Talk:Blount Report

message: 1) If we're going to quote someone who sees the Blount report as being a complete indictment and conviction of the U.S. in the lead, we should also mention the Morgan Report which followed it, simply for balance.
2) There is absolutely no citation at all regarding secrecy as a method of protecting those who feared the new government, and there is a citation for his refusal to take testimony from people who wished to submit statements.  If you want to put that back in, we'll need a specific cite.
3) "Current relevance" is an opinion, and doesn't seem appropriate.
--JereKrischel 07:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent edits

message: Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: I made a significant NPOV copy edit of this article last night, including meticulous citations and references. It is most unfortunate that a particular editor, who seems to feel that he owns this and all the other Hawaii history-related articles, reverted my constructive additions outright. Apparently the facts therein are inconvenient to his POV. I trust it will not be repeated.  Arjuna 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mahalo, I've explained on other pages what I felt was inappropriate about your POV push - editorializing multiple volumes without citing specific pages or passages to make some sort of rhetorical point is not well cited, nor meticulous.  Your help in adding more appropriate citations (page level, with quotes, and without POV editorializing), is appreciated.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: If you could please address my concerns that your citations do not match nor support the editorializing text you added, I would greatly appreciate it.  I believe together we can look at the sources, bring forth the information you feel is important, without mis-characterizing it.  It may be helpful if we work in tandem, for example, I can present you a quote and citation from a given work, and you can help me characterize it appropriately.  And vice versa.  This way, we're both happy that the evidence and information we feel is important is presented, and we're both happy that the characterization of such evidence is not done in a POV manner.  Does that sound workable to you? --JereKrischel 21:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I definitely read what you wrote, and definitely understood it.  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)

text: ??? --JereKrischel 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent Vandalism?

message: Hey Arjuna, I'm just having a hard time with the unsupported assertion that the Apology Resolution was based on Russ or Tate.  I think we're venturing into WP:OR here, at the very least.  Thoughts? --JereKrischel 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The citations were there to reference the fact that historical analyses do support such conclusions, and I put them there because you challenged that notion. That there are such books, and that they can be "plainly" read in such a way that supports the conclusions of the AR is beyond obvious. Can they be read other ways? With a little deconstructive spin, sure! The point is, they didn't just pull the conclusions of the AR out of their you-know-what. But all the better if we just take those references out, so I did. Arjuna 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text is unsupportable without references.  AFAIK, they pulled the AR out of the pro-sovereignty literature, ignoring the vast majority of mainstream historical work - if you could quote Tate or Russ in support of any of the whereas clauses of the AR, great, but we need to get to quotes.  What you find obvious and what I find obvious is a matter of opinion.  When we have the actual citations, we can take our own biases out of the equation. --JereKrischel 09:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious

message: A couple of comments -- I hope they don't offend anyone.  First, I think the Morgan Report being the "last word" is really kind of post hoc.  There's no proof of causation, and lots of (already pretty thoroughly documented) substantiation that other factors (including force, which the Turpie Res indicates) were major factors in the support dieback.  On the other hand, I think a little wording shift may be needed on the last addition to the Apology Law section, because to be fair, it's used extensively by both sides of the Akaka Bill debate.  Mahalo you guys. Aloha, --Laualoha 04:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Np, Arjuna, thanks for the head's up.  Laualoha - Insofar as the Morgan Report being the "last word", it was.  Causation is not my assertion, but the assertions of Kuykendall, Russ, Andrade, et. al.  If you want to cite someone saying it wasn't the cause of Cleveland's lack of support, I encourage you to find a reliable source and cite it.  We simply cannot build the article on our own interpretations - that is the very definition of WP:OR. --JereKrischel 09:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Morgan Report, Apology Law

message: Looks like this has cooled down for a few years. But working on related articles I ran across some Senate congressional hearings on Google books:
I think this is this the Morgan report? Senate report 227 of Fifty-third Congress, Second Session. W Nowicki (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Last Word"? 

message: Substituted at 09:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment