Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 7

message: Jere:I notice that the statement "All governments who had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii responded with the extension of recognition to the Provisional Government and subsequently the Republic of Hawaii." is being consistently softened to Some governments.  I've changed it to Every - it cannot be factually stated that it was only some governments.  If you'd like to put a citation in regarding a *belief* somewhere in a detailed section, we can assert the difference of opinion between the facts expressed in things like the Morgan Report, Kuykendall and Andrade, and whatever reference you find that indicates that recognition was not universal. --JereKrischel 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing POV pushing

message: ?:Shouldn't there be some mention of the House of Kawananakoa since it is considered the historically recognized presumptive heirs of the Kingdom of Hawai'i?
-70.176.93.225 06:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jere:I don't know how you could possibly make that assertion.  The Kawananakoa family has never made any legal claim, only ceremonial ones, from what I understand... --JereKrischel 23:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Kawananakoa 

message: LarryQ:
To this paragraph:
This article deals only with theoretical arguments regarding Hawaiʻi's de jure status under certain interpretations of international law. The debate is considered by some critics to resemble the same academic discourse being argued by several other activist groups in the United States, including the Texan and Alaskan Independence Movements[citation needed]. Hawaiian sovereignty proponents and some scholars believe that Hawaiʻi's history as an independent nation, the presence of the U.S. military[6][7][8] and the asserted violations of international treaties make the situation of Hawaiʻi unique. Skeptics, meanwhile, see no great difference in the assertions of Hawaiian sovereigny activists and regional independence movements.
I added the following:
such as in Texas which was also a formerly independent nation annexed without a popular vote and violently reoccupied against the will of the Texan people during the American Civil War.
This was challenged as POV pushing and reverted.
However, I feel this sentence is factual and in context to this paragraph.  The Republic of Texas (group) makes arguments that Texas was illegally annexed by the US via a Joint Resolultion of Congress, that the people of Texas never had a vote in the matter, and that when they had the option of secession (or restoration as the annextaion was in their opinion illegal) the Texan people voted to leave the USA.  Just like Hawaii, an invasion ensued and Texas was forced back into the Union which in the minds of the Texan nationalists Texas never was legally a part of in the first place.  This is similiar to Hawaiian sovereignty claims of illegal annexation via joint resolution of Congress, lack of consent by the people, and illegal invasion. 
How is this POV?  Is seems very relevant to article at hand when the article already claims that the legal status of Hawaii is similiar to other regional independence groups in the USA.  It adds to a statement which has been in this article for some time. Is there a better way this can be written to add this to appear non-POV?
I am going to start a Legal Status of Texas article soon.  I am not a proponent of Texas independence.  However, as there is an article on this for Hawaii there is a justification for this in Texas and Alaska as well which also has a strong regional independence movement.  Any suggestions for writing these are appreciated. I have hundreds of Wikipedia articles which I have started and I am not intetested in having my first article deletion. Thanks. LarryQ 04:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jere:Just a minor note - Hawaii was not invaded by anyone, ever.  162 peacekeepers, who never fired a shot, do not equate to the Union army at Galveston.  The Republic of Hawaii, which maintained its existence for 5 years without any support from the United States, sought annexation, and subsequently statehood. --JereKrischel 02:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Texas as another regional American Independence Movement