Talk:Massie Trial

message: This article suffers from extreme bias of information, with several quotes placed within the text lacking any sourcing or context.  The opening actually says that the men "got away with murder".  Also, the article lacks a large degree of Wikification.--24.16.206.32 09:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias

message: They, the Massie's, which you refer to as "the men" (Kahahawai?), DID get away with murder. They killed the guy, got caught, admitted to it, and their only punishment was that they had to drink tea before leaving town. Would you not describe this as "getting away with it"? I would, and I think most people would.
It would also seem odd that you would claim this article shows "extreme bias". Did you even read any of the articles linked to at the bottom? If anything, the article here does not report some of the more extreme cases of racial injustice that came out during the case. Perhaps you find the very reporting of this racism "biased", but that would be a rather nieve point on which to stand.
And I don't even know what "context" you claim is missing. This was the era of yellow journalism, these sorts of stories were common. The sources are contained in the linked articles.
Maury 15:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: The basic format of this article seems flawed, without use of recognisable breaks in order to allow a contents box to be established. Even if this were fixed, the whole article might need to be re-written anyway - an interesting topic, but completely let down by a lack of continuity.
For example, referring to 'Thomas Massie' in the formal sense, then abruptly changing to "Tommie" seems a little unprofessional.
--TwistedArcade 22:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity? 

message: A preliminary list of sources has been added here for review. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  It's good to have a starting point.  As it happens, I had an opening in my reading, so picked up Stannard's "Honor Killing" at the library.  Even if I don't make the time edit from that, I'll try to give an impression of how useful it may be.  This article clearly needs serious cleanup and sourcing.  IMHO (talk) 23:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Though it's not coming out, I changed the WPHawaii importance tag from high to top for the Massie trial article.  Top is referenced as being of "Statewide scope; multiple important subcategories; deeply reflects Hawaiian identity, life or culture. A "must-have" for Wikipedia:Version 1.0."  The entire affair, from the original rape accusation to the repercussions of the Massie Trial itself affected not only the territory of Hawaii itself, but it's relation to the mainland and the perception by the mainland and the rest of the world.  IMHO (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Importance 

message: Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research before adding comments like this. Aloha. W Nowicki (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced edits removed 

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: Substituted at 23:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: This author's name appears three times as "Peter Van Slingerland" and once as "Peter Van Slingland". Given the frequency I presume the former spelling is correct, but I don't know for sure, so I'll leave someone who does know to make the correction.31.15.247.228 (talk) 08:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Van Slingerland/Slingland?