Talk:Republic of Hawaii

message: User:Kaolelo put in a POV pushing snippet about the Republic not being elected, and suffrage being limited during that time - but that was also true of all governments prior to the Republic.  Does it really belong in this article?  I think if we're going to chastise the Republic for not being duly elected by a population that enjoyed universal suffrage, to be fair we'd have to put the same type of language on the pages for the kingdom.  --JereKrischel 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suffrage and Elections

message: The current version seems good on NPOV and fills in some gaps in my knowledge, but I was left a little mystified about motivations - both the publicly announced reasons for actions and historians' current theories as to underlying drivers. For instance, business types usually don't want to run governments, they want other people to do the work and give them a free hand to run the business. Were they afraid of the monarchy's actions, sinfulness, what? A few references would be good too, where does all this material come from? Stan 14:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Motivations 

message: Could someone help put a section on the Morgan Report in right after the Blount Investigation?  Seems like we're missing a whole chunk of really important history there.  I could put something in, but I'd like to work with someone more sympathetic to the pro-royalists so I can manage an NPOV.  Please message me if you're interested and have a pro-royalist stance. --JereKrischel 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Blount Report is irrelevant ...The Morgan Report was honest. 2603:800C:2801:54DD:898:ED18:FA9B:8931 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Morgan Report 

message: Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I accept that you believe what you say Arjuna, but can you please provide clearer citations to bolster your points?  Perhaps our definition of "mainstream scholars" differs (I would cite Kuykendall, Daws, Andrade, and Kirch...you may include those I would consider revisionist).  I think that if we are to simply to insert a POV tag when we believe that the presentation of the facts rubs us the wrong way, we're using the tag inappropriately.  Could you please remove the tag until you have more specific citations to bolster your claims?  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Aloha Arjuna, please see the comments at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy#POV tag.  Although I appreciate your concerns, it is not productive to throw pov tags around without either sufficient or specific cause.  Please provide appropriate citations to illustrate your concerns, rather than simply making claims of your own opinion.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: As per your suggestion, I have also asked Viriditas to weigh in.  I look forward to more specific citations from you, even if as you claim, they have already been provided - I have looked through your contributions, and have not found any such citations, but you may have a better idea of what edits to look at.   Maybe for future work, we can create a page Talk:JereKrischel/Arjuna's citations so we can keep them handy.  I assume your intent is not to leave a permanent POV tag here, but to improve the article so that neither you nor I feel it is necessary.  Mahalo!  --JereKrischel 10:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: I don't know what the status of this debate is, whether it has been solved or is ongoing, but due to my current wikibreak, I will only comment briefly.  Regardless of the sources used, every effort should be made to use inline references.  Please stop edit warring over references that aren't being used in the article.  It is only when we can see those statements cited in the article that we can make the determination to keep or remove them.  When controversial cases arise, please compromise by choosing a more reliable, neutral source.  Particular instances can occur where quoting a disputed, but notable source may be necessary, such as in a discussion about a notable author or the author's position.  TTS has been discussed in the Hawaii-media, but arguments could be made either way for inclusion or exclusion based on the material that is cited.  Our baseline should start with inline citations so we can see exactly what the sources are being used to support or refute in the article, rather than just adding links to the references section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply by Viriditas

message: The quote from Liliʻuokalani is too long and not Wiki.  Can someone present the main points and significance in a paragraph or two? Earthlyreason (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarise that quote 

message: Folks, the neutrality banner seems to have been sitting on this article for a VERY long time. There appears to be no recent discussion nor are any specific sentences in the article currently tagged for their POV.
In the spirit of not leaving banners sitting around Wikipedia for extended periods without discussion I'm removing the banner. If there is still a genuine concern please register on this talk page (i.e. re-register it if it is an old concern that was never corrected).
--Mcorazao (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality banner 

message: I changed the sentence
:Although termed a republic, the new state was a single-party oligarchy.
to
:The new state was a single-party oligarchy.
It seems to me that the original author assumed that the term 'repubic' was exclusive of the possibility that the state was not a democracy.
Montalban (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic isn't syonymous with democracy 

message: Actually there are better sources, since because of the textbook adoption system of some U.S. states, high school US history textbooks can not present truth (cf. Language Police), The Americans, a popular high school US history textbook should not be used as a source in most cases. I bet that there are many other sources that are no doubt more reliable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the source "The Americans"