Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Laualoha:Sorry, but I had to take this out: "The legal status of Hawai'i is not a major dispute. Further, this issue is not recognized or discussed by the majority of American and Hawaiian citizens. The controversy in Hawai'i resembles in many ways the same academic debate being argued by several other fringe groups in the United States including the Texan and Alaskan Independence Movements."
Laualoha:Uh, I really donʻt want to dis anybodyʻs contribution, but I have to say that I really feel that the objective of Wikipedia is to provide information. If youʻre a little biased, I can accept that: provide information to show what people donʻt know yet. But please donʻt say things like "The legal status of Hawai'i is not a major dispute", when you know very well that there are whole groups, and tons of literature, dedicated to the question of legality!
The above statement is an argument, not information, and contains (I really hate to say this, but I gotta) several logical fallacies (please donʻt make me go into them one by one!) I have nothing against people having points of view I donʻt agree with, even if theyʻre loud about them. But it wouldnʻt be very nice if I was to make an argument like this coming from the opposite point of view (i.e."The current illegal status of Hawai'i is not a major dispute. Not a single current sovereign nation disputes the illegality of American "ownership" of Hawai'i....",etc.), would it? It would be just as valid, but would drive you to correct it and therefore waste your time. I really think we need to avoid doing this to each other.
If you want to make a point, please give information that will enlighten people to whatever you want them to understand. Aloha, Laualoha 14:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Jere:I think the point can probably be stated in a more NPOV manner - the essence being that as a matter of international law and jurisprudence for over 100 years, the argument is settled. You can't make the inverse claim, because the Republic of Hawaii was internationally recognized, and the annexation in 1898 was also internationally recognized (with the U.S. taking up the treaty obligations/rights/responsibilites post-annexation). I'll try to insert something back in that has a less argumentative tone. --JereKrischel 16:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)