Talk:Kingdom of Hawaii

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Kingdom of Hawaii, 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments

From the picture of Victoria: Princess Victoria Kaiulani, a member of the Kalakaua Dynasty, was in line to become Queen of Hawaii when her kingdom was overthrown by Americans.

I think the word "Americans," should be replaced with "American businessmen," to show that it wasn't the U.S. Government that organized the issue (although they clearly helped massively) but that it was business owners that wished to force Hawaii to join the U.S. in order to mitigate taxation on imported items (like sugar.)

I know it's probably splitting hairs, but that's how I feel. I personally won't edit the document, I will leave that to others should they agree.

Actually, we encourage you to be bold in editing, so long as you follow our neutrality policy. And I don't really know enough about this issue to judge whether your addition would be neutral. Oh, just a note--it's considered polite to sign your talk page posts, using 4 tildes (like this: ~~~~). Best, Meelar 16:42, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it's safe to add businessmen to the the caption. Gerald Farinas 18:13, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that businessmen is probably appropriate. They initiated the action. Jimaginator 20:32, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Feudal society?

Is it fair to label that the old tapu system implemented in the Hawaiian islands prior to 1810 was a "feudal society", something that actually describes a European term?

I do not know if the term applies in this case, but feudal does not imply European. That the term was coined for European societies does not matter. If the society had the characteristics, it can be called feudal. Two further remarks:
  • Your asking "if it is fair" seems to imply feudal is a negative assessment; I think it is neutral.
  • I looked for the word tapu and it is not in the text. There is an article but you talk about the "tapu system". Maybe you could explain this in the article.
Piet 11:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


I am trying to validate the truth of a friend of mine's claim that she is a descendent of the royal line, is there any where I could check this? I only have her married name, not her maiden name.


isn't it the "Kapu" system?

Yes, It is the Kapu System not Tapu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hauulagirl69 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Link

Just to make a note, that the David Keanu Sai's webpage is HAWAIIAN KINGDOM GOVERNMENT. It was incorrectly written Hawaiian Kingdom Separatist Government. There's nothing in there about being separate.69.139.190.10 01:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formation section

The formation section is terrible. The way it is now, I am tempted to simply remove it. I don't really understand what is said there so I can't rewrite it. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone can improve it, after that I will do it (using an axe :-) ). Piet 11:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Do the changes I made make it more clear? --JereKrischel 15:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now it means something :-) Thanks, JereKrischel! Piet 08:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Pushing

The revert of Tom Gardner's edits was based on both factual inaccuracies (derived from the Blount Report which was contradicted by the Morgan Report after a more thorough investigation), as well as outright falsehoods with no historical basis. In particular:

  • The U.S. peacekeepers from the Boston did not take over the palace, and were ordered to remain completely neutral;
  • There were threats of violence and arson made during the period in question.

Also, the tenor and tone of the edits was clearly biased in favor of the Queen and against those who put her out of power. --JereKrischel 01:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Infobox

i made an infobox. what do u guys think? Coojah 00:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hawaiʻi
(1795 — 1893)

Flag
Coat of Arms
Official language Hawaiian & English
Capital Lahaina (1820-1845)
Honolulu
Area 10,931 sq mi (29,311 km²)
Population  ??
Government Constitutional monarchy
Monarch
Creation

Kamehameha unified the smaller independent chiefdoms of Hawaiʻi, Oʻahu, Maui, Molokaʻi, Lānaʻi and Kauaʻi into,
the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi.
Currency Hawaiian dollar (1879)
National anthem Hawaiʻi Ponoʻi
National motto Ua Mau ke Ea o ka Aina i ka Pono
Successor Provisional Government,
Republic of Hawaii
Quite nice, but this should instead use Template:Infobox Former Country. —Nightstallion (?) 15:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic origins

I'm not sure if "businessmen" or "of american ancestry" does justice to the makeup of the Committee of Safety or the provisional government. There were germans, tasmanians, and americans in the Committee of Safety, including 5 naturalized Hawaiian Kingdom subjects, and 2 native-born Hawaiian Kingdom subjects of foreign descent. And insofar as "businessmen", there were notable businessmen supporting the Queen as well (Claus Spreckels), and many of the Provisional Government were in fact Hawaiian Kingdom government officers, including members of the legislature and the Supreme Court of Hawaii. I think that painting them simply as "businessmen" or "americans" belies the diversity of the group. And to highlight the color of their skin seems a bit simplistic as well. I'm open to other ideas on how to describe them, but I think some change is necessary. --JereKrischel 05:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's good research you've done. I'd say that the information above should go in. I don't think anyone wants to oversimplify, and good research is really welcome because unfortunately a lot of people just are not very thorough. If it takes a few more sentences of description (or footnotes), so be it!  :) Badagnani 05:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial dispute?

List_of_disputed_or_occupied_territories references this page as a party to a current dispute over the status of Hawaii, but a cursory review of this page only shows historical information (save the link at the bottom which is presently not responding.) Does this article need to be expanded, or is there another article that needs to be referenced? Phaelon 00:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the mention. There is no territorial dispute, and no occupation in Hawaii - a tiny but very vocal "sovereignty" movement insists that the 1894 internationally recognized declaration of the Republic of Hawaii, and every legal act thereafter is invalid. --JereKrischel 05:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


All this article, but especially the final, is a Mr. Proper history. What a shame !!!. See you the another link articles about this subject. Many are the simple list of the Hawaian kings... What is the problem ?. A false pudor and a supposed neutrality... The sames editors, would hanging the label that I have see in another articles: THIS ARTICLE IS UNDER REVISION ABOUT THE RULES CONCERNING TO NEUTRALITY... An usurpation, a coup d'etat is a coup d'etat here and in Tegucigalpa...

[edit] Dispute

[edit] Recent POV pushing

A few notes on rationale for recent reverts:

1) Liliuokalani did not allegedly support the opium and lottery bills in 1892/1893, she actually did support them. Please see Kuykendall and Andrade.

2) No Hawaii Kingdom constitution was ever ratified, nor was there provision for ratification in any of the constitutions. The 1839, 1840 and 1852 constitutions were granted by Kamehameha III, the 1864 constitution was granted by Kamehameha V, the 1887 constitution was granted by Kalakaua (albeit under duress). Asserting that the 1887 constitution "wasn't ratified" is weasel-wordy.

3) Far less than 96% of Hawaiian subjects signed the Ku'e petitions - the anti-annexation petition contains only a little over 21,000 signatures which would be slightly over 50 percent of the native population at the time, and only 19 percent of the total population, not to mention the significant fraud found, with a large number of forged signatures.

I certainly welcome help in maintaining a neutral tone, but simply inserting false and unreferenced assertions isn't very constructive. --JereKrischel 05:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

JK, I appreciate your comments, however, I hope you will understand that many of your edits are seen by others as equally POV as those you seek to edit. As you will note, I reverted (again) your addition of the "alleged" and "perceived" qualifiers preceeding "U.S. role [in the coup]". I urge you to accept the fact that the U.S. did play a role; it is not alleged that it played a role, it is a historical fact. As for your points above, I have no current position on #1. As for #2, fair enough; however, I seem to recall that at one point you were advocating language that mentioned Liliuokalani's lack of support for a constitution that "she had sworn to uphold". This is clearly inconsistent at best with what you're saying here and -- if I were to be uncharitable -- at worst, evidence of POV pushing. Point #3: doesn't demonstrate anything given the fact that people are easily intimidated by a U.S. military presence. As for your final comments, I second them and hope you will genuinely join efforts to maintain a neutral tone and not the POV pushing to which you are often prone. Cheers, Arjuna 05:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Mahalo Arjuna, I have reverted your reverts again as well. Please understand that whether or not the U.S. played a role in the 1893 Hawaiian Revolution is a matter of dispute, which can easily be seen by the Blount Report, Morgan Report, 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, and PL103-150. Simply stating it is "historical fact" is cherry picking the historical documents you wish to acknowledge. It is much more neutral in tone to assert that the role is alleged - perhaps you can help find a better word that would be a compromise? Perhaps we could enter some sort of mediation?
Also, it seems a bit against assuming good faith to demand that my edits to reach NPOV today are somehow tainted by edits we may have disputed in the past. Please consider my points in good faith. --JereKrischel 14:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alleged (?) U.S. Role in 1893

JK, I don't know what the problem is here. U.S. troops were displayed in a show of force outside the palace on the day of the coup. Since their very presence was designed to (and did) intimidate, there was by definition a U.S. role in the overthrow. QED. Sorry, but that is the end of story. As for reverting (again) your addition that the 1887 Constitution was imposed because of numerous royal corruption scandals, that is misleadingly disingenuous. While true that that was one of the reasons (and quite a legitimate thing to want to correct), it is stated out of context. In other words, to state that that was the main or only reason is totally misleading, as surely you must acknowledge. There were clearly other reasons for the coercion against Kalakaua. Mahalo. Arjuna 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. troops saluted to the palace as they passed. Just as valid as your interpretation, is the interpretation that their presence was designed to comfort American non-combatants, and that only as an unintended side effect did they intimidate.
Could you name and cite a single other reason for using coercion against Kalakaua? Both Kuykendall and Andrade, as well as the newspapers of the time, point to the conflict over Kalakaua's scandals as the primary motivating factor for the 1887 constitution. Can you provide a counter citation, and simply cite it? --JereKrischel 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

JK, wow. That doesn't pass the laugh test. No credibility. I'll get back to you on your second question. Arjuna 02:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you find the historical record laughable - you can read it for yourself in testimony from the Morgan Report, and in the Native Hawaiians Study Commission report. Whether or not you consider those personally credible, they are valid alternative points of view to your interpretation.

In landing the troops from the Boston there was no demonstration of actual hostilities, and their conduct was as quiet and as respectful as it had been on many previous occasions when they were landed for the purpose of drill and practice. In passing the palace on their way to the point at which they were halted, the Queen appeared upon the balcony and the troops respectfully saluted her by presenting arms and dipping the flag, and made no demonstration of any hostile intent. - The Morgan Report, p367

Please try to understand that the same "laugh test" you seem to be using could just as easily go the other way, and that we need to present both sides of the issue, not just one. --JereKrischel 16:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are utilizing the tired tactics of conservative radio talk show hosts in saying that in arguing a certain position that I "am find[ing] the historical record laughable". (It's like right-wing nut jobs asking those who opposed the U.S. war in Iraq, "Why do you hate America?"). I have stated infinitum what I find laughable, and it is certainly not the facts of history. It is your interpretation that U.S. troops "presence was designed to comfort American non-combatants, and that only as an unintended side effect did they intimidate". There are two possibilities here. One is that you think you can insult the intelligence of anyone who reads that statement. Or two, that you realize how funny it is since you intended it as a parody. I'm going to be charitable and assume the latter. Arjuna 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, Arjuna, refrain from personal attacks and assume good faith. We can both have different perspectives on the historical record, and be intelligent, rational people. I accept that you honestly hold your POV, even though I feel you are misinformed and misguided. Please return the favor.
Both perspectives are deserving of presentation, and your attempt to violate WP:NPOV and censor perspectives you don't agree with is not constructive. Mahalo for reconsidering your position. --JereKrischel 21:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

JK, first of all, there have been no personal attacks whatsoever and it's unfortunate that you feel that way. I certainly respect your right to have a POV, but I strongly disagree with you trying to push it in these articles. There are certain historical facts that you insist on trying to qualify without truthful justification. I don't feel there is any other recourse but to report your behavior to the administrators. Arjuna 21:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai, Arjuna, but comparing me to "tired tactics of conservative radio talk show hosts" is not constructive, and is a personal attack. It is unfortunate that you can't understand that. Respecting my right to have a POV, but refusing the right to have that POV represented appropriately with citations in these articles is an internal contradiction. We both agree that U.S. peacekeepers landed. This is a fact. We disagree on whether or not the landing of those peacekeepers was intended to intimidate. There is no fact for you to assert there, only opinion. I hope that you will be able to understand this distinction with the help of administrator mediation. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 21:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure United States Public Law 103-150 apologises for the alleged role the United States played in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. That is because the Morgan report is also disputed by historians, Americans, native Hawaiians and others. The article should stay neutral on issues of dispute or at least give both sides of the argument. JK when I read the article it does seem very biased freeing the US of any blame yet 'United States Public Law 103-150' says otherwise.

United States Public Law 103-150 signed in law in 1993 - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/US_Public_Law_103-150

  • Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the "United States Minister"), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii;
  • Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government;
  • Whereas, on the afternoon of January 17,1893, a Committee of Safety that represented the American and European sugar planters, descendants of missionaries, and financiers deposed the Hawaiian monarchy and proclaimed the establishment of a Provisional Government;
  • Whereas, the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law;
  • Whereas, without the active support and intervention by the United States diplomatic and military representatives, the insurrection against the Government of Queen Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms;
  • Whereas, on February 1, 1893, the United States Minister raised the American flag and proclaimed Hawaii to be a protectorate of the United States;
  • Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators, described such acts as an "act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress", and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown

There's a lot more in that law also which I haven't mentioned use the link above to read it. (One Pence 23:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC))

Mahalo One Pence, have you read Bruce Fein's response to the historical accuracy of PL103-150? I'm more than happy to see detailed support for specific assertions of the PL103-150, but since it really represents a one-sided summary of history, and wasn't constructed in any sort of commission or with any sort of fact-checking or devil's advocacy, it seems difficult to assert that we should take it as bald fact. The Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report of 1983 is probably a better resource, considering that it was written with both sides able to argue and refute issues, rather than PL103-150, which was not subject to any fact-checking or debate.
Your take on the critique of 103-150 would be much appreciated. --JereKrischel 01:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kinzer, secondary sources

Aloha, Arjuna, I've reverted several of your changes, I wanted to explain why.

1) "overthrew the government" is not quite accurate -> they took over the government, and overthrew the queen. I hope my new text makes that clear.

2) Kinzer is an unreliable source for the sugar motivation -

On page 4, Kinzer states:

The influence that economic power exercises over American foreign policy has grown tremendously since the days when ambitious planters in Hawaii realized that by bringing their islands into the United States, they would be able to send their sugar to markets on the mainland without paying import duties..[1]

Although catchy, and certainly reasonable on its face, his statement suffers from several problems.

The sugar issue in the late 1890s due to the passage of the McKinley Tarriff did not add any import duties to Hawaiian sugar - in fact, it eliminated all duties on all foreign sugar. This did have a deleterious effect in Hawaii, but only because it undermined a previous advantage held by Hawaiian sugar producers granted by the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874. Annexation to the United States was a double-edged sword for Hawaiian sugar, because on the one hand, they would enjoy a 2 cent per pound bounty as "domestic" producers - but then they would also be subject to U.S. labor laws and regulations, whereas under the kingdom they were unfettered by such concerns. A very prominent sugar baron, Claus Spreckels aka "King Spreckels", was a staunch royalist, and to assert that all Hawaiian sugar planters were of one mind on the matter is deceptive.

Richard D. Weigle wrote a piece, Sugar and the Hawaiian Revolution in the February 1947 Pacific Historical Review, stating:

In actual fact the planters comprised a vigorous bloc of opinion opposing annexation to the United States, and the key to their attitude lies in their dependence upon contract labor. Annexation to the United States would mean conformity to American immigration legislation and the cessation of the influx of laborers from Asiatic countries so necessary to the life of the plantations.[2]

Weigle further states:

we may at the at the outset discard the thesis that the revolution was an attempt by the Hawaiian planters to secure the domestic bounty...the elusive bounty would not have gone to the Hawaiian planters it its entirety...The planters probably realized that its continuance was extremely uncertain.[3]

After closely examining the positions of the eight major sugar planters and investors of 1893, Weigle comes to the conclusion:

The revolution was certainly not a sugar planters' revolution. Of the eight leading planters in the islands three proved to be actively antagonistic to annexation - Spreckels, Davies, and Isenberg. Irwin preferred the old status in the islands and was away from Hawaii when the monarchy was overthrown. Evidence on Alexander is lacking, but his name is nowhere mentioned in the annals of the revolution. Baldwin opposed unconstitutional action until the last, then joined the annexationists because he felt the need for good government. Spalding, the only unreserved American annexationist among the planters, was out of the islands at the time. Young participated in the revolution, though not as one of the original promoters. Like Baldwin, he based his position on the need for stable government.[4]

3) Stevens did not order peacekeepers to be landed - he requested them, G.C. Wiltse gave the orders. From Russ, p 105:

One fact, and one only, lessens Steven's guilt...the landingof the American force was the work entirely of Wiltse, rather than of Stevens...Wiltse gave Young orders to get his men ready to land.

4) Saying "ostensibly" when quoting Wiltse's actual orders is in-line editorializing.

5) I've added the cite to Swinburne from Russ

--JereKrischel 07:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overthrow of a government, or overthrow of a monarch?

To address the above points (only have time for a couple now):

1. Such an amateurish mistake is surprising. It was indeed an overthrow, not a takeover, of the government. They abrogated the monarchy and proclaimed a provisional government. It declared the Hawaiian monarchical system of government at an end and a Provisional Government established...until terms of union with the United States of America have been...agreed upon" (Loomis, p. 19). See also Daws p. 275; Tate, 185; et al. How the facts on record could be construed as a mere change in government is bizarre. It was an overthrow -- summary judgement.

2. Re: the sugar motivation. Kinzer, being a secondary source, is certainly not authoritative, and no one is suggesting he is. As to the subject itself, the evidence is not unambiguous, but to suggest that Wiegle is the last word on the subject is absurd on its face. An argument that because motivations underlying a public action are not universal is therefore proof that the motivation did not exist at all is an inductive fallacy. Other scholars would certainly suggest that sugar was a significant part of the equation. But it's interesting that JK is parroting Thurston's talking points to the U.S. Congress (Daws, p. 288).

3. JK's attempt to differentiate between "ordered" from "requested" is trivial. In Minister Stevens' letter to Captain Wiltse, he says "I request...", while his response to a later request from the Committee of Safety to delay the landing has it that "I ordered" (Tate, p. 174). I assume the larger point he is trying to make is whether it was Minister Stevens or Captain Wiltze who "pulled the trigger". On this point the evidence is murky. This ambiguity is discussed by Tate (p. 176 - 178). The evidence that it was Stevens is fairly obvious: At 3pm on 16 January, Stevens ordered Captain Wiltse to land Marines..."to secure the safety of American life and property", and the fact that Stevens generally took credit for the landing (Russ, p. 106). On the other hand, Young (Wiltse's Lieutenant) provided testimony that Wiltse independently came to the conclusion that troops were necessary and that he acted on his own authority. To suggest that Russ presents the evidence as unambigously supporting Young's testimony is either a sophomoric mistake or intellectually dishonest: Russ suggests that Stevens and Wiltse were clearly in close contact prior to the overthrow and each knew what the other's intentions were and how to support the other (Russ, p. 106) -- i.e. they were on the same page. Russ also suggests that Young's story was convenient in preventing a charge of collusion between U.S. agents and the Committee of Safety, suggesting that it is certainly conceivable that Wiltse, Young, et al. were being "good soldiers" who knew when to back the official story (ibid.). In other words, "duh". The bottom line, perhaps, is that Stevens was the ranking U.S. official at the time, and if he did not order the landing, then for a U.S. military figure to have unilaterally made the deployment is hardly exculpatory. Arjuna 10:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, thank you for your comments.
1) it was quite arguably not an "overthrow of the government" - the entire civil service remained in place except for the queen, her cabinet and her marshal. You could just as easily state that changing from a Republican administration to a Democrat one is an "overthrow". The queen, her cabinet, and her marshal were overthrown, to be perfectly specific. If we wish to be accurate, we should make clear the difference between wholesale replacement of an entire government (an overthrow), and the replacement of only 6 people in the executive branch.
2) Have you read Wiegle? This argument is not one of inductive fallacy - he argues instead against the hasty generalization fallacy which Kinzer falls victim to. Whether or not economics (which was primarily sugar) motivated the search for better government is not the question here - Kinzer instead states that "ambitious planters" were the motivating factor. This is clearly false, as demonstrated by the evidence Wiegle presents. There is no question that sugar, as a proxy for economic well-being, was a cause for concern, especially under Kalakaua and Liliuokalani, who drove the Kingdom into deep debt. However, jumping from that to asserting that the revolution was planned, plotted, executed and caused by sugar planters is simply false.
3) "Ordered" and "requested" are the accurate terms here, and I'm simply suggesting we use them. If there is ambiguity you wish to assert, please, let us assert that ambiguity rather than using a loaded term such as "ordered".
--JereKrischel 15:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Only time to address #1 right now. No, it is not arguable I'm afraid. To suggest that a forced change from a monarchical system of government to a Republic (the provisional stage is inherently transitory and thus trivial) was "not an overthrow of the government" is a mistake I would not accept from a high school student. Arjuna 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The provisional stage was hardly trivial - it was in effect for over a year...arguably the longest "overthrow" I've ever heard of. The forced change from a constitutional monarchy led by a figurehead monarch and a cabinet, to a constitutional monarchy with the throne vacant, led by a council, is hardly a overthrow of government - it is simply a change in leadership. It was not until July 4, 1894 that the Republic was declared.
And please, refrain from petty sniping or personal attacks when trying to discuss this - even though I did not graduate from high school, I can assure you that this point is rationally debatable, and not indiscriminately so. Your future restraint is appreciated. --JereKrischel 06:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you cannot differentiate between criticism of your argument, which I did and is entirely valid, and against you personally, which I did not. And the point is not debatable -- if you are not capable of understanding basic definitions and facts then it is not my job to educate you. So you are welcome to keep making this argument, if you want to look like a fool. In fact, please do, it's rather amusing. Arjuna 09:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've lost me again - on the one hand you are implying that somehow I'm incapable of understanding basic definitions, but on the other hand you assert you are only criticizing my argument. Please explain why you are so certain that the point is not debatable, and why your perception of the argument is somehow superior and absolute compared to anyone else's. You seem to be making a simple ad hominem attack, asserting that my argument is flawed because I'm either not educated enough, or have the capacity for understanding that you ascribe to yourself. Please correct me if I've misunderstood your comments, and offer some rationale for why you believe that you are absolutely correct beyond reproach on this matter. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do not revert this again?

Aloha Arjuna, but I'm afraid appealing to your own personal imperative isn't very compelling. Please at least attempt to explain why you believe you are absolutely correct above reproach on this matter. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Not my job. Perhaps you can educate yourself on basic political definitions. Arjuna 04:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you need to take some time to calm yourself down, Arjuna. If you'd like to move these articles forward, please work in good faith. If you're just going to edit war, and proclaim yourself as an unimpeachable source that cannot possibly be wrong, you're not being very helpful. I'm more than happy and willing to work with you on balancing these articles, but it isn't going to happen by your royal fiat.
Please, reconsider your current course of action, and work with me towards something more constructive. We've had rough spots before, and we've gotten through it - we can do it again this time. Mahalo, and I hope your cold gets better soon. --JereKrischel 08:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me -- whose royal fiat? I added citations for all my additions, while you simply reverted said cited material. You are in acting in evident bad faith, and you are the one who should reconsider their actions. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy, and I will take this up with authorities higher than simply Viriditas (as much as I respect him, he is not an administrator). I am quite calm -- perhaps you, given your reversion of excellent citations, should look in the mirror. Given your idiosyncratic interpretation of the most basic, uncontested (by experts -- I'm exclusing the both of us) facts, I no longer feel I can work with you. Arjuna 08:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha arjuna, but I haven't demanded that you don't revert something without making clear what my objections were. Your spamming of every page that mentioned the Morgan Report with biased, in-line editorializing and a twisted view of the works you've cited was clearly unacceptable POV pushing, and I think follows true to your claim that you no longer feel you can work with me. This is unfortunate, because I believe you bring an important voice to the table, but unless you are willing to work together, things will simply not improve. --JereKrischel 03:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
JK: No, you don't demand it, you simply revert it with the fiat that it is "POV pushing" -- despite the fact that it is all documented (quite inconveniently so, from your perspective, I have no doubt). It is telling that you consider meticulously cited additions -- and few deletions of (your?) material -- as "spamming". As for whether or not the material I added was "biased editorializing", it was very carefully aligned with the tone as well as substance of the material in the scholarly works cited. So the fact that you consider it so reflects more upon your ideology than the material itself. Most unfortunate indeed. As to whether or not the articles will improve, I definitely believe they will when it becomes evident that the scholarly sources support the neutral POV that I seek, rather than your very biased and ideological POV. You seem to forget that, as I have stated on numerous occasions, I am no radical, simply someone who does not believe in whitewashing history.
I also believe that things would improve dramatically if you were to stop behaving as though you "owned" the articles. Obviously you do not, so please try to restrain yourself.
Finally, although I truly wish I could say otherwise, no, I do not believe I can work with a person whose basic grasp of accepted concepts is so evidently lacking that they engage in idiosyncratic and ideologically based attempts to twist common definitions -- eg. that the Committee of Safety merely "took over the government" rather than abrogated ("overthrew") a system of government. No credible person would make such a statement. You did -- and are apparently sticking to it -- which does such wonders for your credibility that I do sincerely thank you the gift. I promise to reference it often. I might also remind you that at one point you claimed that Kinzer supported your position -- which proved either that you claimed to have, but did not actually, read the book, or something else that WP:CIVIL prevents me from suggesting. As a fellow human being you still have my respect, and think your perspective should be represented in the articles in a proper (that is to say, minority) context, but I find your tendentious perspective to be singularly unhelpful and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.
You still haven't answered my question about your stalking my online identity, which I find creepy. I would like to think that despite our ideological and epistemological divide, which I regret to say I now find insurmountable, that you are still a nice person. Please reassure me on that point. Arjuna 04:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As per my note on your talk page, p372 of Russ, The Hawaiian Revolution, is the last page of the book - can you please explain how you got out of the last of the "W"s and the "Y"s in the index, the idea that the factual accuracy of the Morgan Report was disputed?
Also, about your online identity, I've responded on your talk page - just as you decided to research my non-Wikipedia writing, I felt it was important that I attempt to understand how I managed to so offend you with statements decrying the claims of collective racial supremacy of the nazis, south african apartheid regime, and race-based hawaiian sovereignty activists. I do not intend to discover who you are IRL, and I respect your right and desire for anonymity, even though I do not choose to exercise such identity obfuscations myself. That being said, I believe you are a good person at heart, and I'm almost sure that most of our disagreements could be solved over a good meal together IRL. --JereKrischel 05:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In answer to the first question: because I misunderstood the citation format at first, thinking the field was for the total number of pages in the book was in total. Later I realized my mistake and was in the midst of changing them to the actual page numbers when I was rudely interrupted by your reversions.
To your second point: I don't doubt that you have many fine qualities as well, but a fair-minded editor or thinker is not one of them. Sorry. Arjuna 08:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that in order for you to be effective here in Wikipedia, you're going to have to be open to the possibility that others can be both fair-minded editors and thinkers, without agreeing with your point of view. I believe you can be fair-minded, but I don't believe your recent edits have been fair-minded. I would hope that you would be so kind as to have problem with my specific edits (which very well at times may not be as fair-minded in thought or tone as I would like them to be), rather than ascribe that problem to my own inherent character. --JereKrischel 21:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I would suggest that you would do well to apply the same to yourself first, and understand why your good faith credits are depleted amongst so many other editors who feel they have "had the displeasure of working with you". That's just one example and to list all the editors you have alienated would take hours. You might do well to reconsider how you can be an effective editor at Wikipedia, which past and current evidence suggests you aren't. Arjuna 21:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As with all people, I've had conflicts on wikipedia in the past. Certainly you have as well. However, assuming that there are "good faith credits" that can be depleted because of disagreements is not abiding by WP:AGF. I'm sorry you feel alienated somehow, and even more disappointed at your explicitly stated reason (since apparently comparisons to Nazis don't always disgust you), but I'm hopeful that as you calm down you will be willing to assume good faith, and work together. You have a valuable part to play in the improvement of these articles, and even though your recent edits have not shown good faith, I do believe you are trying your best and are approaching this process with good faith in your heart. --JereKrischel 23:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Your attempt at striking a superior pose is quite amusing! I need not address such juvenile comments. Just FYI, what used up the last of your good faith credits was not your comparison of Hawaiian activists to Nazis and their agenda to apartheid, but rather your attempt to get me to remove the POV tags when you knew full well that the articles were disputed. Now, make sure you get your last word in! Arjuna 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

what you need to realize is that the people of hawaii did not want for there government the government of hawaii nei to be other thrown by some foreign in an attempt of economic benefit on the part of hawaii sugar plantation owners. by arguing this fact you are basically saying the over throw of the hawaiian monarchy was good and just which it wasn't how can you condone the illegal actions of the United States towards the hawaiian people. you speak of debt. the only reason kalakaua put hawaii into a debt was to restore the feeling of nationalism amongst the people of hawaii, this would only not benefit rich sugar planters who worried of hawaii's unstable economy. personally i don't think that you're taking into view the effect the overthrow had on the hawaiian people and the queen. the queen was illegally and wrongly charged with treason against who? herself. for you to say what america did was legal and clausable shows your ignorance to the plights faced and facing the hawaiian people.

[edit] Ceasefire

I'm sorry if you feel I'm trying to strike a superior pose - I assure you I am being sincere when I hope that you will reassess your idea of "good faith credits" and WP:AGF. And if the problem was my question about POV tags, I must strongly state that my problem was not that they existed, or that you wanted them there, but that you put them there without sufficient justification to help anyone constructively respond to your concerns. I have been trying very hard to learn from you specifically what your issues and concerns are, and even in our interpersonal conflict here have been trying to discover, concretely, where your antagonistic attitude was coming from. I don't ask these questions or try to learn these answers because I'm trying to tease you or insult you - I ask these questions because without concrete answers, I'm not going to be able to work with you, and we aren't going to be able to improve these articles.
Thank you for more clearly explaining what drove you over the edge into a highly-negative attitude towards me. The nazi/apartheid/racial-activists comparison didn't seem like a very reasonable trigger, and now that you've clearly stated that it was the POV tag dispute, I hope you accept my sincere apologies for offending you with my edits and concerns - my intent was not to suppress your concerns, but to get more concrete and detailed with them. I believe that you are truly interested in helping build a balanced presentation in these articles, and I believe that if we work on concrete issues and specific passages, phrases and citations, we can make these articles much better.
I don't mean to seem like I'm challenging the existence of a concrete rationale when I challenge you to provide more detail. In fact, I wish I could phrase my requests in a way that didn't seem like they were a direct challenge to you. If I come across as abrupt and brusque, please forgive me.
I know you can provide more detail than you have. And I know you have an important perspective to share. Please help me help you bring that detail and perspective out, so we can improve all of these articles.
Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on your talk page, which I wrote before reading this, but doesn't change what I would have written. I don't mind a challenge, I'm used to it as part of life/business. My frustration arises when I feel as though you make repeated requests for the same information that I have already adequately answered. To challenge the other is not a bad thing, and indeed is part of the process of ensuring the best information outs. Otherwise, it becomes a soapbox, which -- pardon as I am not trying to provoke you -- the articles seem to have been for too long and is what I seek to change. I hope you will accept that I am actually not the radical you may think I am, and I hope you will consider the possibility that the POV in the articles may in fact need to move more towards the center, even when this involves allowing for a certain degree of ambiguity. Life is complicated; the history of human society, of which we are arguing over one small short paragraph in a marginal sub-chapter, is not usually amenable to metaphysical certainty. Arjuna 06:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if my requests seem repeated - I could very well have lost track of answers you've already given, or misunderstood them when they were first offered.
I do believe the article needs to move more towards the center, but I think the way to do that is to tone down the rhetoric on both sides. Perhaps my angst with some of your changes is that they seem to be soapbox v. soapbox, instead of trimming both of the extremes.
I look forward to your help in being both challenging to our sources, assumptions and summaries, and believe that we will improve these articles together. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 06:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Objections

  • POV pushing to assert "The conspirators requested and recieved protection in the form of U.S. troops that were landed in Honolulu and stationed near the royal palace." Wiltse claims he had planned on landing regardless of any requests, by either Stevens, or the Committee...the Committee even asked Stevens to postpone landing.
  • "Conspirators" POV pushing term - the Committee was open in its resistance to the Queen, and the royalists were well informed of their intentions and plans.
  • Weigle quote shouldn't be removed.
  • Asserting "the evidence is ambiguous" is an editorial characterization of Russ - best to simply quote him.
  • Removal of Swinburne's direct quote is inappropriate.
  • Removal of Russ's assertion that Hawaii was incidental to the war with Spain is inappropriate.

Any need to discuss any of these specifics further? Any contentions on these points? --JereKrischel 02:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When was the exact date in 1795 that hawaii was created month and date —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.21.2 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Constitutions

I changed a summary of constitutional changes that implied that the changes were largely progressive--that is, they led away from autocracy to more democratic forms of government. As the section on the 1887 "Bayonet Constitution" should show, however, this was not necessarily the case; the 1887 consitution was clearly regressive vis a vis basic democratic principles. It increased restrictions on the franchise, for example. I instead wrote what appears a commonality--that the constitutional changes increasingly added real power to XXXX foreign (non-Hawaiian) interestsXXXX -- bad wording, see below. Doprendek (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just about immediately changed any suggestion that those of European descent were "foreign"--I know it is contentious and not technically correct. Not necessarily inaccurate over the history of the constitutional changes, given the changing nature of citizenship in the Kingdom, and arguments over the same, but not correct. Doprendek (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Modern Times

Any google search of "Hawaiian Kingdom Government" reveals that there is an organization campaigning for the freedom of Hawaii as a paer of the old Kingdom, which they alleg was taken illegally and occupied. This organization has filed complaints at the Hague and UN, and does appear to be pilitically 9If only marginally) active. Should it be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.119.77 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)