Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom

message: This sentence confuses me (and the grammar needs fixing): "The 1893 Constitution would have reduced suffrage by reducing some property requirements, and eliminated the voting privileges extended to European and American residents." I added a clarify request because I cannot see how reducing an obstacle to voting causes suffrage to reduce. It allows more people to vote, therefore suffrage increases, no? Maybe a rewording is in order to help clarify. -84user (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is confusing. She reduced the suffrage of Europeans and Americans, but increased suffrage by reducing property requirements for everyone else, I guess. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the 1887 Constitution extended suffrage to all European and American residents without requiring them to renounce their foreign citizenship and allegiance and lowered suffrage of native Hawaiians and Asian citizens by increasing the property requirement and racially excluding Asians (there was a small number of Asian citizens with recognized rights before 1887). The 1893 Constitution sought to remove the suffrage of non-citizen Europeans and Americans and increase the suffrage of Native Hawaiians by reducing property requirements. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing use of suffrage 

message: *
*
*
*https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Public_Law_103-150 aka the Apology Resolution
*Use of "Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy" 
*17 uses of the word "coup" vs 92 uses of the word overthrow in the Blount Report
*10 uses vs 55 uses in Morgan Report
*
*3 page using coup vs 24 pages using overthrow in 
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Hawaiian National Bibliography, 1780-1900: 1881-1900 By David W. Forbes
**Google books shows that the search for "coup d'état Kingdom of Hawaii" to be bbout 1,240 results (0.44 seconds)  while a Google book search for "overthrow Kingdom of Hawaii"  to be about 799 results (0.64 seconds) .--Mark Miller (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, honestly just start an RM if you want to argue further and feel your contribution was justified. I don't understand how precise Google Book searches are but the fact that a lot of the results (Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. The Art of Political Murder: Who Killed the Bishop?. Coup D'etat: A Practical Handbook. The King Never Smiles: A Biography of Thailand's Bhumibol Adulyadej ) in your link where no relevancy to Hawaiian history or the topic (i.e. doesn't even mention the 1893 event in Hawaii) makes me question its overall validity. For example, Bhumibol Adulyadej's biography in the coup result mentions a coup in Thailand and mentions Hawaii as the location of a published source in its bibliography. Also the exact phrase being proposed as the title, word for word, end to finish "coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii" does not exist in reliable or non-reliable sources.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Google searches are used all the time and we have been over that before. I don't know why you always argue against their use but your above post was made while I was creating the request that frankly never needed to be made. In the future discussion is possible without a formal request. In fact, perhaps discussion should take place before a formal request.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: References for use of Overthrow

message: Since all of this current discussion is in my opinion a meaningless waste of time in the absence of a public WP:RM, I'm not going to pay attention to the edits on this talk page, even though it's on my Watch list. Unless, that is, a WP:RM happens to pop up -- in which case, could someone ping me, and it won't be canvassing. it'll just be alerting me to actually take notice again. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be the best route now.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small request 

message: requested move/dated|Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii Withdrawn as "snowball chance" for the following reason: The request itself was ill thought out as the "overthrow" includes the coup d'état as part of how the Kingdom was eventually "taken over" or "overthrown".

:Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii →  – Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title I am requesting that this article be moved from its current title to Hawaiian coup d'état of 1893 for the following reasons based on guidelines and per:
* Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
::Equally recognizable.
* Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
::In this instance the term is French but used in English references to a political tactic that this subject falls under.
* Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.  
::"Coup d'état " does actually distinguish the act of overthrowing a monarchy with the actual events of that are clearly defined by academia.
* Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
::It is actually needed to be concise to the actual events that led to an apolgy some 100 years later by the president of the United States.
* Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.
::"Coup d'état " is consistant with similar articles on this tactical, political maneuver.
:Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Withdrawn as "snowball chance" for the following reason: The request itself was ill thought out as the "overthrow" includes the coup d'état as part of how the Kingdom was eventually "taken over" or "overthrown". For now sourcing is a good focus.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the responses. I will reply shortly. Some of the argument just above by 青い(Aoi) seem well thought out but I am unsure if the logic flow is supportive of Overthrow or the move suggestion.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically, 's response made me think about the precision being too much. The overthrow didn't happen on January 17, 1893, the coup d'état did. The events that completed  the overthrow are detailed in the article and the coup is but one part.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 September 2015 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kingdom of Hawaii which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 23:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: It seems clear from the citations that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was executed primarily by Honolulu residents. It seems almost certain that they conspired with the U.S. Minister to Hawaii, the Republican John L. Stevens who sent a note to the commander of the Boston, Gilbert C. Wiltse, that stated:
In 1890, the populations of Honolulu, Oahu, & the Kingdom were 22,907, 31,194, & 89,990, respectively. The forces of the marines & sailors from the Boston numbered 162. There is no source that indicates that any military force from the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor that was a mere ten miles away was called into action.
I am unaware of any source that indicates the incursion of the 162 marines & sailors was anything permanent, nor have I seen anything that indicates U.S. forces occupied any building belonging the the Kingdom. 
While it is true that, on the face of it, Liliʻuokalani concluded that the U.S. troops were there to support the revolutionists, as the current version of the article states, 
I find it unsupported, therefore, that a temporary incursion of 162 troops in a city of approximately 23,000 can be characterized as an occupation by the United States, especially when the U.S. had more troops at its beck & call at Pearl Harbor. 
To call this a U.S. occupation without verification from reliable sources seems to me original research at best & biased at worst.
It is true that there was an overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by a cadre of non-native Hawaiian born & foreign residents, but I think it is clear that it is they & Minister Stevens who played the 
U.S. Military & not the other way around. Peaceray (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflation of a rebellion by Honolulu residents with an occupation by the United States 

message: The excerpt followed by source [69] is not correct. The excerpt comes not from the speech, but an appendix issued some time after the speech to go more in depth towards the situation. 
With this being a simple issue, I will just make the edit for proper attribution. Userusermar (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  improper sourcing 

message: "President Harrison's Secretary of State John W. Foster from June 1892 to February 1893 actively worked for the annexation of the independent Republic of Hawaii. "
Umm....Hawai'i wasn't overthrown until 1893, the Republic was formed in 1894. @KAVEBEAR does this line need to be removed? 808Poiboy (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The dates are his tenure as Secretary of State. Just simplified it to Hawaii. My assumption is he actively worked to get the Provisional Government annexed between January and February 1893. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  one certain line