Talk:Hawaiian Kingdom

message: User:Rjensen has twice deleted the phrase "largely at the hands of United States citizens" from the intro, claiming it is false and unsupported.
However, other Wikipedia articles provide ample support. For example, from Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii:
:The overthrow itself was started by newspaper publisher Lorrin Thurston, a Hawaiian subject and former Minister of the Interior who was the grandson of American missionaries, and formally led by the Chairman of the Committee of Safety,  Henry E. Cooper, an American lawyer.  They derived their support primarily from the American and European business class residing in Hawaii and other supporters of the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Most of the leaders of the Committee of Safety that deposed the queen were United States and European citizens who were also Kingdom subjects. They included legislators, government officers, and a Supreme Court Justice of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Jeff in CA (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  POV is when an editor selects facts to make a political point germane to his politics in 2018. It's a bad habit. All the leaders were permanent Hawaiian residents and only a minority were US citizens. As for the Queen-- her advisors were likewise mostly of European descent. The native Hawaiians had very little say one way or the other (likewise the large and fast growing Japanese element).  The idea of tolerating an absolute monarch was very much out of fashion worldwide in 1890s (with Russia the main exception--and that one was assassinated).  American influence had been dominant for 60 or more years in Hawaii. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I suggest you modify all the other articles as well and explain why References 2, 3 and 4 below are incorrect. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:   they seem to assume that the Queen planned to get rid of her actual advisors and replace them with people of old Hawaiian ancestry, and they seem to approve of this racist move.  There is no evidence whatever of that. She had few such advisors or close associates at any time. She and nearly all her advisors were trained in American culture (not native Hawaiians) --she also mingled with  Americans like her husband John Owen Dominis (born in New York). Her Her ministers and closest friends all opposed her attempt to impose a new constitution.   Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: as the quote above states, "Most of the leaders of the Committee of Safety that deposed the queen were United States and European citizens who were also Kingdom subjects"  they were citizens of Hawaii regardless of dual citizenship with US, UK, France and other countries. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

text: The ethnicity matters. Using another example, the American Revolution would have been much different if the Native Americans were the leaders of the revolution and not Anglo-American settlers. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Further breakdown of those involved: Six Hawaiian subjects (all white, four descend from the American missionaries), five American citizens with no Hawaiian citizenship, a German subject with no Hawaiian citizenship, and a British subject with no Hawaiian citizenship composed the committee of thirteen responsible for the overthrow. . Many of the Hawaiian subject of American descent were educated in the US, lived there for a time and identified strongly as American (you can read this recent book Hawaiian by Birth: Missionary Children, Bicultural Identity, and U.S. Colonialism in the Pacific). Saying it was solely US citizen is wrong but saying it was solely the Hawaiian citizens (divorcing their white ethnicity and imperial era racism) acting is even worst. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whitewash of U.S. citizens' involvement 

message: I would like the get a definition of "consensus" and even the "notion" of consensus on matters of fact is also problematic. The objection that "changing two articles is not addressing the problem" I find a bit problematic as one must start somewhere and it's seems an invalid objection that since the change isn't universal it shouldn't be done at all.  If the consensus is that 2 +2 is 5, its a consensus but not a correct answer:
Aloha KaveBEar: 
Could we have a conversation about this point? I can be emailed at SteveLaudig@gmail.com. I believe that I can present evidence that there is a distinction that needs recognition between the term "Hawaiian Kingdom" and "Kingdom of Hawaii". They are not synonyms. I propose we discuss it since you object to the changes. The summary of the argument is that the "Kingdom of Hawai'i" would apply until unification after that the almost uniform reference made by the government itself as "Hawaiian Kingdom" not "Kingdom of Hawaii", as evidenced in official documents, including 
1852 Constitution Title
1864 Constitution
Art. 47
73
76
1887 Constitution
Art. 11;
20
45
46
59
76
Signature page
Nearly all treaties use the term "King of Hawaiian Islands"
The http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Sweden_Norway_Treaty.pdf
I have found no instance of it systematically calling itself the "Kingdom of Hawaii"
This is just a sample. I assume we share an interest in factual accuracy. And the "Kingdom of Hawaii" is, in my opinion, inaccurate even if used.
If one searches on the term "Supreme Court of the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands" one gets returns to the official court reports. So the executive branch refers to the country as the "Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands" as does the judicial branch. Likewise the legislative branch.
https://books.google.com/books/about/Members_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom_House_of.html?id=XitqmQEACAAJ
 I don't quite follow this comment at all " The second link you provided is literally a fake book of an old Wikipedia category I created showing I had issues with consistency then. "
I provided two links. One to a  treaty. The second was, if I understand what you are stating, a fake book text that you created and left laying around on the internet. May I suggest that all such fakes be labelled as such that they are not inadvertently, and innocently passed, on, as I did, here. 
:You have to understand how to use Google Books for research which was what I was saying when I point out you linked a fake source that mirrors a Wikipedia Category link. I left nothing laying around on the internet. Wikipedia encrypts anything created here online and I had no part in it and cannot do anything about these false links. The link is basically a fake book listing 72 pages of Wikipedia articles from :Category:Members of the Hawaiian Kingdom House of Nobles. The link literally says “Source: Wikipedia”.KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Steve laudig, you sent a Wiki email to User:GreenC bot but that is a backend computer process that happened to make an edit to this page. You probably meant to email someone else you may be involved in a conversation with here. -- GreenC 19:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I second that notion.  It seems that, perhaps, after "Hawaii Territory" was changed to "Territory of Hawai'i" and then to "State of Hawai'i", people began referring to what was always called the Hawaiian Kingdom to "Kingdom of Hawai'i."   This is perhaps the reason for the proliferation and wide usage of the misnomer "Kingdom of Hawaii."  I invite all to do historical research themselves, and see indeed the term Hawaiian Kingdom, and the term King of the Hawaiian Islands is constantly referred to in original documents.  To not change the name of this article would make its title a historically inaccurate.  Let's make the change.  Cheers :)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.117.161 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This is likely a cause since looking at old newspapers. The proliferation of Kingdom of Hawaii dates before the advent of Wikipedia or the internet. It may also have been bolstered by the Apology Resolution which used KofH. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the name requires more consensus at the moment and changing two articles is not addressing the problem and can be viewed as disruptive. 

message: Please correct this error as soon as possible. As Wikipedia shows up at the top of search results, we don’t need this misnomer spreading any more.
The Hawaiian Kingdom refers to the unified state of all the Hawaiian islands. The Kingdom of Hawaii refers to the ISLAND of Hawaii - also known as the Big Island - which was a sovereign kingdom before the Hawaiian Kingdom was established.
You can’t just say “also know as” when they are two distinct legal entities. 72.234.106.107 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaiian Kingdom is NOT Kingdom of Hawaii