if it breaks out into "argument for/against" types of statements, but if you can come up with something like that to split up, that's cool too. Insofar as an outline of the report, I suppose I can grab and edit some of conklin's summaries of the report itself, as well as the testimonies...not sure if that's what you're thinking of though. I'll put something up and you can play around with it when you have a chance. --JereKrischel 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] detailed explanations

(1)Clevelands letter. Relevancy issue. What does Cleveland accepting the report have to do with the Morgan report? Also, selective quoting is in very bad taste. It may be all right if you include it under a section entitled “Arguments for”; as to your “[Emphasis added]” stunt…. are you trying to be facetious?

Cleveland's reversal on his position is the seminal point of the Morgan Report. Whether or not you agree that Cleveland should have accepted it can be discussed, but that important fact should factor prominently. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(2)(3)Summary of Cleveland’s letter. Relevancy issue. Apart from your blatant POV pushing (I hardly think it came as a surprise given Morgan’s character and track record), is there any reason why this is included in the description of the report? Again, these fit into an “argument for” category and even then, only with citation.

I think your characterization of "arguments for" and "arguments against" don't work very well...the Morgan Report itself is the "argument for", and there may be "arguments against" and "responses to arguments against"...I've put it under a "disputes" topic heading...maybe that will help...any other editors have opinons? --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Observation on the general description of the report. The first two paragraphs of the introduction to the report are very detailed and resemble no bias. It exudes basic facts about the report, which I think are very well articulated from a non-biased perspective. However, following those two paragraphs the article runs very narrow as to the actual material covered in the report. The reason for the report, people deposed, and findings are all pertinent and all absent. Instead the readers are confronted with why they should accept the report, even though they have no idea who or what is in the report.

(4) “Because he was a friend of Lili'uokalani and was opposed to U.S. expansionism,” Just as you would like to assert this, I could assert that he was suspicious of the events. This only demonizes Cleveland in an attempt to discredit his judgment.

His friendship with the queen is no more demonizing than Morgan's Jim Crow ideology. I've tried to tone it more neutral, but that information should be there. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(5) “The newly installed President Cleveland, without seeking confirmation from the Senate (which was in session at the time), appointed Blount to be a special envoy to Hawai'i with "paramount" powers and secret instructions” You’re gonna need to cite this in order to include it, either in footnotes or directly in the text. Please cite a reputable source. If you cite a source of ill repute, I’ll easily find one that thoroughly refutes this. Perhaps if the source is the Morgan Report, you can easily overcome this by simply adding something to the effect of “According to the Morgan Report…”

The citation is the Morgan Report itself - if you read the section where the minority republicans criticize Blount, you'll see it. It is a fact he appointed him without seeking senate confirmation, and a fact that the senate was in session at the time. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(6) “He invited primarily royalists…(entire paragraph)” Again, same reason as number (5). Please cite sources specifically. A general “it was in the newspapers” or “it was in so and so book”, without specifically mentioning where in the book leads me to believe you drew inferences from the book and perhaps took it out of context.

Again, the specific testimony in the Morgan Report by Blount indicates this. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(7) “Conclusions of the Committee (entire bulleted section)” Can you please cite specifically where in the report these conclusions were rendered. You may not have to include it in the text, I want to verify your summary with the report.

Added. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


(8) “…but still exonerated Blount.” Uniformity issue. You included “…but still exonerated stevens…” yet failed to include that for Blount. Parenthetically, this brings up an issue I’ve been toying around with lately. If the Morgan Report exonerated Blount, how does the Morgan Report Supercede Blount’s report? Did it ever? Perhaps this question can be better debated outside of this medium.

The Morgan Report exonerated Blount's controversial appointment without confirmation, and his right to engage in his investigation. It did not "exonerate" any of his conclusions. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(9) “Cleveland's final position (entire paragraph)” From what I can tell, this was a cut and paste job from your website. I’ve found sources, from Cleveland, which suggests he was weary of the Provisional Government. I’ve included the reference with my revision. I haven’t ventured to read your entire site, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if your entire report came directly from your site. Please be mindful of citations, which I will be policing vigilantly now that I’ve uncovered your cut and paste job.

Although Cleveland may have been weary, he maintained diplomatic relations with both the PG and RoH. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


(10) “Common Critiques(entire section)” I think I’ve already expressed my views on this. It is entirely sympathetic to the Morgan Report and would serve better under an “argument for” type category. Now, I noticed you don’t have any citations under the section as well. I would compromise and say that as long as you don’t cite sources in the “argument for” section than I’ll oblige by not citing sources on the “argument against” section, however, I think this would be a great disservice to Wikipedia, not to mention we probably shouldn’t treat this as a forum to express our personal views. I’ll also be removing the “Morgan was a racist” text. This was my work, which you conveniently adopted and butchered to resemble a sympathetic tone. I will be using it in the “Argument against” section. The decision was largely to prevent redundancy, though. Feel free to start a new one with different wording.

I’ve taken the liberty of arranging the above concerns, leaving most of your edits intact pending your citations.M.ana 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Format

I actually like your format better. However, I still don't think Clevelands letter should come before the description of the report. Perhaps after the conclusion. I haven't reviewed all your revisions yet, mostly because you don't like to discuss them before or even after you change them. I'll reserve comment till then. M.ana 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jere asked me for a comment re organization. My opinion (which may be wrong) is that it makes for a more readable article if you take one controversy at a time and summarize all the viewpoints and the references for them. Then proceed to another controversy. IMHO, this is better than having just one PRO section and one ANTI section. After all, you may not have exactly the same people on the same sides for every controversy. Also, it's easier to grasp the arguments if they're right next to each other.
Oh yes, and it helps to have an introductory section summarizing the info that all sides accept. That helps orient the reader, before you plunge into the controversies. It takes careful writing to achieve a neutral summary section, but it can be done -- if only by sticking to names and dates! So if the current editorial lineup is Jere vs. Mana, both Jere and Mana have to approve the summary section before you can go on to the controversies. Then all you have to do is make sure that the arguments presented for each side are such as would be accepted by that side. No fair summarizing the OTHER side in a way that the other side feels is inaccurate. (In rhetoric, this is called setting up a straw man.)
Sometimes there are arguments about who gets to go first, or who has the last word. If this is a sticking point, you can alternate from section to section.
Hope this is helpful. Zora 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think your suggestions are of great value. The question I have is whether or not Cleveland's letter should come before the rest of the Morgan Report. The report led to Clevelands reversal, but I don't see how showing that before the description is anything but POV pushing. Perhaps you can shed some light as to why it is "imperative" to present the letter before the actual report is done being described. M.ana 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to make the narrative chronological, if you can. Hard to say without getting into the nitty gritty, and I just don't have time. I'm over-extended on all fronts. Zora 04:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Zora, good to get some third party input. A couple of minor notes M.ana:
1) I think we need to be a bit careful about our citations...that is to say, we should be citing direct quotes where possible, not editorial opinions. For example, I've cited Cleveland's letter with a link to the source, as well as a quoted excerpt. When you cite Kuykendall, I think it would be more appropriate to quote him directly, and then cite, rather than editorialize his opinion, and cite him as the inspiration for that editorial;
No qualms here. This is actually what I've been trying to get you to do. I will be checking on your sources like a hawk and welcome you to do the same. M.ana 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
2) You've fallen victim to some of the same "persuasive" writing format in some of your additions - as you can see, it's awfully easy to make that mistake. When we describe various points of view, I think we both need to refrain from, "however," or "it is important to note"...I've used phrases like, "others note", and tried to make sure the phrasing is one that simply presents both points of view without indicating a particular opinion on the opinions.
I'm not so sure. Most of my quotes were word for word. All of my Kuykendall references(which you deleted) were word for word. Case in point, did I take anything out of context when I quoted you and Conklin? I kinda figured you'd want to censure yourself and was expecting you to edit that inasfar as you did, however, the other revisions you did made absolutely no sense and I found it pretty rude for you to butcher my stuff in order to make them sound more accomodating. You'll notice I left all your crap alone, pending your references. I'll take care to immediately exclude all your edits that don't immediately hold citations. M.ana 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


You didn't indicate your quotes from Kuykendall at all. For example, you wrote:
Other factors pose a cause for concern, most notably the lack of any Royalist deposition. There have been attempts to characterize James Blount as a “royalist”. Blount’s capacity in Hawaii was an agent of the US; acting Minister to Hawaii in place of John Stevens
and then followed with a footnote. Where is the quote there?
If you checked the source, you would find that "Blount presented his credentials to Dole on May 23 as the American minister in place of Stevens, and one of his first official acts was to protest the treatment accorded Nordhoff and apologized to the men he had named, but Blount charged the provisional government with 'crushing out all opposing opinions by forceful methods.'" Why is this even being refuted? The reference was specifically for you. It's not like you're going to find a document saying Blount "renounced his American citizenship and declared allegiance to the Queen." If you aren't able to check the sources yourself, perhaps you shouldn't be editing anything in the first. M.ana 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In regards to your writing regarding "The engineers behind the Morgan Report’s Internet access", that was clearly POV pushing. Although your citation is appropriate, and that response to the critque of the Morgan Report should be put forward, your derogatory phrasing isn't necessary. --JereKrischel 04:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Recall that the section was titled "arguments against" and while I didn't expect you to keep it there, I wanted you to realize how ridiculous you sound trying to defend what you earlier admitted to. I don't think it is derogatory nor POV pushing. How is relaying only the facts of the article POV pushing? And how would you characterize somebody that did what the above people did? I'm sorry you feel so ashamed of your accomplishments. M.ana 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I especially like Zora's idea of alternating "last word" on sections. Although my inclination is always to have the last word, since my responses are typically to initial critiques, I can see how it may be possible to work that more evenly. --JereKrischel 03:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

M.ana, I've tried to keep my edits fairly incremental, and have added summaries to each of them to make it clear what I'm changing and why. Please consider those summaries as points of discussion - typically editors only get into more detailed issues on talk pages. --JereKrischel 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, another thing, it might help, M.ana, if you tried to help write the best arguments possible for the defense of Morgan, while I tried to write the best arguments possible in critique of Morgan - switching sides is often a good way to get NPOV. --JereKrischel 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I've read through half of it and have to say that your sudden shift from POV to NPOV is astounding. I didn't know you had it in you. I have some concerns in regards to your citations, however. I don't have time to go over them at this time, but will take up the issue tommorrow. M.ana 05:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks M.ana! Sometimes all it takes is a second critical look. Othertimes it can be very hard to see, which is when it's good to call in other editors for a fresh view. BTW, very cool work on the citation template - I've never used that before, and I think it helps a great deal. I'll look closer at the template to see if we're using it correctly (putting author in the date field might not be the best way to use it). --JereKrischel 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kuykendall

Hey M.ana, could you help out and put footnotes for the Kuykendall stuff indicating what book/volume/page its found on? I like what you did for the other footnotes, and think that that should have the same kind of treatment --JereKrischel 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, what did you have in mind? M.ana 07:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selective witness list/inherent political bias of senators

I'm not liking how this section reads...it seems to try to cover too many bases at once. Perhaps we can break this up into several subsections, or separate sections? --JereKrischel 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? M.ana 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll try and do an edit as an example, but I'm still struggling with how to structure it overall...one argument seems to lead to another, to another, but then has nothing to do with the original argument. --JereKrischel 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm curious as to who Senator Gray brought as witnesses that were "critical of the Provisional Government." Care to divulge that information? M.ana 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradicted the Apology bill

I think if we leave it the way it is, I won't be compelled to explain how the Morgan Report only got past a special commitee. M.ana 07:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "only got past a special committee"? Was it ever put up for another vote, and rejected? I put in the verbage regarding it's "special committee" status - "critics of the Morgan Report see it as more substantive than the findings of a special committee", hopefully that flows well. --JereKrischel 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The way you're making the Apology bill out to be trivial, yet the Morgan Report didn't get passed in either the house or the senate. It only got passed by a nine member special committee. M.ana 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Point noted and added in. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I also have issues with you quoting yourself. Perhaps if there are others that corroberate what you're saying you can reference them. Reference 11. M.ana 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I could just place my critique in there word for word (since it quotes others, this is not a critique based on my authority, only references I gather)...but I thought that would be POV pushing. Part of what I'm also trying to do is keep the length of point/counter-point somewhat similar. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Also, I couldn't find where Bruce Fein says anything remotely like "According to critics of the Apology Resolution, the one-sided and symbolic nature of the legislation, written by sovereignty activists, does not materially effect the legitimacy of the Morgan Report." Again, inferences are to be drawn by the readers, not suggested to them. Although, I'm not saying I couldn't have overlooked it, but with ctrl-f nothing pops up. Maybe you'd like to be more specific on the reference? M.ana 19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I've move the reference around so it more closely links to Fein's critique. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Not clearly cited. Referenced yea, clearly cited, NO. So are we able to write whatever we want now and just attribute it to somebody that vaguely coincides? M.ana 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Citation is making it clear who is saying something. It is clearly stated that the reference is one made by critics of the Apology Resolution. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

The page looks kind of bland. Do you have any non-copyrighted pictures of Morgan?--M.ana 07:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is already one for John Tyler Morgan...I don't think any pictures that old can be copyrighted still. There are also others for the entire committee from the U.S. gov...I put some of them here: Members of the Committee. --JereKrischel 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation on "Contradicted the Apology Bill"

M.ana and I seem to have an intractable difference of opinion regarding a section under "Contradicted the Apology bill". Specifically, he objects to the fact that one of the references cites my own work. Could a third party please take a look at our dispute, and offer some constructive guidance? Thanks! --JereKrischel 20:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hows that mediation coming along? --M.ana 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I have been assigned to mediate this case. --Tbeatty 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-09 Morgan Report I expect there will be some sort of response in 2-10 days. --JereKrischel 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characterization of Davianna McGregor

http://starbulletin.com/2002/05/28/news/story2.html

Davianna McGregor, a member of the activist group Protect Kahoolawe Ohana,

Perhaps it should be "native hawaiian activist", rather than "sovereignty activist"? Would that help M.ana? --JereKrischel 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, she is hardly a sovereignty activist. Kahoolawe Ohana, as far as the impressions that I got, was more of an envrionmentalist group. How about you go with her credentials? University of Hawaii Professor Davianna McGregor. Your quick to labeling someone is duly noted. Maybe I should go through all of Conklins links and add anti-Hawaiian next to his name.--M.ana 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I think a fair case can be made that she is a sovereignty activist just on the credentials. The University of Hawaii Hawaiian Studies program prohibits any dissenting point of view contrary to that of sovereignty activists. I thought rather than present all the evidence for that assertion here, we should go with the neutral "native Hawaiian activist" label. We can add her credentials if you'd like. --JereKrischel 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not neutral. Her credentials would be neutral. I know what you're trying to do and it's not going to fly. --M.ana 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request mediation surrounding your insistence on deleting the entire section, instead of fixing the problem you're identifying. If you'd like to change her description, please do so. Deleting the entire section is disruptive. --JereKrischel 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to request mediation concerning your ability to edit Hawaiian issues as your bias clearly renders you incapable of NPOV. --M.ana 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Everyone can be NPOV, it just takes hard work :). If we limited editing to only people with no opinions, there wouldn't be any wikipedians at all! Nice work removing the "anti-Hawaiian" POV pushing descriptions, I think it reads much cleaner now. --JereKrischel 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History surrounding the morgan report

I don't think you can attribute that he "primarily interviewed royalists" no more than I can attribute "gross bias" on the part of the Morgan Report. I've also read (finally) Blounts testimony in the Morgan Report. Alot of your demonizing assertions of Blount are actually explained in his testimony--

If I were to go into the matter of the examination of the witness, say of the royalist side, and his statement was made known to the public immediately, you would find an outcry perhaps in the press about treasonable purposes, about opposing the Government, --we see why it was imperative for him to maintain a sense of secrecy.
I had no authority to administer an oath. It was a very delicate thing for an American to call upon those people to take an oath, especially members of the Provisional Government-- here is the reason for not having an oath. Judging by his testimony, it was mostly because people of the PG refused to take an oath.

M.ana 21:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Blount primarily interviewed royalists - you can count the number of royalist witnesses compared to PG witnesses and see that from his report. Insofar as oaths are concerned, he did not even interview PG people, much less give them the opportunity to testify under oath (and he specifically said he had no authority to administer them - you have no evidence anyone would have refused). As shown by their willingness to testify under oath during the Morgan hearings, you can hardly assert that they would have refused to do so with Blount. I believe Kuykendall and Andrade also have references to the primarily royalist POV Blount interviewed....would you be mollified if they had some attribution there? (Although I still think the original document shows it more clearly than any 2nd hand commentary...) --JereKrischel 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm arguing the Morgan Report and Blount Report, not the characterization of authors. It seems to me that Morgan had a grand total of one anti-annexation sentiment on his panel. Blount on the other hand interviewed alot more than one annexationist. Blount, in fact, interviewed organs of the PG. Kuykendall only makes reference to Blount not interviewing people of the Committee of Safety. For me to read the Blount report and ingest everybodies sentiment would take alot of my time, free time. I was hoping perhaps you would be more forthcoming in regards to information. However, that is rather naive of me. I will venture to count the number of annexationists to royalists that Blount bothered to Interview. I surmise the number will not be remotely close to 8-1. M.ana 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I suppose we can count them together. I'm sure there would be some argument between us as to who characterized a "royalist" and who an "annexationist"...http://morganreport.org has an Outline of Topics, which will give you a list of all the witnesses, and a short summary of what they said. Of course, Ken Conklin wrote most of the summaries, so I'm sure you'll want to look at the testimony directly to make your own conclusion. Maybe after you've done that, we can come up with a score-sheet on how many royalists/annexationists were interviewed in both Blount and Morgan. --JereKrischel 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I already know how many people were annexationist and anti-annexationists thanks to the work you've done on the Morgan Report. A grand total of one panelist and perhaps one, maybe two witnesses. I was wondering what the ratio was on Blount's Report. M.ana 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I counted two panelists, and at least 4 witnesses, but again YMMV. Insofar as Blount is concerned, I believe the total annexationist witnesses were two, Damon for sure, and one other I can't quite recall the name of. If you put together a count, that would be great. --JereKrischel 07:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Who are the four witnesses from the Morgan Report? Also, just because the other Democrat didn't sign the Minority report approving of annexation, doesn't automatically make him anti-annexation. --M.ana 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I believe Ken lists at least four witness names here, although the difference between an "annexationist" (which many people avowed to be), and a witness detrimental to the viewpoint of the PG may be debateable. Insofar as the opinion of the other democrat, besides George Gray, regarding annexation, his conspicuous lack of assertion that he was pro-annexation, given that the other two democracts specifically said they were in favor of annexation, seems to heavily indicate he was anti-annexation. If you find more information regarding him, I could be convinced his opinion was pro-annexation, but without evidence, I think the weight of evidence points in one direction. --JereKrischel 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's why I specifically said "to read the Blount report and ingest everybodies sentiment."--M.ana 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State the Case

Hi! I'd like to get the involved parties to state their cases. I would like to see where we can start with agreement and exactly what the issues are. Please use this place to make your own case without refuting the other side. Anyone who feels they have a stake in the resolution should feel free to state their cases. thanks, --Tbeatty 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One view of the dispute

The Morgan Report is a historical document which refutes many of the claims of hawaiian sovereignty activists. As such, it is challenged by them for several reasons (we've listed those challenges under the "Controversies regarding the Morgan Report" section).

I feel it is important to characterize accurately and evenly both sides of these particular controversies, and have been under the impression that M.ana wants to eliminate any references that may provide rebuttal to the critiques of the Morgan Report. I am under this impression because of his numerous edits to the "Contradicted by the "Apology Resolution"" section, with comments critical of how the rebuttal is characterized, did not bother to edit the text to improve it as per his critique, but merely deleted the entire rebuttal, leaving only the original critique available.

One of his particular critiques of the rebuttal in the "Contradicted by the "Apology Resolution"" is that it cites an article at a website which I have written and maintain. Over this past winter, with the help of other volunteers, I was able to scan and wikify the entire 808 page Morgan Report, which had previously been unavailable in a searchable format on the web. Included in this work has been opinion and commentary not appropriate for wikipedia, both because it is original research, and because it does not have the same NPOV quality (although we strive for it as best we can).

I would like to keep the current reference to the external article that I have written, and ask that further edits due to disagreement avoid mass deletion of entire sections. --JereKrischel 00:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we will get a response. Here's my take on the external article though and it is my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. First, on the policy on "No Original Research." I don't believe this qualifies as such. However, there seems to be a clear constituency or client for the web page. In that sense it is an opinion and not a refereed journal. I believe references to the report should reflect who holds the opinion or interpretation (or who funds the report, etc, etc,). It can be broad groups but I would stay away from generic language such as "Some believe", "According to critics", etc. For example, "The Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and other critics believe" or "Groups such as the Grassroots Institue of Hawaii are critical of ..." is fine and you can reference your work. This is a wikipedia guideline under the "weasel words",
Certainly, factual references about the Morgan report should go to the original sources (i.e. the fact that is was 1894) or news media accounts and this seems to be the case. In cases where you have "wikified" factual documents, cite both. But since the whole idea of Wikipedia is to "Wikify" human knowledgem the fact that you did it on your web page should not violate Wikipedia Policy.
So the short answer is keep it, but reword "Critics of" to the actual holders of the opinions. Name a few of them that are on your web page and cite your web page. I think the organizations that hold these views are substantial enough that their opinion can be included in the article. I think this will also force the due diligence necessary to avoid mischaracterizing an organizations beliefs or opinions. --Tbeatty 07:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Tbeatty, I'll see what I can do to adjust things. Of particular note though, I'm not affiliated with any particular group (i.e., I'm not part of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii). As an independent, unaffiliated with any group, I would come under the header of "other critics". Your time and attention are appreciated. --JereKrischel 07:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been on hiatus. The problem I have with him referencing himself is that his site is under the guise of wikipedia. There is no NPOV editing involved except for his one sided approach. I thoroughly believe that the sources should be referenced from their original sources, and have even suggested to jerekrischel that he cite the original source or at least another source that corroborates what his site is asserting.
I agree with Jerekrischel in that there should be both sides of the story told. So far, everything I've put up jerekrischel has taken and given a sympathetic tone to. It wasn't until recently, where I pointed out that most of the material that he put up was a copy and paste job from his personal site, that he suddenly developed a conscious. He has been less than forthcoming and admits to having to try hard to be NPOV. As far as the opinion pieces, for every point there is certainly a counterpoint. In fact, I could probably go back over all of Jerekrischels work and add a "yeah, but" statement. I have refrained to do so, yet Jerekrischel insists on doing it to everything I put up.--M.ana 07:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As an independent, unaffiliated with any group, I would come under the header of "other critics". Your time and attention are appreciated. Unfortunately, I think that you cannot keep 'Other Critics' type arguments. If "Other Critics" means "JereKrischel", then that's what the article should state. It then becomes obvious it should be removed. Please keep the arguments to those espoused by substantial groups, works published in the news media, reviewed journals, primary source documents, etc.
There is also no room for the "yes, but" type arguments that come under the 'Weasel Word'[WP:Weasel]. Opposing views should be listed with attribution as to who holds them.--Tbeatty 16:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point Tbeatty...I suppose I have sympathy with groups like the Grassroot Institute, and Aloha for All, and on my own I'm not much of a name, although I did have an editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser regarding my work on the Morgan Report, and have a cross-link in place with the University of Hawaii...I'll work on the wording, please let me know if it sounds okay to you. --JereKrischel 17:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Request

There seems to be repeated references to the Turpie Resolution in this article. The Resolution is linked to a non-existent article. For research purposes would anyone with knowledge on the subject be willing to create an article about it? If I had any real idea what it was I would do it myself, however it seems that whoever included it in the article knows what they're refering to. Its not truly mentioned in any other of the articles on the overthrow of the monarchy and for the sake of being complete having an article for it would be nice. Oroneko 17:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the direct reference...it's a very short resolution:

The Turpie resolution, which passed the Senate on May 31, 1894, and stated: "That of right it belongs wholly to the poeple of the Hawaiian Islands to establish and maintain their own form of government and domestic polity; ..." Congressional Record, 53 Cong. 2 sess., p. 5499 (May 31, 1894).

--JereKrischel 07:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apology resolution defense (Morgan Report Contradicted by Apology Resolution)

I'm not sure if it helps to put in some sort of apology resolution defense not specifically related to whether or not it contradicts the Morgan Report on some factual basis. Including text supporting PL 103-150 in general doesn't seem to be appropriate in the specific context...maybe we could tighten that whole section up, or remove it all together? I think it was put there originally as a critique, but it isn't a very strong one, and lends itself to contradiction. Thoughts Kaihoku? --JereKrischel 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking at your own talk page, Kaihoku - in any case, the question being addressed is whether or not the Morgan Report is contradicted on a historical basis by the Apology Resolution, not whether or not it was a morally proper resolution. --JereKrischel 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at my own page... you had originally answered me on my Talk and since it was late and I was tired, I naturally looked there.

Anyhow, I appreciate that you're trying to keep this factual, but I think it's easy for readers to confuse the factual with the moral in this highly charged subject. Many readers may feel that the moral trumps the factual anyhow. Not only that, when you're discussing "Controversy" it is by nature, POV.

I think we need to have either the "other side" presented in some form, or a statement clarifying that this is a "factual challenge" as opposed to a moral one, or as you suggest, delete it altogether. Thoughts? Mahalo, JK. Kaihoku 11:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm for deleting it altogether...the Morgan Report really stands on its own, and the interpretation of the Apology Resolution as unbiased fact is a fairly fringe POV. Although there is the POV that the PL103-150 has some moral basis, it is terribly hard to defend as having a factual basis. I'll make the edit, see if that helps. --JereKrischel 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Appreciate the deletion. Factual or not, it was too easy to mix fact and emotion. Mahalo nui loa. --Kai
Kaihoku 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/o/r/Talk%7EMorgan_Report_ac69.html"