Talk:History of Hawaii

message: I assume there is some real event behind it. If that event is an explicit ruling to the effect stated (and not something vague that partisans claim implies such violation) then i hope we can verify it and put more suitable language back into the article in place of this.
Actually I know only that the UN confirmed that the plebiscite vote that led to Hawaii's statehood was in violation of Article 73 of the United Nations' charter.  This was prompted by the United States Public Law 103-150.  I'm not sure exactly what type of factual evidence you are looking for.  Mamoahina 14:34, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: But how do you know this? People told you. Were they right? We don't know. As Jerzy said, we don't know WHICH arm of the UN did this confirmation. I very much doubt it went to the General Assembly. It had to have been a committee then, or something like that. We just need a reference, online or in a book, to pin it down. Zora 18:48, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  UN 1999 

message: Although I support the neutrality philosophy of WikiPedia, the title United States Government Minister doesn't make much sense to Americans since no such title exists. I'm guessing that it is relating to the Secretary of the Department of State. Does United States Government Minister make more sense to non-Americans? I don't know but the titles sure make it confusing. Perhaps a small addition clearing this up would be of some help?
: Apparently, at the time, "United States Government Minister" was the official designation for what today is simply called the "ambassador" to a country. But most readers today, whether American or not, wouldn't know this. So I agree, it should be explained. IslandGyrl 13:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titles 

message: This is one of the many pages on Wikipedia which I feel would really benefit from listed references. If anybody knows where the body of this work came from I highly suggest that you post it to resolve any conflicts, to allow further research, and to fact-check that which is already there. Nrbelex 01:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: This article seems to get away from NPOV in the last two paragraphs.  Specifically, calling a lack of debate on the merits "unfortunate", and labeling the "Akaka Bill" as of "dubious constitutionality" (as opposed to, say, "debated constitutionality").  I'm changing them. JRoman 06:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and isn't including links for direct sources in the body of the text, a la the Bruce Fein PDF, frowned upon? JRoman 06:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you JRoman for helping make it more NPOV.  I'm not sure what the policy for direct sources in the text is though...do you have a link to anything regarding that policy? --JereKrischel 01:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try this Wikipedia:cite_sources.  It doesn't explicitly state that the present way is wrong, but it gives alternatives that seem more typical of Wikipedia style.  Because, let's face it, the whole colon at the end of the sentence thing is kind of ugly, no?  Perhaps the appropriate thing to do would be to conclude the sentence as "criticized for factual errors." and then include a footnote-style link to the references section, which would then link to the PDF.  What do you think? JRoman 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Roman, what you suggest sounds great...I don't know how to do a footnote-style link to the references section...could you make the change as you suggested so I can see how it is done?  Thanks! --JereKrischel 05:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Edit summary was some kind of the "hands in wrong position on keyboard" mistake. Sorry
I rewrote the section about the coming of the missionaries. I'm well up on this, having just edited a 400-page history of Honolulu for a local press. The rest of the article deserves a look, but I don't have time now. Zora 07:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops 

message: The Christian chiefs attempted to rule the islands as a Christian nation, which led to intense conflicts with other resident Westerners and visiting ships, all of whom preferred the old regime of abundant alcohol and promiscuous sexual relations.
What is the source of this last clause? Some hundred-year-old encyclopedia? Why does the clause not also refer to spiritual beliefs and values but only to two items usually classified as "vices"? --Badagnani
:Badagnani, problems with alcohol and prostitution are very well documented -- by current historians. Once the missionaries had the ear of the chiefs, they tried to put an end to chaotic conditions in the ports of Honolulu and Lahaina. The sailors and sea captains resisted vigorously. They rioted, burned down a jail (if I'm remembering correctly), and would have killed a missionary if the Hawaiian governor and his men hadn't intervened. 
:Both the alcohol and the prostitution were introduced by the sailors; they were not part of indigenous Hawaiian culture. However, there was nothing in the indigenous culture to prevent this "drunken randy sailor on leave" culture either. Hawaiians drank their 'awa and were notoriously easy-going in matters of sex. This was easily distorted into drinking alcohol and having sex for pay. 
:I'm constantly pressed for time, but I can try to put some of this explanation into the article. Or, you can transfer what I've written. Just don't try to erase part of Hawai'i's past because you find it embarrassing. Zora 02:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Badagnani, I'm confused as to what your concern with the clause is - are you asking that we should refer to the spiritual beliefs and values of the Westerner sailors?  Are you under the impression that there were intense conflicts due to spiritual beliefs and values with Westerner sailors?  Your question isn't very clear. --JereKrischel 10:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol and prostitution 

message: JK, note that while I undid your revisions that seem patently POV, I am leaving in -- for now -- your rv that put back the word "alleged". I am suggesting we discuss first (see talk on the other page) before we get into a pointless rvv battle. Arjuna 10:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we still need some of what was in there.  Specifically, the note that the resolution was passed with limited debate in the Senate and no debate at all in the house is significant.  Similarly, there is no citation anywhere that I know of that claims the reason tribal requirements aren't necessary for creating a race/ancestry-based government out of native Hawaiians is due to "recognition" of "cultural differences" - that seems completely OR (original research).  If anything, the assertion is that they need to be treated as Native Americans are treated in recognition of "cultural similarities" (nebulously defined, of course).  Can we work on some sort of compromise that would be acceptable to you?  I'm willing to use "ancestry-based" in lieu of "race-based" if that seems more neutral, but I'm hoping you can see my concerns on the other issues.  Mahalo again for your help! --JereKrischel 07:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alleged"

message: Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're making some fairly good progress on that page, but we still have to work out a better way to deal with specific sentences, once we've established what we think the positions are.  I've outlined a proposal on the Talk:Blount Report page, where we can take turns presenting evidence, and leaving it to the other person to characterize it - perhaps this will be the best way of moving forward. --JereKrischel 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret to say that I do not think that working "in tandem" will be productive strategy as I question your good faith, among other things. Rather, following the matrix and then having third parties assess the evidence based on citations is likely to be the only way forward. Arjuna 21:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As you work towards WP:AGF, hopefully the point will come when you do feel like working together.  If for now we require third parties to mediate between us, I am perfectly fine with that.  You react much better to other people at this point, and I'm sure that will help move us forward.  I continue to believe in your good faith, even if your recent edits have not shown it. --JereKrischel 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: E kala mai, I think leaving out the fact that the C of S requested the landing of troops is hewa. Eekadog 01:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put in a quote and a cite from Russ, p77.  I hope that satisfies your concern! --JereKrischel 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Committee

message: Arjuna, please, don't revert well cited material.  Eliminating cites to TTS, Russ and Kuykendall aren't rational.  Can you explain your particular problem with those cites instead of reverting them?  Maybe we can find a compromise. c/m/t --JereKrischel 13:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specifics

message: Let me first preface my comments by stating that I know nothing about Hawaii, or its history, which is why I came to read this article.  But I am a historian, and in terms of reading the narrative of this article, it strikes me that the use of 'newly united Hawaiian Kingdom' as a subject heading is an attempt by whoever inserted it to detract from Hawaii's status as an independent kingdom, and is putting an POV slant on it.  When does a united kingdom stop being new?  Five years? Ten? Fifty?  Unless used in the immediate sense it is a subjective categorisation, and I think it would be better were it removed as a heading. Cripipper 14:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  newly united Hawaiian Kingdom 

message: While I'm sure there are times when editors don't agree, at least give them the respect to have a difference of opinion and allow them to discuss the issue on the talk page. SunCreator (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use article talk pages to criticize editors, and Hokulani78 hasn't edited since February.  This talk page is used to discuss improving the article.  If you don't understand how talk pages are used, I suggest you look at the links you were given on your talk page.  The comments of the anon IP were moved to the talk page of the user in question.  They do not belong here and are a classic example of trolling. Viriditas (talk) 07:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep it civil 

message: Why is there virtually no reference to the very important and interesting history of the unification of the islands?  At very least, there should be a paragraph or subsection that refers to it, and then says something like, "This period is detailed in such-and-such article."  Also the main Hawai'i article has no such clear reference.  Holy (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See the first paragraph of the section "Formation of the Hawaiian Kingdom".  You are welcome to help expand it. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I mean--one very short sentence.  I'd love to contribute, but my knowledge base is pretty thin on this.  It just seemed very odd for this history to be almost completely missing on Wikipedia.  I wonder if someone's agenda has kept it away.  Thanks.Holy (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be specific? What particular details need to be in this article?  Part of your confusion may stem from the missing summary style link, "Main article: Kingdom of Hawaii" at the top of that section.  I'm not sure what an agenda would have to do with this, but please, explain a little more so I can fix the problem to your satisfaction.  Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm referring to the conquest, in stages, of the main Hawaiian Islands, by Kamehameha I, and the many events surrounding those events.  The possible agenda for keeping this very important part of Hawaiian history out of the article might be that this history would take emphasis away from non-Hawaiians' dominance of and conflict with Hawaiians.  It might present (as some might perceive) the Hawaiians as warlike and not united in the past.  I don't worry about those perceptions myself, as long as the history meets normal encyclopedic standards, and I'm not making any statements about who would hold those perceptions or how valid they would be in various forms.  Again, my knowledge base is not adequate to add this information myself and don't have the time to do the research that many others probably have at their fingertips.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by HolyT (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No reference to the unification of the islands 

message: The current content on the Web Page ”History of Hawaii” in Wikipdia is of such shoddy scholarship that the only solution is to scrap it entirely, and, hopefully, replace with the truth.  The material on this page is a concoction of distortions and untruths that was used in 1993 to extort a confession of guilt from the US Congress.
If the material were the result of truthful, earnest research, it might be worthy of peer review and revision.  Instead, it is the same collection of revisionist history, distortions, and outright lies foisted upon Congress on October 27, 1993, (Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 19)) by Senator Akaka and his cronies.  At that time, Congress accepted the veracity of the resolution without investigation and voted to extend an unwarranted apology for the non-participation of the US government in the “illegal” Hawaiian revolution of 1893. (By the way, what is a “legal” revolution?)  Since 1993, the Senate has learned that the data supporting the demand for an apology is untrue, at the least.  This discovery is why the so-called Akaka Bill has been repeatedly rejected by the Senate in the decade since the “apology” was issued. 
  
The US Resolution led to the UN Resolution and were both a result of lies perpetuated by a minority of citizens of the State of Hawaii.  Now, the same organizations that brewed this propaganda that they parade as history are trying to use the erroneous resolution and the erroneous UN confirmation to substantiate their version of Hawaiian history.  I see a problem with this kind of duplicitous documentation and procedures, don’t you?  Set the record straight and provide fact-based information on Hawaiian History.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanrana (talk • contribs) 23:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Be our guest. siafu (talk) 23:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provide History not Propoganda 

message: Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. The neutrality of this section is disputed. (May 2011)
:What dispute? 80.174.254.178 (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute over 'Annexation to the United States' 

message: The text that follows was moved from the main article to here. Please go to the Discussion of unencyclopedic material section to comment.
===In lede===
On January 16, 1893, United States diplomatic and military personnel conspired with a small group of individuals to overthrow the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom and prepared to provide for annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States of America, under a treaty of annexation submitted to the United States Senate, on February 15, 1893. Newly elected U.S. President Grover Cleveland, having received notice that the cause of the so-called revolution derived from illegal intervention by U.S. diplomatic and military personnel, withdrew the treaty of annexation and appointed James H. Blount, as Special Commissioner, to investigate the terms of the so-called revolution and to report his findings.
The report concluded that the United States legation assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, together with United States Marines and Naval personnel, were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. The report details the culpability of the United States government in violating international laws and the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but the United States Government fails to follow through in its commitment to assist in reinstating the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom.
Instead, the United States allows five years to lapse and a new United States President, William McKinley, enters into a second treaty of annexation with the same individuals who participated in the illegal overthrow with the U.S. legation in 1893 on June 16, 1897, but the treaty was unable to be ratified by the United States Senate due to protests that were submitted by Her Majesty Queen Lili‘uokalani and signature petitions against annexation by 21,169 Hawaiian nationals.
As a result of the Spanish-American War, the United States opted to unilaterally annex the Hawaiian Islands by enacting a congressional joint resolution on July 7, 1898, in order to utilize the Hawaiian Islands as a military base to fight the Spanish in Guam and the Philippines. The United States has remained in the Hawaiian Islands and the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under prolonged occupation to the present, but its continuity as an independent State remains intact under international law.
The main documents surrounding United States intervention and subsequent occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom are recorded in the following.
The Executive Documents of the United States House of Representatives, 53rd Congress, 1894-95, Appendix II, Foreign Relations, 1894, Affairs in Hawai‘i, volumes 1 and 2:
Report of U.S. Special Commissioner James H. Blount to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom Investigation, July 17, 1893
Petition filed with U.S. Special Commissioner James Blount by the Hawaiian Patriotic League, March 2, 1893
Dispatch from U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham to U.S. President Grover Cleveland concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom Investigation, October 18, 1893
Dispatch from U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham to U.S. Minister Albert S. Willis, assigned to the Hawaiian Islands, concerning the Hawaiian Kingdom Investigation, October 18, 1893
U.S. President Cleveland's Message to the U.S. Congress concerning the conclusion of the Hawaiian Kingdom investigation, December 18, 1893
Dispatch from U.S. Minister Albert S. Willis to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham concerning the consent of Queen Lili‘uokalani to the Condition of Restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government, December 20, 1893
Dispatch from U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham to U.S. Minister Albert S. Willis concerning U.S. Senate resolution warning Foreign Governments not to interfere in Hawaiian Political Affairs, June 2, 1894
Dispatch from U.S. Minister Albert S. Willis to U.S. Secretary of State Walter Q. Gresham concerning the delivery of the U.S. Senate Resolution to the provisional government, June 23, 1894
The 1893 Executive Agreements between President Cleveland and Queen Lili`uokalani obligating the U.S. to administer the laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and to restore the Hawaiian Kingdom government:
Article, "1893 Cleveland-Lili`uokalani Agreements," November 28, 2009
Lili`uokalani Agreement (administration of Hawaiian Kingdom law), Appendix II, Foreign Relations, Affairs in Hawai`i, sent to the Congress by President Cleveland, December 18, 1893
Restoration Agreement (restoration of the Hawaiian Kingdom government), Appendix II, Foreign Relations, Affairs in Hawai`i, sent to the Congress by President Cleveland, January 13, 1894
Congressional Record: containing the Proceedings and Debates, 53rd Congress, 2nd Session, volume 26:
Resolution of U.S. House of Representatives condemning U.S. Minister Stevens for his role in aiding the illegal overthrow of Hawai'i's legitimate government and also instituting the hands-off policy of noninterference to the U.S. President, Feb. 7, 1894
Resolution of U.S. Senate instituting the hands-off policy of noninterference but also warning other Governments not to interfere with Hawaiian political affairs, May 31, 1894
U.S. Senate Secret Debate concerning Hawai`i, May 31, 1898
Hawai'i National Archives in Honolulu, and the United States National Archives in Washington, D.C.:
Protest filed with the United States Legation by the Governor for the Island of O'ahu against the unauthorized landing a U.S. troops from the U.S.S. Boston, January 16, 1893.
Protest filed with the United States Legation by the Minister of Foreign Affairs against the unauthorized landing a U.S. troops from the U.S.S. Boston, January 16, 1893.
Protest filed with the United States Legation by Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani against the U.S. Minister's recognition of the provisional government and calling for an investigation by the U.S. President into the actions of its representative and to reinstate the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Kingdom, January 17, 1893.
Protest filed with U.S. Minister Albert Willis by Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani against the formation of the Republic of Hawai'i, June 20, 1894.
Protest filed with the British Legation by Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani against the formation of the Republic of Hawai'i, June 20, 1894.
Protest filed with the U.S. State Department by Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani against the Treaty of Annexation signed by the United States of America and the Republic of Hawai'i, June 17, 1897
Petitions filed with the U.S. State Department by Joseph Heleluhe, commissioner for the Men and Women's Hawaiian Patriotic League and the Hui Kalaiaina, on July 24, 1897
Petition against the Annexation of Hawaii Submitted to the U.S. Senate in 1897 by the Hawaiian Patriotic League
Protest filed with U.S. Minister Harold Sewall on August 6, 1898, by the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha 'Aina) and the Hawaiian Political Association (Hui Kalai'aina) against the Joint Resolution purporting to annex the Hawaiian Islands
Memorial filed by the Hawaiian Patriotic League (Hui Aloha `Aina) with the United States "Hawaiian Commission" for the creation of the territorial government. The commission was established on July 9, 1898 after President McKinley signed the joint resolution of annexation on July 7, 1898
United States Department of Justice, Legal Issues Raised by Proposed Presidential Proclamation to Extend the Territorial Sea, Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel, vol. 12, p. 238-263, October 4, 1988, commenting on the annexation of Hawai‘i
pp. 250-252, "Congress' Power to Assert Sovereignty over the Territorial Sea"
United States Statutes at Large:
Joint Resolution no. 55, To provide for annexing the Hawaiian Islands to the United States, July 7, 1898
Chapter 339., An Act to Provide a Government for the Territory of Hawai'i, April 30, 1900
Chapter 42., An Act To amend an Act entitled "An Act to provide a government for the Territory of Hawaii," approved April 30, 1900, as amended, to establish an Hawaiian Homes Commission, granting certain powers to the board of harbor commissioners of the Territory of Hawaii, and for other purposes, July 9, 1921
U.S. Public Law 86-3, An Act to Provide for the admission of the State of Hawai'i into the Union, March 18, 1959
U.S. Public Law 103-150, To acknowledge the 100th anniversary of the January 17, 1893 overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and to offer an apology to Native Hawaiians on behalf of the United States for the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai‘i, Nov. 23, 1993
Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague, Netherlands:
Lance Larsen vs. the Hawaiian Kingdom, case no. 99-001
United Nations Security Council:
Complaint against the United States of America by the acting Government of the Hawaiian Kingdom concerning the American occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom, July 5, 2001
There is a very popular myth that Hawai'i became the 50th state of the United States. Since Hawai'i was a country established and recognized first by the United States in 1843, the only way to absorb another country through international law is through a treaty. There simply is no treaty for Hawai'i, so the Hawaiian Kingdom under the presumption of continuity still exists.
The United States of America was created by treaties. Every State except Hawai'i, has a treaty. If you look to the the East Coast, there is a treaty called the territory of the original 13 states, ceded by Great Britain in 1783. That was formally British Sovereignty. Then we have Florida, Spanish cession of 1819, that used to belong to Spain. Voluntarily negotiated and transferred by the Spanish. The Louisiana purchase from France, 1803, negotiated, and purchased. Right here, California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended, the Mexican American War, the Mexican cession of 1848. All territory north of the Rio Grand river. The Pacific Northwest, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, that's from Great British 1846. Alaska in 1867 from Russia. Hawai'i has no treaty. All it says American claims is Hawai'i "annexation" of 1898, former republic of Hawai'i as stated above.
The United States used fake democracy to create the perception that Hawaii "belongs" to the U.S: It's 1959, and the UN has Hawaii on its official list of places that still need to be decolonized. There's an important new rule that's about to get passed in the United Nations real soon called Resolution 1514. The U.S. knew Resolution 1514 would make it much more difficult for them to maintain indefinite control over Hawaii - it would basically provide a framework by which Hawaii's future political status could be decided by Hawaiians - who obviously might want their stolen lands back. The U.S. decides that the best way to keep Hawaii from being affected by the new UN rules is to make Hawaii look more like one of its other states, instead of an occupied nation. To accomplish this, the U.S. quickly rushes a vote on statehood to ballot, and to make sure that statehood 'wins', it rigs the election. After the election the U.S. tells the UN that Hawaii's questionable status has been resolved and that Hawaii should be removed from the UN's list of colonies. That's basically what happened.
Okay, now, while there's no such thing as an ethical way to keep stolen territory, this is a textbook example of how to use political maneuvering to bypass justice and democracy, so I think it's actually very educational to take a closer look at how the U.S. did it.
Please note the inherent contradictions - both the U.S. and the United Nations are rooted in the logic of Western Imperialism.
On the Ballot for statehood in 1959 it was asked what do you want to happen, Hawaii? 1) Would you like to become a U.S. state? Or 2) Do you want to continue being a territory?
It's 1959 - what kind of laws, principles, and factors are the United States obligated to follow, if it's going to try to hold a vote on Hawaii's future? Well, there are several - the U.S.'s own Constitution, obviously, but also the U.S. is a signatory of the UN Charter, so we're supposed to follow everything in that, plus UN resolutions like Resolution 742 and so on. Interestingly enough, the U.S. stages the 1959 "statehood vote" in a way that manages to violate all of the above.
First of all there's the obvious question of suffrage, or "Who gets to vote?" Under the principles of decolonization, if you're trying to undo a historical wrong - like illegally overthrowing somebody's government, you have to ask the people who suffered the violations - the colonized - what they want to happen. You don't ask the people who benefited from the stealing of the land if they feel like giving it back or not - that only makes sense if you don't have any respect for fairness. But guess what - that's exactly what the U.S. did - they opened the vote to everybody who was living in Hawaii at the time, knowing full well that Native Hawaiians made up less than 20% of the population, and that the remainder - settlers from the U.S., plantation laborers brought in from Asia, U.S. military personnel - the U.S. knew all of those guys would vote in favor of statehood.
A second requirement for a "legitimate" vote is - you must offer three choices on the ballot: 1) Independence, 2) Free association, and 3) Integration. But instead of offering the required three, the U.S. essentially only put one choice on the ballot: integration. Integration via statehood, or integration via continued territorial status! What kind of ballot is that?
America: It doesn't matter which one you choose, I get to own you either way.
Leaving "independence" and "free association" off the ballot is clearly a manipulation of the UN-sanctioned voting process. That's strike two.
Okay - third big problem. When holding a vote on Hawaii's future political status - the administering power (the United States) - is required to place the interests of Hawaiians before its own interests. The UN Charter calls this mandate a "sacred trust". Okay, so what does this mean? Well, practically speaking, it means that if you're going to have something like a vote, the U.S. is obligated to conduct it fairly so that Hawaiians would be free to choose what they really want for their future. But instead, the U.S. did just the opposite - before the vote the U.S. initiated an intense pro-statehood propaganda campaign. And just to be safe, a parallel campaign of attacking anyone who spoke up in opposition to statehood. Obviously this is not how an administering power lives up to its "sacred trust" obligations. Strike three.
So yeah, the so-called "statehood vote", was, for several reasons, illegitimate. This is how the U.S. was able to subvert the UN's stated goal of a world free of colonial domination. A process for decolonization was instead turned into a process of assimilation.
The important thing to understand is that statehood was used to keep Hawaiians from getting their nation back. Statehood is not just an abstract concept, it can also be used as a tool for accomplishing concrete political objectives. In the case of Hawaii, statehood was, and continues to be, a strategy for obscuring a history of dispossession and repackaging it to make it look like something good, like "democracy".
Since there is no treaty for Hawai'i, the 2013 Oxford War Report lists Hawaii as an illegally occupied nation state since the Spanish American War. For 123 years, Hawai'i has been under the illegal and belligerent occupation of the United States of America.
===In Overthrow of the Kingdom===
    
In the late 19th century the dominant White minority attempted to create a civil war in the Hawaiian Kingdom, which was ordered by the United States President, to take all means necessary to acquire Hawaii for Pearl Harbor.  The illegally founded Republic that was finally annexed by the United States. The Kingdom of Hawai'i never was. The Republic of Hawai'i tried to ratify a vote to annex Hawai'i but couldn't get a 2/3's majority vote because of a massive petition of Hawaiian signatures called the Ku'e petitions of 1988 and 1989. The Ku'e petitions represented roughly 80% of Hawai'i's population at the time, 95% of which were Kanaka Maoli, signed a anti annexation petition against becoming American. The hopes of establishing a treaty between the Kingdom of Hawai'i and the U.S. were dead. So the U.S. government set up a puppet provisional government to create the illusion of democracy.
===Discussion of unencyclopedic material===
I moved the text above from the main article to here. It was added by 67.148.246.94. Although not in proper reference/citation format, there are valid references. However, much of the added text is not of an encyclopedic tone & comes off as an opinion piece. Not exactly neutral ... Peaceray (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a diatribe by a self-taught international lawyer who comes up with howlers like " Since Hawai'i was a country established and recognized first by the United States in 1843, the only way to absorb another country through international law is through a treaty. There simply is no treaty for Hawai'i, so the Hawaiian Kingdom under the presumption of continuity still exists." Kingdom??? Why should anyone believe anon's wild speculation here? where did he get his law degrees? he cite no source for this howler and throughout has no reliable secondary sources. As for one country absorbing another without a treaty that's what Canada did to Newfoundland.  Rjensen (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  and , much of this article seemed to have an extreme bias so I have attempted a re-write with some material from other articles and additional research but am meeting with some resistance. Yes, the article is still incomplete but I do believe first contact and the death of Cook was a very important part of modern Hawaiian history. We still need to expand the religion section and need much more on the ancient history but I do believe the first settlement issue has become a problem with an editor wishing to push (from my perspective) the high-precision radiocarbon dating models as the absolute "truth" and has begun making changes based on that seemingly biased approach to the article. I am sure some of what I added could use some trimming but I also think that the article needs a great deal more content and more neutral wording. I don't think we can say that the Chinese brought leprosy into Hawaii. There are other claims that are simply inaccurate, biased opinion and original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have specific complaints you have to specify them here.  Otherwise  your making big changes will not be welcome.  Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes alone are not a problem. Even big changes as long as they are sourced, neutral and encyclopedic. I do believe that is what Wikipedia is for. What is your take on the changes? That is why I pinged you. Do you feel that the issue of first settlement should be altered?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I started by drastic reduction of the section on Cook--full of trivia & poor sources and not useful to an overview of the state's long history. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that is a start. A little drastic perhaps but, if you could be specific of what you felt was trivia and what sources you feel are weak? I disagree that it was not useful as an overview of the islands long history. How is first contact with the western world not useful?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I did return a few reliable sources and some essential information to understand what Cook was retaliating over but other than that I kept it tight and did not return anything else. While I would prefer more detail on this, at the moment it could be seen as undue weight if the ancient history has so little. I hope the changes do not go against the spirit of your alterations.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I also did a slight copy edit to the last few sentences for clarity and tone, so it flowed a little better.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mix of opinion, citations, and text with an unencyclopedic tone 

message: I moved the text above from the main article to here. It was added by 67.148.246.94. Although not in proper reference/citation format, there are valid references. However, much of the added text is not of an encyclopedic tone & comes off as an opinion piece. Not exactly neutral ... Peaceray (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a diatribe by a self-taught international lawyer who comes up with howlers like " Since Hawai'i was a country established and recognized first by the United States in 1843, the only way to absorb another country through international law is through a treaty. There simply is no treaty for Hawai'i, so the Hawaiian Kingdom under the presumption of continuity still exists." Kingdom??? Why should anyone believe anon's wild speculation here? where did he get his law degrees? he cite no source for this howler and throughout has no reliable secondary sources. As for one country absorbing another without a treaty that's what Canada did to Newfoundland.  Rjensen (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  and , much of this article seemed to have an extreme bias so I have attempted a re-write with some material from other articles and additional research but am meeting with some resistance. Yes, the article is still incomplete but I do believe first contact and the death of Cook was a very important part of modern Hawaiian history. We still need to expand the religion section and need much more on the ancient history but I do believe the first settlement issue has become a problem with an editor wishing to push (from my perspective) the high-precision radiocarbon dating models as the absolute "truth" and has begun making changes based on that seemingly biased approach to the article. I am sure some of what I added could use some trimming but I also think that the article needs a great deal more content and more neutral wording. I don't think we can say that the Chinese brought leprosy into Hawaii. There are other claims that are simply inaccurate, biased opinion and original research.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have specific complaints you have to specify them here.  Otherwise  your making big changes will not be welcome.  Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes alone are not a problem. Even big changes as long as they are sourced, neutral and encyclopedic. I do believe that is what Wikipedia is for. What is your take on the changes? That is why I pinged you. Do you feel that the issue of first settlement should be altered?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I started by drastic reduction of the section on Cook--full of trivia & poor sources and not useful to an overview of the state's long history. Rjensen (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, that is a start. A little drastic perhaps but, if you could be specific of what you felt was trivia and what sources you feel are weak? I disagree that it was not useful as an overview of the islands long history. How is first contact with the western world not useful?--Mark Miller (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I did return a few reliable sources and some essential information to understand what Cook was retaliating over but other than that I kept it tight and did not return anything else. While I would prefer more detail on this, at the moment it could be seen as undue weight if the ancient history has so little. I hope the changes do not go against the spirit of your alterations.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I also did a slight copy edit to the last few sentences for clarity and tone, so it flowed a little better.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Discussion of unencyclopedic material''

message: I removed a number of claims that were not sourced and were inaccurate. One claim was that the 1887 Constitution (known as the Bayonet Constitution) was forced on Kalakaua to accept a constitutional monarchy and the Liliuokalani was overthrown because she attempted to regain absolute power as monarch. No. Kamehameha III and Kaahumanu II wrote, signed and ratified the first constitution in 1840. All of the monarchs from that time on were no longer absolute monarchs. Similar issues were reverted on removed that were analysis or opinion and written in Wikipedia voice of authority. There still remain a number of issues.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate claims, opinion or original research

message: This table is not complete enough for use at the moment. Perhaps there is something with more information that could help complete the information or take it's place.
Population statistics
 Historical population
Year	Population             	Notes
1778	300,000                	
1805	264,160                	
1831	130,313                	Census
1850	82,000                 	
1853	73,134                 	2,119 foreigners
1872	56,897                 	
1876	53,900                 	
1884	80,000                 	The native population continues to decline.
1890	40,000 native Hawaiians	
1900	154,001                	About 25% Hawaiian/part-Hawaiian; 40% Japanese; 16% Chinese; 12% Portuguese; and about 5% other Caucasian
1910	191,874                	26,041 Hawaiians and 12,056 part-Hawaiians
1920	255,881                	42.7% of the population is of Japanese descent.
1930	368,336                	
1940	420,770                	
1950	499,794                	
1960	632,772                	
1970	769,913                	
1980	964,691                	
1990	1,108,228              	
2000	1,211,537              	239,655 native Hawaiians; Japanese: 21%; Filipino: 17.7%; Chinese: 8.3%; German: 5.8%
2010	1,360,301              	10% Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders; Two or more races may include some of the remainder
--Mark Miller (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving from article for the moment 

message: Prehistory is not "History of Hawaii", all the Prehistory material needs its own article. Wolfpack903 (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the problem actually lies with the opening sentence: "The history of Hawaii begins with the arrival of Captain James Cook and the start of the Kingdom of Hawaii ....."  It seems odd to assume from the outset of the article that everything prior to the late eighteenth century needs to be consigned to 'prehistory' or 'the ancients'. I can't think of any other cases where such a bald statement would make much sense. Would it help to incorporate some clarification, such as "The history of Hawaii as a unified entity...." or "The modern history of Hawaii...."? jxm (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well on the one hand yes "Hawaii" is often assumed to be a singular political entity of islands which did not exist until the Kingdom of Hawaii and which came after Cook. I do not think Hawaii here is meant to mean the archipelago of Hawaii. Further there is a second distinction to make anyways which solves this ambiguity. "History" is defined as the time period of written records and prehistory is the time period where there are no written records.v In regards to renaming the article I would propose creating another article called "prehistory of archipelago of hawaii" linking it in the start and putting all the cultural information there as well as a link for disambiguation if people are confused.Wolfpack903 (talk) 00:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thnx fr yr comments. As it currently stands, the style of the opening sentence just bothers me a bit, as it's somewhat in contrast with other equivalent history entries, such as those for Tonga or Tahiti, which have some comments regarding early settlers, carbon-dated information, etc. I believe that the idea of a separate prehistory article makes sense, though I suppose we have to be clear about how it might overlap with Ancient Hawaii - which we already link in the lede. jxm (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

text: I stand by what was written. Content must be non biased.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Hawaii vs. Prehistory of "Hawaiian Archipelago"

message: Copyedited and restructured this. Feedback encouraged. Comment: The history seems to end with statehood, save for a brief discussion of sovereignty, renaissance, etc. Love to see someone pick up on things such as the rise of tourism, the end of sugar and pineapple cultivation, GMOs, Hawaii's most famous export (BHO), etc. HNY! Lfstevens (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I took another run through this. Feedback encouraged (shouting into the void). Same comments. Lfstevens (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: According to the hitherto uncategorised Anglo-Franco Proclamation article, this would have been 28 November, beginning with 1843. But according to this article, the British were taking over Hawaii in the same year. Does this mean that the Brits changed their minds in December, or that they took over early in 1843 and then had second thoughts? Or something else?
And, by the way , although I would never defend the way in which Newfoundland was added to Canada — or most other acts of government for that matter — the place hadn't been a self-ruling country for over 70 years as of 1949. The people there were vulnerable to forces emanating from various directions. SewerCat (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Newfoundland was an independent self governing dominion like Australia and Canada before 1933, when it voluntarily reverted to a colony ruled from London. Rjensen (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

text: Hawaiians celebrated Independence Day (Hawaii) in recognition of that document you are linking and Sovereignty Restoration Day (Hawaii) for the end of the Paulet Affair (1843). The occupation was not supported by the British government and was a rogue effort on the part of Paulet. One celebrates the international recognition and another celebrated the restoration of sovereignty following the occupation. Lots of things are not mentioned or are erroneously oversimplified here (such as the claim the Mahele was a response to the occupation when it occurred five years after) as a matter of fact.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, , for clarifying. To be honest though, I'm more concerned that this article might be misleading for other readers. The materials you mention should be linked in. I'm obviously not the one to do it. SewerCat (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why No Mention of Hawaii Independence Day? 

message: Section Liloa says:
 
:Līloa had two sons; his firstborn Hākau from his wife Pinea, (his mother's sister), and his second son, ʻUmi a Līloa from his lesser ranking wife, Akahi a Kuleana. Upon his death, elevated Hākau as ruler and delegated religious authority to ʻUmi.
Is no subject in second sentence. Who elevated Hākau? I assume it wasn't the dead Līloa, so who was it? -- Thnidu (talk) 22:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who elevated Hākau? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141220230111/http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&CategoryID=298 to http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&CategoryID=298
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.history.army.mil/html/topics/apam/patriots.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100124141942/http://www.hawaiianhistory.org/ref/chron.html to http://www.hawaiianhistory.org/ref/chron.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Hawaii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111143257/http://www.hawaii.edu/environment/ainakumuwai/html/sustainability.htm to http://www.hawaii.edu/environment/ainakumuwai/html/sustainability.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rge6eb (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENWR 1510 Writing and Critical Inquiry

message: Fast question. when it says Hawaiians on the pearl Harbor paragraph does it mean those from hawai'i or Kanaka maoli (Native hawaiians)? 808Poiboy (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: it refers to the one regiment, where all the soldiers were of Japanese descent.  Rjensen (talk) 22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: aah ok. that shouldn't say "Hawaiians" then. it should say Hawai'i born Japanese. Hawaiian is an ethnicity that's why. I'm Hawaiian and that part confused me. thanks. I don't want to try and edit that because I just started and I don't want to mess up anything that won't be good 808Poiboy (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  attack on pearl harbor and "Hawaiians" 

message: — Assignment last updated by Rmahal05 (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing 1 MW