Talk:Apology Resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Apology Resolution article.
Article policies
Hawaii Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaiʻi, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Hawaiʻi. Please participate by editing the article Apology Resolution, or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a brief summary at comments to explain the ratings.)
This article has been marked as needing attention.


Contents

[edit] Should we have the full text here?

I thought we weren't supposed to put entire source material here in wikipedia...isn't there a different place for that? Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources Seems to me that we should remove the text of the bill, post a link to it, and have the article here talk about the proponents of the legislation, the opponents, the history, the future...any objections to removing the text of the bill and linking to it? --JereKrischel 04:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism Rough Draft

Some non-ancestry-based nationalist Hawaiian groups accuse Senators Akaka and Inouye of being accomplices of the U.S. in a long-term anti-Hawaiian strategy. These groups argue that the Apology Resolution is a swindle because it baselessly conflates the Hawaiian Kingdom's internationally recognised sovereignty as a nation-state with concepts like indigenous and Native Hawaiian people. They reason that citizenship in the Kingdom was not defined by ancestry; that an entire country was the victim of the conspirators' misdeeds, not merely certain individuals or groups; and that all loyal Hawaiian nationals were deprived of their right to self-determination, not just "Native" Hawaiians. They point out that it was the U.S. Congress that introduced blood quota requirements in the first place, in the Hawaiian Homelands Commission Act of 1921, over the opposition of their ancestors.

There has also been criticism of the 1993 Apology Bill, which has been used to buttress the Akaka Bill. The Apology Bill of '93 was passed with only one hour of debate on the Senate floor with only five senators participating, three opposed (Slade Gorton, Hank Brown, John C. Danforth) and two in favor (Akaka and Inouye). It passed the house on November 15 in less time with no debate and no objections. Senator Inouye, wrapping up the debate, said:

"As to the matter of the status of Native Hawaiians, as my colleague from Washington knows, from the time of statehood we have been in this debate. Are Native Hawaiians Native Americans? This resolution has nothing to do with that."--Senator Inouye

The reliance upon the text of the Apology Resolution as justification for the Akaka Bill has been seen by some as contradicting Inouye's statements on the matter in 1993.

Bruce Fein has outlined many counterarguments challenging the historical accuracy and completeness of the assertions made by the Apology Bill in this PDF file (592 KB): Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand


How does this look, IslandGyrl? --JereKrischel 00:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
By George, I think we've got it—WikiLove and all that. OK, actually, we'll still have to cobble together a lot of material and make it read well, but really, I think we're on the right track. Otto von Bismarck supposedly said that people with an appetite for law or for sausage should not watch them being made, and the Apology Resolution is no exception. Look at my user sub-page, I'll put my drafts on it and y'all are even welcome to add stuff, as long as it's Wikipedic. --IslandGyrl 06:21, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this attempt at compromise and will refrain from making further edits on this article as long as criticisms of this law are adequately presented. Maybe we should look at other controversial laws such as No Child Left Behind and pattern how opposing views are acknowledged? Just because Congress passes a law does not make it right and Wikipedia needs to have crticism fairly noted. 172.168.70.246 00:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Partisan edits and links

The following material was removed for being obviously partisan—it would have the intro devote more space to pushing anti-Hawaiian activists' political statements than is devoted to the resolution itself. Furthermore, it disguises the fact that in 1993 neither Senator said a word about "historical revisionism" but in fact confirmed the resolution's account of events as being largely accurate.

Slade Gorton and Hank Brown, American Senators who voted against this resolution, have described it as being a piece of historical revisionism. They wrote, "The Apology Resolution distorted historical truths. It falsely claimed that the U.S. participated in the wrongful overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani in 1893. The U.S. remained strictly neutral. It provided neither arms, nor economic assistance, nor diplomatic support to a band of Hawaiian insurgents, who prevailed without firing a single shot, largely because neither the Native Hawaiian numerical majority nor the queen's own government resisted the end of the Hawaiian Kingdom." The full article can be found be found here:
xxxx://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007117
A rebuttal of the points claimed in this law can be found here:
xxxx://www.angelfire.com/hi5/bigfiles3/AkakaHawaiiDividedFeinJune2005.pdf

The Congressional Record shows that neither Senator Gorton nor Senator Brown took issue with the historical accuracy of the resolution's description of events during Senate debate in 1993. Senator Brown justified his nay vote based on other concerns, saying, "We do indeed and should apologize for a violent, forceful overthrow of the [Hawaiian kingdom's] government." Senator Gorton said, "The operative language of this resolution—not about the State's history which seems to this Senator to be largely accurate—but the operative language of this resolution apologizes to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the people of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii more than a century ago, and expresses our commitment to acknowledge the ramifications of the overthrow of that kingdom in order to provide a proper foundation for reconciliation," [boldface emphasis mine] before going on to advance other reasons for his nay vote.

An almost identical block of text has also been inserted into Talk:Sanford B. Dole and at the top of Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement, using a total of three different anonymous IPs. Among other things, the weight of Wikipedia can be misused in this way to enhance the Google ratings of the linked-to URLs (which is why I have here x'ed out the "http" in the links). Folks, link spamming, even from Talk pages, is a violation of WP policy, and so is using WP as a soapbox; but whether WP policies will prove to be enforceable in the anti-Hawaiian / pro-Hawaiian sovereignty disputes—whose number is rapidly increasing—remains to be seen. --IslandGyrl 02:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

As many have questioned the validity of the Apology Resolution, it is appropriate to mark the dissent here. Regardless of the truth of the events of 1893 in Hawaii, the debate on the validity of this resolution is worth noting here. Attempts to censor this violate the neutrality policy of Wikipedia. Even readding the disputed text results in an article which is 90%+ pro-Apology Resolution.

Link spam concerns are not appropriate here as Google and all the search engines give a no follow reference to articles in talk pages. These page pass no PR and do not help the sites in question. This is not an attempt at spamming, it is an attempt to have balanced, fair, and accurate articles. 172.159.214.94 02:58, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

IslandGyrl, would you entertain the idea that despite the congressional record in 1993, that given new information the Sentators have now realized that the apology resolution was a one sided and possibly distortion of the historical record? If they had said the two things close to each other, perhaps we could show them of two minds, but given the recent attention to the one-sided nature of the Apology Resolution, I think that we can safely assume regardless of their previous statements in congress, they have come to dispute the Apology Resolution in it's entirety. --JereKrischel 04:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I have reinstated my deletion, but suggest we promptly cooperate to restore the gist of the deleted material in a separate section: "Criticism by Senators Brown and Gorton" that includes both the 1993 quotes and the 2005 quotes. The transition from the earlier to the later position is a bit tricky. We neither want to make excuses for them, nor would it be fair, in view of the time elapsed, to be snarky ("flip-flopping" etc.). Have the senators themselves acknowledged the contradiction and said they have learned things that changed their minds? If so, we can expand their 2005 quotes or otherwise explicitly indicate that. Otherwise, it's speculation and wording the transition is trickier—it's not our job to invent plausible reasons for politicians' actions. In any case, honesty requires we mention the two contradictory positions, however honourable the reasons for the change may be.
Parallel to this, at some point I shall probably add a section "Criticism by advocates of Hawaiian independence" below the other one. The Akaka bill controversy is also changing minds among those who believe in some form of Hawaiian sovereignty.
Let's also make clear that Mr Fein thinks he is rebutting the case for the resolution, but that we as neutral Wikipedia editors do not prejudge whether he has actually done so. For example we might change rebuttal to attempt at rebuttal.
Google indexes and returns Talk pages as hits, so even if URL rankings were not raised, augmenting Talk pages with multiple copies of what is in essence a free political advert is spamming nonetheless. Let's try to encourage self-restraint and avoid setting a bad example. --IslandGyrl 06:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
As long as we mention the order of the contradictory positions, I think it's fine. It will be interesting to also place the contradictory positions of Akaka and Inouye down as well, since the promises they made about the nature of the apology bill in 1993 have clearly been abrogated by their latest stances.
Insofar as rebutting, Fein is rebutting. The success of his rebuttal is left as an exercise for the reader. Calling it an "attempted rebuttal" is more akin to saying he started off trying to rebut, but ended up talking about pork sausages. Rebuttal (dictionary.com) - "the act or procedure of rebutting; also evidence or argument that rebuts" --JereKrischel 07:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
By all means add Senators Akaka and Inouye's positions. Can we make clear to readers that the controversy is a many-sided one?
Rough draft of what would go in the proposed "Criticism by advocates of Hawaiian independence" section:
Some non-ancestry-based nationalist Hawaiian groups accuse Senators Akaka and Inouye of being accomplices of the U.S. in a long-term anti-Hawaiian strategy. These groups argue that the Apology Resolution is a swindle because it baselessly conflates the Hawaiian Kingdom's internationally recognised sovereignty as a nation-state with concepts like indigenous and Native Hawaiian people. They reason that citizenship in the Kingdom was not defined by ancestry; that an entire country was the victim of the conspirators' misdeeds, not merely certain individuals or groups; and that all loyal Hawaiian nationals were deprived of their right to self-determination, not just "Native" Hawaiians. They point out that it was the U.S. Congress that introduced blood quota requirements in the first place, in the Hawaiian Homelands Commission Act of 1921, over the opposition of their ancestors.
I'm still against rebuttal because for rebut, the dictionary offers synonyms such as refute and disprove. These are too strong. We all would like to think we've refuted or disproved what the other side said; it should be left up to the reader to decide whether we actually did. But on second thought you are quite right, attempt at rebuttal is much too flabby. How about counterargument?
In general, I am sorry if I rankle some spirits, but I do bridle at "hit and run" edits that seem intended to plant a zinger or sound bite and even if factual, are also partisan POV by way of withholding more information than they impart. We're all responsible for protecting Wikipedia against attempts to "game" the system. In an encyclopedia, more is more. If we've got background info, let's try to find a way to give as much of it as is practical to the reader. Let's try to transcend the paradigm of "OK, you insert your talking point, then I insert mine, then you stick in your next one, then I try to clobber that with my next one," etc. --IslandGyrl 23:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute

[edit] NPOV

This article needs work -- the "Arguments Against" section is far more fleshed out than the "Arguments For" and there needs to be a better balance. Don't have time to work on this now, but just making a note. Arjuna 05:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing more balance, but I'm not sure if there is much in the record to support the Apology Resolution. Any specific citations and references would be helpful. --JereKrischel 09:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. Ok. I said I wasn't going to rvv until we discussed, but these I just can't let stand. If someone has a grievance, whether they are right or wrong, whether it is legitimate or not legitimate, it is still a grievance; it is inherently subjective. There for there is no such thing as an "alleged" grievance, which is nonsensical. Second, I know you see this as a "race"-based issue, and this reflects a certain POV to which you are certainly entitled but is inappropriate in the article. It can also be understood as "ethnicity"-based (I'm not going to get fully into this with you, but if it were "racial", then it would be Polynesians getting rights, not Hawaiians, which is the ethnicity. But anyway.) And third, it is really not fair for you to put your POV into the section which is supposed to explain the "pro" side of the argument. Seriously. These sections are already notoriously thin, while the "con" are fully elaborated (something I intend to tackle at some point btw). Finally, you may think I also have a POV on this, but actually I have no dog in the fight in terms of a personal stake -- I simply see this as an issue of fairness and facts, and the articles as currently written are very tendentious and POV, and need to change. Which, hopefully, we and others can find a way to do that fairly represents the facts and various POVs with fairness and balance (in the sense before that was not a trademarked phrase). So that said, I wish you aloha. Arjuna 10:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the grievance section to be clear that they believe they have valid historical grievances, rather than simply implying that they are factually valid. I altered "race" to "ancestry" - both are fairly synonymous terms insofar as the effective weight.
I guess what I'm hoping to get your help on is actual fact - simply stating that some people have a certain opinion, without reference, isn't going to make this article better. As it stands, I think it would help if specific historical grievances, cited directly by someone else claiming a specific historical grievance, were added. E.g., Mr. X of organization Y says that the Apology Resolution was necessary to acknowledge the second-class citizen status given to native Hawaiians by refusing them the vote with the 1900 Organic Act. (Complete hypothetical - it was the Asians who were denied the vote in 1900, but you get the gist.)
The problem with the "Native American" ~ "Native Hawaiian" parallel is that it seems to be a perception without any basis of reference. It certainly was a large factor in getting the PL103-150 passed, but it is difficult to specify and cite the genesis of that parallel, without coming across in a fairly negative matter for those who supported the Apology Bill.
Perhaps you could find notable citations regarding Apology Resolution support? I know we could scour the congressional record for statements by supporting politicians, but AFAIK, most of the rhetoric on it is fairly generalized, without very specific detail. Your help on this is appreciated, even if we may disagree from time to time. Aloha! --JereKrischel 07:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely live with JK's proposed compromise in the first paragraph -- simple yet effective way to avoid POV on either side. Thanks and full credit to JK. This is a good first step -- long a way still to go -- but I appreciate the good faith effort and hope this is a good example we can all follow from here forward. Mahalo and cheers, Arjuna 19:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo Arjuna, glad I could come up with something acceptable. There is a long way to go, but I'm very happy to get there together with you. Mahalo and cheers as well, --JereKrischel 01:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)