Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement/Archive 2

message: IslandGyrl feels that discussions between her and JereKrischel have reached a point where the involvement and commentary of more editors would be helpful and constructive. She would like to see more people participate in expanding Wikipedia coverage of the Hawaiian sovereignty area in a way that does not so much take sides but is more exemplary of Wikipedia's neutrality policy. --IslandGyrl 16:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment / Dispute resolution 

message: Folks, I could possibly help here (academic background in Hawaiian history, plus a LOT of research for a historical novel I'm writing) but I've been overwhelmed with my work on the Islam-related and Indian film articles. When I get time, I will look over the article and the controversies and see if I can help NPOV the discussion. I'm certainly not a favorite of Hawaiian activists (I've seriously pissed off a few people in other online discussions) but I think that many of the anti-sovereignty people are just as far off the mark. Praps I can serve (as I so often do) as the target for fire from both sides <g>. Zora 08:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another editor 

message: Lauloha, I don't see the phrase "turning to" as implying that Hawaiians are looking for salvation outside themselves. If I'm cleaning cupboards and I get tired of it, I turn to another task. That doesn't mean I'm worshipping the other task. It means I'm changing what I'm doing. I don't mind your last change, but it seems to me that you're looking for offense and finding it. Zora 09:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lauloha, mahalo for your edits.  Small correction on the period of dormancy - both Aloha Aina and Hui Kalai'aina abandoned their anti-annexation/"sovereignty" positions, June 7, 1900, when they formed the Independent Home Rule Party.  Initially with Robert Wilcox at the helm (who said, "The question of the restoration of the Monarchy is gone from us forever. We are now a people, however, who can vote. You all know we have two-thirds of the votes in this country."), they participated with vigor in the Territorial Government, although after the first term, most native Hawaiians moved with Prince Kuhio to the Republican party. --JereKrischel 17:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but I don't think there is any way to white wash the issue - if you assert there is an imbalance of power, than any race-based "balancing" of that is effectually "taking away" power from non-natives.  The idea that we need to have two-tiers of citizenship to allow a single racial group to dominate politics without a majority is categorically disenfranchisement. --JereKrischel 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your citation, but I think it points to an underlying contradiction.  Simply put, one section of the constitution claims equal protections, but then other sections specifically create two classes of citizenship, one with superior rights to the other.  Regardless of intent (as I'm sure there were many Jim Crow proponents who honestly thought people would be happier if separated and kept among their own kind), the net effect is disenfranchisement.  I think it is possible to be sympathetic to the sovereignty movement, but still be honest about the proposed solutions on the table. Hopefully we're getting closer to wording that we can all agree on. --JereKrischel 16:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lauloha's edits 

message: The vote in congress and occupation of the palace taking place in June 2006 should probably be mentioned in the article.  Badagnani 01:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ???  Links? Justforasecond 04:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: June 2006 news

message: I only briefly read it, but from what I did read, the article doesn't seem particularly clear on the level of support for the movement. Nil Einne 12:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Level of support 

message: Any U.S. role in the overthrow of the monarchy in 1893 is clearly alleged, not bald fact.  The assertion that the U.S. had any functional role in the downfall of liliuokalani is contested by both the Morgan Report and the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, and I think is unfairly stated in the recent version.  One might just as well state that something like "the CIA's role in the assassination of JFK, alleged to have been part of a conspiracy by Cuban dissidents as payback for the Bay of Pigs."  Just as it would be more appropriate to state "the CIA's alleged role", it is similarly appropriate to note that the any role of the U.S. in regards to the Hawaiian Revolution is alleged. --JereKrischel 09:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi JK. I disagree completely. Obviously, by the very fact that U.S. troops were on site, they had a role. It is not alleged, it is a fact. It is alleged that they played a conspiratorial role, but that they played a role is a statement of fact. Arjuna 09:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: P.S. I hope we can discuss this and come up with a reasonable interpretation of the events, which are a matter of historical record and really shouldn't be subject to whatever political agendas -- on either side -- may currently exist. So, I'm not going to rvv your edits, even though I take strong issue with some of them. Instead, let's try discussing first. Arjuna 10:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: On further reflection -- and continuing (as always) to act in and assume good faith -- I'm going to rvv "alleged". For sake of argument: one can assume that the U.S. minister had absolutely no role whatsoever in the conspiracy to overthrow the monarchy, but to argue that the U.S. had "no role" in the events is patently untrue -- indeed, a fact. The American troops did play a role -- if nothing else, they intimidated the royalists by their very presence. This is undeniable. And if nothing else, this is what the Apology Bill references. Your point about the CIA etc. -- erm, sorry, that is a non sequitur. Arjuna 10:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that blaming the U.S. troops for feelings of "intimidation" isn't a statement of their role, but more a statement of an interpretation of their role.  It is undeniable that the royalists were unable to resist the Committee of Safety, and that the landing of U.S. peacekeepers may have been detrimental to morale for the royalists and supportive of morale to the Honolulu Rifles - could we just state that as the "role" they played?  Also, FWIW, PL103-150 references specifically a conspiracy, not their mere presence.  Let me see if I can come up with an appropriate compromise. --JereKrischel 07:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alleged

message: Does anyone know if there have been any claimants to the throne of Hawai'i?
:Yes.  See Legal status of Hawaii#Modern claims to the Kingdom. --JereKrischel 02:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretenders to the Throne? 

message: JK, your recent addition to the article that "Many sovereignty groups cite the Apology Resolution as the definitive guide to Hawaiian history, and use it to justify their claims" is absurd, insulting, and unacceptable POV-pushing. With all respect, you should be careful in making edits such as this one in the future as this does not reflect well on your overall credibility. Aloha. Arjuna 04:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I didn't see it as insulting - could you please suggest a different phrasing that indicates that sovereignty activists believe that the Apology Resolution is a factual representation of history and therefore legally binding (as presented by Larsen v. Sai)? --JereKrischel 05:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see my latest edits Arjuna - I also converted things to refs.  Any help in finding better phrasing is much appreciated, mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Apology Resolution

message: Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for.  Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: I really appreciate everyone's contributions and do not mean to dis anyone with changes.  However, because this is the first place people will look for information on the subject, I really want the first few sentences to be really to-the-point and accurate, and also respectful to those about whom the article is written.  If the Sovereignty movement was referrred to as a "loose coalition of groups" in the paper, people in Hawai'i (even those who are not activists) would be insulted.  I know nobody means harm, but it is not biased to use positive language, so long as that language is not misleading.  I ask that everyone try for a positive tone overall.  And honestly, for those (not all editors meet this description, but some do) who have a personal problem with the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, this may require some honest self-examination.  For others who are just trying to find a workable balance, don't worry, it will work out.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laualoha (talk • contribs). 
:I think that it's misleading to assert that it's an "indigenous/aboriginal movement".  The sovereignty claims are based on the downfall of the multi-racial Kingdom of Hawaii, not the downfall of pre-Kamehameha unification chiefdoms.  Although most sovereignty groups insist on race-based superiority within the structure of any future government for Hawaii, they don't all insist on special treatment for pre-1778 immigrants de jure (even if some do de facto by excluding asians from consideration of citizenship because they were contract laborers in the Kingdom during the Hawaiian Revolution).
:Anyway, I have no problem with edits to the intro, but I just can't buy into sweeping claims like that.  Maybe you could try another version without the racial label? --JereKrischel 06:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro Reformat needed 

message: how many members are there, and are they considered to be a strong movement--Ezzex 19:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  is the seperatistmovement strong in Hawaii? 

message: Small movement based on the island of Molokai.  It is a pro-gun rights, pro-Hawaiian sovereignty group, that claims to be protecting Constitutional rights (especially Second Amendment rights) and fighting against the "American police state."  It encourages a calling to arms for the Hawaiian people, and is largely opposed to the current governor of the state. It publishes a weekly newspaper, called the Molokai Advertiserhttp://molokaiadvertiser-news.com/, on the island of Hawaii, which is mostly composed of various propaganda for their cause.
:I removed this section due to a lack of secondary sources describing Peabody's connection with the sovereignty movement.  The only source offered is a link to Peabody's newspaper which doesn't support the interpretive claim.  I'm not opposed to adding the content back in if better sources can be found. —Viriditas | Talk 11:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed Militia of Molokai

message: The page is now protected for 5 days. During this time, please try and find common ground and arrive to a version that all can live with. If you cannot, this is a good time to pursue dispute resolution such as third opinions or requests for comments. If you are ready to resume editing or to contest the protection, place a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: It cannot be created by someone not knowledgable as the title is very important.  Her Majesty Mahealani Kahau, Mahealani of Hawaii, Queen Mahealani Kahau, some other phrase?  I think someone whose knows how she is to be addressed and has some historical facts should creat the page Geo8rge (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Queen needs a Wikipage 

message: I recommend a rebuild from scratch, as it's not going to fix itself, ever.  Definite conflict of interests all around.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuapinmon (talk • contribs) 18:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: this article is farked

message: I have mixed feelings on this proposal.  In many ways, combining the articles would make things easier for all involved as they are so closely related.
However, these are separate issues as well.  The Hawaiian sovereignty movement exists because of their feelings towards the Legal status of Hawaii. One is a legal issue while the other is a response to that legal issue.
Companion articles to the Legal status of Hawaii include the Legal status of Texas and the Legal status of Alaska.  Using many of the same arguments, these articles also assert the controversial legality of American ownership of these states.
Would it be appropriate to merge the Legal status of Texas with the Republic of Texas (group)?  This is probably comparable to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement for Texas. How about merging the Legal status of Alaska with the Alaskan Independence Party? That is probably comparable as an Alaskan sovereignty movement. 
So I agree there is some wisdom in this proposal. However, I can see a valid argument that a sovereignty movement article is ultimately separate from a legal status article. LarryQ (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While there is certainly significant overlap (due to multiple editors, some of whom are unclear on the concept of summary style), legal status and sovereignty movement topics are separate but related.  My limited understanding is that legal status of X articles are supposed to examine the arguments by Y sovereignty movement, so there is an entirely different approach.  Legal status articles have more of an outside perspective, whereas the movement articles focus on the group or groups that are active in the dispute.  Legal status articles are usually a historical overview of the dispute, with or without arguments.  The major difference between the two is that the legal status articles are supposed to take a broad view while the sovereignty articles should take a narrow approach.  At this point, Legal status of Hawaii needs a major cleanup, and should be used summary style in this article.  I'll see what I can do to help out. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge?

message: could somebody post a citation?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.178.214 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: BJ Penn

message: Just having a list of names isn't very encyclopedic. I believe it should be removed since there is no context.Mc kevins (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supporters / Opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty list 

message: * Earl Arakaki
* Robert M. Chapman
* Brian L. Clarke
* John Goemans (d. 2009)
* Patrick W Hanifin
* Richard O. Rowland
* Malia Zimmerman
W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty

message: Hard to take this article too seriously with the bogus map from some alternative history pasted down towards the bottom of the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously? 

message: The article is pro-US, and blatantly so. Most articles on independence movements are far less POV. The introduction is particularly baised, the statement that "the historical and legal basis for these claims is one of considerable dispute" is absurd. The US revolution and invasion was clearly illegal, and there can be no such thing as a retrospective legalisation!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. This article is weird. Angry bee (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  US bias 

message: The section on the Bishop Estate made it sound as though Charles Reed Bishop created Kamehameha Schools on his own. He was mandated as executor of Princess Pauahi's will.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.10 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bishop Estate 

message: I take serious issue with statements like the following which can be found in the article:
"Legally, the land belonging to the Hawaiian Government in 1898 has passed to the U.S. Government and back to the State of Hawai'i. People alive now have a democratic right to decide by majority vote how government land should be used now. No one deserves more than equality"
This statement isn't a quotation from a legal ruling--it's clearly just a normative judgement reflecting someone's opinion. This article needs some cleaning up. CharlesMartel (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious NPOV Issues

message: Hawaii, like Alaska, should be an independent nation, and will be eventually.  Since the U.S. is an illegitimate nation, founded on lies and stolen land, it has no legitimate claim to Hawaii or Alaska.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cetj98168 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaii the Independent Nation 

message: A search for "Hawaiian Nationalism" brings me to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement's page.  The difference between Hawaiian Nationalism and Hawaiian Sovereignty is likely the current dispute between OHA and other Hawaiian Sovereignty Groups.  See Haole Nationalism, and OHA infighting, 
Also it may be worth pointing out that the difference between these two political ideologies has roots in American diplomacy. For example this race-based distinction: a native Hawaiian (opposed to a non-native Hawaiian?) is any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." (1921?) . Quash-asia (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hawaiian Nationalism 

message: The article is badly in need of work. I am going to be expanding on the article to be more encyclopedic and may be creating the article List of Hawaiian sovereignty groups and moving some content there with an smaller summary on this page.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is an important article which ought to be comprehensive, neutral and well-referenced, . I trust your expertise and ability to do the job right. If I can be of any assistance as an interested non-Hawaiian, please let me know. Thank you, and Happy New Year. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 04:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Cullen and Happy New year to you as well!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it...this article being a basic list already may be easier to just move the article and keep the attributions where they are and then start a new article on the basic subject of the sovereignty movement with sources (there are a lot).--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article re-write/update 

message: There is a difference between the Queen abdicating and being overthrown.  And there is a difference between accepting the US military occupation, and maintaining a royal government - in exile or otherwise.
Currently the article confuses these four options : "Following her 1893 overthrow, Queen Liliʻuokalani did not formally abdicate the throne, so the Hawaiian Kingdom became a government in exile".   This does not make sense. The Queen did not abdicate, so she remained the Queen de jure, if not de facto.  As for the existence of the government in exile, that is another matter....  Incidentally the Queen is not the Kingdom, nor would a government in exile be the Kingdom!203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have temporarily removed the section in question. Much of the above is point of view and does not substantiate the claims with a source itself...so......--Mark Miller (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government in Exile 

message: I just want to pile on the criticism about this article. I have never lived in Hawaii, though I am an American, so I really don't feel I have an immediate personal stake in this, but the tone and attitude this article has is often blatantly against the various sovereignty movements. Especially the "People alive now have a democratic right to decide by majority vote how government land should be used now. No one deserves more than equality" statement. It's not a quote from anyone; It's just dropped in as a matter of fact. 
I don't have the expertise or time to fix the writing and perspective, but it is really poorly done.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.100.86 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is actually true. Much of the article has the appearance of an inexperienced editor attempting "balance", however, balance is not a matter of adding any criticism or unreferenced claim on either side. Yes, I have already removed a good deal of POV on both sides. Lets move forward with an accurate and encyclopedic summary of ONLY the reliable sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  More NPOV Commentary  

message: *Honolulu Magazine--Mark Miller (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources parking 

message: Since a President is required by the Constitution to be a natural born citizen, and since Bam was born in Honolulu, I wonder if the Hawaiian sovereigntists recognize the president-elect status of Obama. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DNFT. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would still fall under the American diplomatic land use laws.  So no.Quash-asia (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Why would they? He's just born there, without any special connection to hawaiian politics or culture. And why would they feel impressed by that whole 'natural born citizen' rule in the first place? He's the USA-president, i don't see any reason why Hawaiian sovereignists would see him as _their_ president Selena1981 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: I wonder if they recognize Obama as the incoming President?