Talk:Morgan Report

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Selective Witnesses 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edits

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

message: 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)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? M.ana 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Point noted and added in. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I've move the reference around so it more closely links to Fein's critique. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Selective witness list/inherent political bias of senators

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Point noted and added in. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I've move the reference around so it more closely links to Fein's critique. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Contradicted the Apology bill 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Characterization of Davianna McGregor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Right, that's why I specifically said "to read the Blount report and ingest everybodies sentiment."--M.ana 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History surrounding the morgan report 

message: ===POV tag===
Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're making some fairly good progress on that page, but we still have to work out a better way to deal with specific sentences, once we've established what we think the positions are.  I've outlined a proposal on the Talk:Blount Report page, where we can take turns presenting evidence, and leaving it to the other person to characterize it - perhaps this will be the best way of moving forward. --JereKrischel 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I still have hope that you will eventually decide to abide by WP:AGF, but accept that you are not quite emotionally ready for that.  If we require a third party between us to assuage your current feelings, I'm more than happy to work that way for now, although I'm hopeful for the future.  I do assume you are approaching this process with good faith, even if your recent edits have not shown that. --JereKrischel 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dispute

message: Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're making some fairly good progress on that page, but we still have to work out a better way to deal with specific sentences, once we've established what we think the positions are.  I've outlined a proposal on the Talk:Blount Report page, where we can take turns presenting evidence, and leaving it to the other person to characterize it - perhaps this will be the best way of moving forward. --JereKrischel 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I still have hope that you will eventually decide to abide by WP:AGF, but accept that you are not quite emotionally ready for that.  If we require a third party between us to assuage your current feelings, I'm more than happy to work that way for now, although I'm hopeful for the future.  I do assume you are approaching this process with good faith, even if your recent edits have not shown that. --JereKrischel 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Morgan Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826043722/http://www.hawaii.edu/ala/flood.php to http://www.hawaii.edu/ala/flood.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)