Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed changes

{{editprotect}}

N Not done. Please establish a consensus to take this particular action; while you may feel that your suggestion is neutral and balanced, it needs to have clear and uncontroversial consensus before the protected page can be edited. - Revolving Bugbear 21:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

We've heard from Relata, T. Gallagher, and Viriditas. Todd seems to think the article is skewed in favor of sovereignty activists and Relata raises good points with respect to the first section. Viriditas seems interested in the topic of American empire.I believe we have a consensus for removing the controversial content (paragraphs 5 and 6) from the first section. It is biased, and the first section should summarise the article, not serve as a battleground for duelling quotes. Viriditas can edit American empire or develop a section dedicated to the morality and legality of the overthrow for inclusion elsewhere in the Overthrow article. If V does so, I would suggest it be placed at the end of the article so that readers could augment their understanding after reading about the actual overthrow itself.

There are a few points to be made about Hanifin and Fein. Including material from Alan Dershowitz in a history article would be appropriate if that article broached the topic of the morality and legality of the historical events described. Hawai'i is a special case because invariably a discussion of Hawaiian history includes moral and legal aspects of that history. There is a difference between the overthrow itself and the morality and legality of the overthrow. By way of analogy, imagine two historians witnessing or hearing reports of a tall, lanky fellow skipping stones on a lake one afternoon. Both historians write about the events, describing the man, his height, the stones, the lake, the way he throws, and so on. Both historians would likely describe the events differently because of differences in what they saw, what they heard from others, and because of their writing styles. They may choose to emphasize one aspect over the other, perhaps due to bias or inclination. This is historical interpretation. As I understand it, this was the way the overthrow article was meant to read. This is why and where we use sources such as Kuykendall. Now, if either historian or a new writer broadens the scope of the article to include value judgements regarding skipping stones - for instance, whether skipping stones is reckless, whether skipping stones is disruptive, whether skipping stones is the right thing to do, whether skipping stones is imperialistic, the article certainly retains an element of history but it now extends into the realm of morality and legality. This is what I believe the overthrow article turned into and this is also what triggers inclusion of scholars like Fein and Hanifin.

One possible objection to this would be that, "We are talking about imperialism, not morality or legality. We never explicitly stated that the overthrow was immoral or illegal". Earlier, I mentioned synthesizing A(the overthrow), with B(imperialism), to advance C(the overthrow was immoral and illegal). There doesn't have to be a explicit statement that the overthrow was immoral or illegal because immorality and illegality are implicit in the word imperialism. The connotation of the word is enough to denote the wrongness of an act described as imperialistic. It's well understood in common use of the word that there is no "good" imperialism, only "bad" imperialism.

This is not a case of citing a couple attorneys out-of-step with the history of Hawai'i who happened to produce a couple of incidental articles without much thought. Hanifin's article, which hinges on the circumstances of the overthrow, has 152 footnotes citing such authorities as Kuykendall, Daws, Encyclopedia Britannica, the Native Hawaiian Study Commission, and various constitutions of the monarchy. Fein's article relies primarily on Kuykendall, widely considered the best source available on Hawaiian history.

Hanifin and Fein are acceptable for other reasons as well. Hanifin's article, a detailed analysis of the moral and legal aspects of the overthrow, was vetted and deemed acceptable and publishable by the editors of the Hawai'i bar journal. Fein's article, also considered a scholary tome on Hawaiian history and the moral and legal aspect of the overthrow, was published in the Hawai'i Reporter, and was vetted by Senator John Kyle on June 14th, 2005 when it was put into the Congressional record for Senators examining the historical circumstances, legality, and morality of the overthrow. Both Hanifin and Fein are available on-line as well. Clearly, the contention that they are attorneys so they can't be historians does not hold water. The two are not mutually exclusive.

At the same time, Kinzer's book ought to be left out. It includes one small section on Hawai'i and draws a tortured comparison between the benign presence of 162 marines protecting the peace during the revolution to the full scale death and destruction accompanying U.S. invasion of Iraq. The U.S. marines in Hawai'i remained stricly neutral and never fired a shot. They did not provide arms, diplomatic support, or economic assistance to the Hawaiian insurgents. Kinzer's book lacks scholarly attributes, was not subject to peer review, stems from a decidedly left wing perspective, and represents a sensationalist approach favoring corporate profits over quality. It's a mass market publication with little regard for accuracy that bows to the competitive forces of major market book selling. It's distortions represent the quick, easy fix and marginalized truth found in corporate marketing departments. It would be decidedly out of place on any campus.

Therefore, I'm requesting for the time being, one simple edit. That is, to remove the 5th and 6th paragraphs of the overthrow article. Please consider removing these two paragraphs:

The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and the subsequent annexation of Hawaiʻi has recently been cited as the first major instance of American imperialism.[2] Historian Pauline King notes that "Today, many if not most Hawaiian and American historians...do contend that the islands were 'stolen' from the Hawaiian people by the United States."[3]

Hawai'i Senator Daniel Inouye, a World War II veteran, argues that, "Hawai'i remains one of the greatest examples of a multiethnic society living in relative peace."[4] Senator Inouye has also stated that "The Apology Resolution (of 1993) acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands to the United States, either through their government or through a plebiscite or referendum."[5]

Mahalo--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 19:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop leaving long screeds on this talk page; refactor the above comments and boil them down to their basic points. Please also stop distorting the positions of other editors. I have never been interested in the topic of "American empire"; my interest is and always has been the history of Hawaii. Your interest, on the other hand, is in the Legal status of Hawaii, and you should find your legal scholar sources welcome there. Stephen Kinzer studied history at Boston University, worked as Latin America correspondent for the Boston Globe, and for two decades was a foreign correspondent for the New York Times, as bureau chief in Nicaragua, Bonn, Berlin, and Istanbul. He's also been the Charles Moskos Visiting Professor of Military Studies at the Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences at Northwestern University. American historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. praised Overthrow and other historians support his research. You claim that Kinzer's book "lacks scholarly attributes and was not subject to peer review", but he states in the book that the Hawaii material was reviewed by Pauline N. King, professor of Hawaii history at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. Everything in Kinzer's book can be found in other works by historians, so your objections hold no weight. You pretend to be concerned about the accuracy of Kinzer's book, but you have failed to demonstrate a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a typical paperback puff piece with a catchy title cobbled together to meet a book deadline with nothing but profit in mind. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Back on topic: What particular aspect of Hawaii-related history do you disagree with as stated in the book by Kinzer? May I also draw your attention to the notes and the bibliography? Which of Kinzer's sources do you dispute? Do you also disagree with professor Pauline N. King? —Viriditas | Talk 23:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's bombastic, trite, hyperbole typical of profit driven publishers who have no regard for the integrity of the work and maximum regard for their own wealth. You might find it in near the magazine rack at the bookshop in the airport but you won't find it on any college campus. Typical mass media outlet sensationalism. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

You're avoiding the topic. Again, what particular aspect of Hawaii-related history do you disagree with as stated in the book by Kinzer? May I also draw your attention to the notes and the bibliography? Which of Kinzer's sources do you dispute? Do you also disagree with professor Pauline N. King? In your comment, please actually address the book; your personal opinion of the book is not the issue here, nor is it relevant, so please do not repeat it for the third time. As for finding the book on the college campus, it appears to be a required/recommended text in college course syllabi around the world. Apparently, Princeton University used the book for the WWS556B/POL587 Spring 2007 course, "Empires and Imperialism". PDF. The book was released as a hardcover on April 4, 2006 (ISBN 0805078614). —Viriditas | Talk 00:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a book about "Empires and Imperialism" then why are you attempting to use it in an article about Hawai'i? How much weight does Kinzer's paperback give to the creation of Kamehameha's empire, when he drove thousands of O'ahuan residents to their deaths off the Pali? How much weight does he give to Liliuokalani's power grab? How much weight does he give to the morality and legality of the monarchy? It's classic quick and easy profits disguised as truth. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See the Library of Congress record. The book is not about empires and imperialism; one particular college course used the book in an example I gave; It has been used in others. You know this of course, but you are wikilawyering again. The Library of Congress lists the subject of the book that we are discussing as Hawaii--History--Overthrow of the Monarchy, 1893. You still haven't answered my questions, and the book was released as a hardcover, not a paperback as you keep claiming. The questions you are asking do not seem to be about the book, but about what you want the book to be about. Please address the actual book and stop repeating misinformation. Please use page numbers so others can check your work. For the record, Kinzer was added to the article by Arjuna808 on 05:18, 17 March 2007.[1] I support its use in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 00:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it describe the creation of Kamehameha's empire? Does it describe Kepaniwai? Does it describe the bloody battles between Keoua and Kamehameha? What does it say about Kamehameha's massive armada? Anything about Kamehameha killing Keoua with a spear? Anything about preperations to invade Kauai? Does Kinzer describe the first formulation of the Empire of Hawai'i? Does he cite Kamakau or Forander? Kinzer is a classic example of starting with a grand scheme and then forcing history into his thesis. He starts with the idea of overthrow then tries to include Hawai'i, no matter how tenuous the connection. His goal is to indict the United States at every turn of the corner. His book appeals to the same purient interest that drives some people to read the bad news instead of the good news. His type of historical cherry picking, especially from a left wing idealouge, is dubious and suspect. If it is used on a college campus then I suspect that his one-sided promotion is balanced by less strident required reading. I support the use of Kuykendall instead.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Since Kinzer is only writing about the overthrow, why would he be interested in ancillary topics? Yosemitesam25, can you please point out a problem with one of the claims Kinzer makes in regards to this article? Just focus on one, please. I haven't yet addressed Kuykendall, as we are talking about Kinzer, and your argument for discarding Kinzer appears to be empty rhetoric. —Viriditas | Talk 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

ROTFL. Only one person could be so verbose. Hi JK! I have only skimmed this, but seriously "YS", please try to keep your comments brief. One other comment (you can bet I'll have more later): Kinzer is a "typical paperback puff piece with a catchy title cobbled together to meet a book deadline with nothing but profit in mind"?!?! Dude, you are too funny! You should start a comedy show on Fox News. Arjuna (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I STAND CORRECTED! JK, thanks for your message on my talk page. I sincerely, deeply, and humbly apologize for assuming that Yosemitesam was you (a notion that he, when asked directly, did not bother to dispel, btw). Frankly, I am rather relieved that the working theory was wrong. That you were able to give the kind and generous words that you did says much about your character. I will send you an email soon, but for now enjoy your wikibreak. Cheers/mahalo/thanks, Arjuna (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ready to resume editing?

If you are ready to resume editing, ping my talk page, and I will remove protection. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

We are not ready to resume editing, and please do not remove protection. —Viriditas | Talk 04:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Viriditas. Issues are still being sorted out. Not ready. Arjuna (talk) 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I'll be checking in throughout the day. What stage are we at now? I'd like the 5th and 6th paragraphs removed altogether or see the issues they raise (ex Kinzer) added to a new section providing a balanced view. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, the paragraphs can be moved to another section, like "Overthrow", as we need to clean the lead up and use it as a summary only. "Balanced views" do not mean "one view only". —Viriditas | Talk 22:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with both moving the paragraphs and that balanced views are good. Seems like we could go a couple different directions here. One would be to simply keep these type of moral judgements out of the article altogether and focus strictly on the circumstances of the overthrow itself. These value judgements are well covered on other Hawai'i articles. If we did keep the value judgements in the article I would support a new heading. That way we wouldn't clutter up the "Overthrow" section in the same way we did in the lead section. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I question the premise that there are any "value judgements" or "moral judgements" (Yosemite keeps changing his terms) in the article at all. There are descriptions of the prevailing scholarly consensus, which is not at all the same thing. Moreover, and it would be a misrepresentation and undue weight to "balance" that with the views of Twigg-Smith, Hanifin, Fein et al. for reasons already provided. Let's remember after all, that Fox News claims to be "balanced". (Fair-minded editors will note the fact that no serious editor has yet added Trask, Silva, and other sovereignty-minded citations, even though they are certainly acceptable scholarly sources. This demonstrates that serious editors try to withhold particularly tendentious material.) If Yosemite can find acceptable scholarly sources to represent a particular analysis then that is another thing and perfectly fine (I suspect it may prove something of a challenge). Cherry-picking sentences from Russ, Daws, Kuykendall et al. to present a misleading depiction / POV is NOT acceptable. Now, all that said, I don't have a problem moving the Kinzer paragraph to a separate section on the significance of the events in a historical context. Given how much pointless wrangling went on over "proximate cause" v. "precipitating event" (which are virtually synonymous, or at least quite innocently similar in intended meaning) last time, however, I retain a sense of skepticism that fairness is the overarching motivation of every editor here. I would like to be proven wrong. Arjuna (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What's the point of the Kinzer sentence? "The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and the subsequent annexation of Hawai'i has recently been cited as the first major instance of American imperialism." --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indicates the prevailing mainstream view of the events in their historical context. Not to put the events into a historical context is misleading and incomplete. There are other sources besides Kinzer for this view, he's just handy, recent, widespread, and well-reviewed. Arjuna (talk) 06:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is major imperialism?--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See Overseas expansion of the United States. You seem to be playing games, as this is non-controversial, established historical fact. And in case you respond with denial, please remember New Imperialism and the American Anti-Imperialist League. A 2005 college history textbook, Unto A Good Land: A History Of The American People describes the imperialism of the era:

The stunning naval victories in Cuba and the Philippines justified the "navalism" of Mahan and the expansionists and emboldened some among them to demand more in the race for empire. Others balked at outright imperialism, for Americans had gone to war with Spain to fight colonialism, not embrace it...The annexation of Hawaii in 1898 pointed toward empire. Newspapers argued that Hawaii was essential to American interests...McKinley concurred and readily signed the joint congressional resolution annexing the islands in 1898. Moving westward...the United States now had a string of strategic islands - Midway, Wake, and Guam - as stepping-stones to the Philippines and the Asian mainland.

—Viriditas | Talk 07:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Kinzer or are you saying that American imperialism during the overthrow was wrong? --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 08:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe either Kinzer or myself have said that. If Kinzer did say that, we would simply attribute his opinion. —Viriditas | Talk 08:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Viriditas is correct. Kinzer was reporting established historical fact and it is not the left-wing screed that Y has mischaracterized it as being. Kinzer's book is well-reviewed -- do a simple search on the NY Times and other websites for book reviews. That his historical reportage is regarded as non-controversial is instructive with regards to this particular article.

If it is any reassurance to those of a Fox News predisposition, the fact that shady things happened in the past does not mean 'we're bad people', 'we're a bad country', or 'U.S. possession of Hawaii is illegal' (all statements with which I would not agree). This article is written for adults: it's a big bad world with people acting with all sorts of motivations; lots of bad things happen; often they have a certain inevitability in retrospect; sometimes they even result in many positive things. History is what it is. I agree that Y seems to be playing games here. The Kinzer quote is appropriate for the article, Q.E.D. Let's move on. Arjuna (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinzer is really saying in the title of his book and in the sentence you've written into the article, that the overthrow was imperialism. Here is the description of that term from the wikipedia article. "...the forceful extension of a nation's authority by territorial conquest establishing economic and political domination of other nations. In its second meaning the term describes the imperialistic attitude of superiority, subordination and dominion over foreign peoples." It goes on to describe Marx's imperialism: "...imperialism is not necessarily direct formal control of one country by another, but the economic exploitation of one by another. " In addition, Arjuna says the overthrow/imperialism is "shady". You both agree?--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 09:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to put words into my mouth and it won't work. Obviously I was talking generalities, as anyone (should be able to) plainly understand. The whole point I was making is that one would expect readers -- but certainly editors for heaven's sakes -- to have a mature understanding of how the world often works. That the events in 1893 are understood in the mainstream press and academia as having not been motivated by pure love is so obvious that surely you can understand that. I won't speak for Viriditas, but at this point Yosemite, you seem to be largely talking to yourself. I and others have demonstrated the relevance of the material, and the consensus of serious editors supports it. It's over man, move on. Arjuna (talk) 09:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The word "Imperialism" was coined in the sixteenth century, Yosemitesam25, and the original concept has nothing to do with Marx. Can anyone tell me why we are discussing it? Oh, that's right, we're engaged in yet-another-off-topic discussion initiated by Yosemitesam25 to avoid providing actual reasons for why Kinzer isn't a valid source. Let's get back on track, here. Please provide a single example of something you dispute from Kinzer. Otherwise, keep quiet. You write, Kinzer is really saying in the title of his book and in the sentence you've written into the article, that the overthrow was imperialism. Great, thanks for offering your opinion. Now, tell us, does Kinzer say that, and is that view supported by historians? Of course, you will actually have to consult the book (and those of actual historians) to answer that question. Let us know what you find. Having just looked at Kinzer, the answer seems to be yes: "The history of American overthrows of foreign governments can be divided into three parts. First came the imperial phase, when Americans deposed regimes more or less openly. None of the men who overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy tried to hide their involvement..." But the question should be asked: Where does Kinzer explicitly say that the overthrow is cited as the first major instance of American imperialism? He alludes to it in the introduction, but where does he actually say it? —Viriditas | Talk 09:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Viriditas, I confess I'm not following where you're going here. Yes, Kinzer was saying the overthrow was the first major instance of American imperialism (last sentence of the Hawaii chapter). But is that view supported by "many or most historians" as Pauline King says? Yes. And is Kinzer's view largely regarded as so obvious as to be uncontroversial, as evidenced by the fact that no major book reviews dispute the thesis? Yes. So all this demonstrates the relevance of Kinzer as a handy, go-to source to cite the prevailing mainstream, educated, non-partisan view of the overthrow. So I'm unclear on the point your making. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 10:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to argue from Yosemitesam25's POV; Devil's advocate. We have the introduction of Kinzer's book, where Hawaii is classified as being overthrown during the imperial phase of American history. But we also have the detail:

Never before had an American diplomat helped organize the overthrow of a government to which he was officially accredited...Thurston overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy with a core group of fewer than thirty men. [Stevens] had been sent to Hawaii to promote annexation, and the men who sent him, President Harrison and Secretary of State Blaine, knew precisely what that must entail...he was doing what the president and the secretary of state wanted. He used his power and theirs to depose the Hawaiian monarchy. That made him the first American to direct the overthrow of a foreign government.

Later, Kinzer writes:

Powerful businesses played just as great a role in pushing the United States to intervene abroad during the Cold War as they did during the first burst of American imperialism. Their influence alone, however, was never enough. Americans overthrew governments only when economic interests coincided with ideological ones. In Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Phillippines, Nicaragua, and Honduras, the American ideology was that of Christian improvement and "manifest destiny". Deacdes later, in Iran, Guatemala, South Vietnam, and Chile, it was anti-Communism. During both eras, Americans came to believe it was their right, and even their historical obligation, to lead the forces of good against those of inquity. "For us there are two sorts of people in the world," John Foster Dulles onces asserted. "There are those who are Christians and support free enterprise, and there are the others." Dulles spoke for American leaders from Benjamin Harrison to Richard Nixon. All believed that the twin goals of United States foreign policy should be to secure strategic advantage, for both political and commericial reasons, and to impose, promote, or encourage an ideology. The regimes they marked for death were those they considered both economically and ideologically hostile. These coups might never have been launched, and great damage to four nations, as well as to the United States might have been averted, if the White House had not been so vulnerable to the herd mentality, or "groupthink". In each case, the president of the United States and one or two senior advisers made clear that they wished a certain government overthrown. Their determination set the tone for all that followed.

—Viriditas | Talk 10:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Here's what the book review Arjuna provided says about the book, "As Kinzer makes clear, the problem is that all too many of the interventions he recounts were not just utterly ruthless; they were utterly unnecessary." So Kinzer, his book, the link you provided in the article itself, the sentence you inserted into the article, the review of the book, and the title alone all insinuate that the overthrow was immoral and illegal. One possible objection to this would be that, "We are talking about imperialism, not morality or legality. We never explicitly stated that the overthrow was immoral or illegal". Earlier, I mentioned synthesizing A(the overthrow), with B(imperialism), to advance C(the overthrow was immoral and illegal). There doesn't have to be a explicit statement that the overthrow was immoral or illegal because immorality and illegality are implicit in the word imperialism. The connotation of the word is enough to denote the wrongness of an act described as imperialistic. It's well understood in common use of the word that there is no "good" imperialism, only "bad" imperialism. The article certainly retains an element of history but it now extends into the realm of morality and legality. This is what I believe the overthrow article turned into when you added Kinzer and King, and this is also what triggers inclusion of scholars like Fein and Hanifin. If you want to use Kinzer, or King for that matter, then Hanifin and Fein are in also.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, that is where you are exactly wrong. That Imperialism existed is an uncontested historical fact and has nothing to do with morality. That it is seen now as something bad is a bias of the present day (see my comments above). And aside from that, your reasoning is so convoluted as to be completely unintelligible. Don't bring up the Fein thing again: I have already demonstrated that that line of argument just does not fly. Arjuna (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting point, but Kinzer, as well as multiple historians (See the quote above from Unto A Good Land: A History Of The American People) refer to it as imperialism, so right or wrong, it appears accurate. Do you have a source from a historian that says otherwise? —Viriditas | Talk 10:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add in response to Viriditas that if the explicit statement "the overthrow has been cited as the first major instance of American Imperialism" can't be found in the book then Arjuna (or whoever it was that added that sentence to begin with) says that Kinzer makes that claim.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be in the book. See my quotes above. —Viriditas | Talk 10:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

That it was imperialism is one thing: that's not controversial. It's a trite observation that the U.S. and just about every other powerful nation at the time had imperialist/expansionist motivations. Whether those tendencies were moral or immoral is a totally different issue (see remarks above; it was what it was). So the point is: imperialism was a fact. Mainstream view of the overthrow is it was part of that aspect of history. This has nothing to do with morality; it is just fact. As for the moral dimensions of the overthrow, I would agree that does not belong in the article, or if it does, it should be treated in a very different and separate section. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 10:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

All of this has totally gotten bogged down in a completely banal discussion about something that is completely obvious. 1. Kinzer, King, and other published scholarly sources are legit and appropriate; Fein and other GRIH-sponsored / vanity pubs are not. This is straightforward Wikipedia policy, Q.E.D. 2. The mainstream view, supported by Kinzer et al (using him as shorthand) is that the overthrow was orchestrated by agents of the United States and agents motivated by a desire for Hawaii to be incorporated into the United States. 3. All the rest of the stuff we've been talking about here is stuff that Yosemite wants to speculate about, and that is POV WP:OR. In other words, we're done here. We should move on. Yosemite can continue ranting to himself. Arjuna (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Kinzer's point about the motivation for imperialism and colonialism can be found in just about every history book that discusses the Age of Imperialism. It boils down to economics (economic imperialism), military (defense), and culture (religious imperialism and cultural imperialism). And this is, of course, true for Hawaii. What is Yosemitesam25's objection? —Viriditas | Talk 10:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

He may have an objection, but it is groundless. One final comment for the evening, and this may or may not partially allay Yosemite's concern. I do not support a version of the article that screams "this was imperialism and it was BAD!" History is complex and nuanced (if for no other reason than that people weren't dumb and knew how to cover their tracks), and the article shouldn't be a tiresome recitation of how everything that occurred was the U.S.'s fault. It wasn't. There was bad government at the time, and that was an additional motivation. There were other motivations besides the desire for annexation / expansionism. Those are all fair points to make. I miss JK -- though we battled, he understood that no serious editor here is trying to make the article into a facile anti-U.S./pro-Hawaiian screed. Yosemite, please re-read JK's comments from yesterday and try to appreciate what he says. You will only be an effective editor that people take seriously if you can transcend your own biases. Arjuna (talk) 11:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear you and will read JK's comments again. I'd like it if he was here also. I honestly don't know if it's me failing to understand Wikipedia guidelines or if it's you. It seems like you profess to support a balanced article but little progress occurs on that front. Any possible opposing viewpoint is tagged as biased, or fringe, or violating neutrality, or not scholarly. There is a lot of repetition of those claims, but no evidence to support those claims. You say it's going to be tough for me to find suitable material to balance the article but if the case were that clear cut, it seems like Hawai'i would have deteriorated into racial separation years ago. Setting aside competing polls for the moment, consider this: the fact that Hawai'i has not yet collapsed into racial separatism, combined with the failure to pass the Akaka bill for the last seven years, leads one to conclude that the majority of people accept U.S. sovereignty in Hawai'i without reservation, and reject the minority claim of separatists to be treated better than everyone else. In a democracy, majority rules, and separatists have not only failed to gain political support to advance racial exclusion, but they've been dealt crippling blows in the Rice decision and now the Kamehameha settlement. And your nemisis Ken Conklin, who you claim is fringe, placed 4th out of 20 in his run for OHA, capturing an astounding 18,115 votes. Maybe that's why you seem stuck on distortion. It's almost like you can't countenance the addition of any material balancing a viewpoint which you continually assert to represent the "mainstream view", yet no evidence is provided to support that claim. Your continued insistence that left wing idealouges like King and profit driven, sensationalistic authors like Kinzer are acceptable at the exclusion of scholarly, published and vetted historians like Fein and Hanifin doesn't seem to square with the stated goal of neutrality. Kinzer's book, which includes only one small section on Hawai'i, is classic guilt by association: imperialism in Iraq equals imperialism in Hawai'i. How much weight does he give to President Cleveland's attempt to restore Liliuokalani? How much weight does he give to the worries and concerns of Dole and the rest of the Hawaiian insurgents, that the U.S. was going to overthrow them in an attempt to restore Liliuokalani? None, because he wants to sell an exciting story and the Times publishers are accountable to their shareholders. And yet I've offered to compromise with you and accept these two authors if the article also includes leading scholars with a different view. Why can't you agree to the compromise so we can get past this? I'll make one last attempt this evening to try to distinguish between Kinzer, who goes beyond the mere circumstances of the overthrow to advance wildly erroneous legal and moral judgements, to Kuykendall, who limits his scope to balanced presentation of the overthrow itself. The book review you cited states that one aspect of Kinzer's book is "...the drastic clash it describes between professed American morality and actual American behavior." --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is so convoluted and full of weaknesses, it’s hard to know where to start. I have already refuted your arguments, and provided ample evidence for them but one last summary. You are confusing issues here. This discussion is about the overthrow article, not the status of ethnic (or as you invidiously put it, “race”) relations in Hawaii, or the legal status of Hawaii. Consider the possibility that it is possible to view the overthrow as having been planned and carried out by less than noble motivations, yet this does not necessarily have implications for the legal status of the state as an inalienable part of the U.S. Indeed, quite the contrary – lots of things (Queen’s abdication, the immediate foreign recognition of the legitimacy of the new government, the republican interregnum, vote for statehood, ‘the possession is 9/10ths of the law’ argument, etc.) happened after 1893 that made eventual U.S. possession arguably quite legitimate. So you are mistaken in conflating these issues with the ones in this article. If you want to contest those issues, go work on those articles. Ken Conklin’s election contest is completely immaterial, and presumably you are intelligent enough to realize this is a total non-sequitur. It is you who are distorting all of this, in some sort of twisted reasoning that is basically far right wing gibberish. Please re-read WP:NPOV,WP:UNDUE again, and maybe this time try to understand it. Kinzer is published in the mainstream media (reviewed very favorably by the NY Times and other prominent media). Scholarly pubs like Russ, Kuykendall, etc. are also legitimate sources. You say that “published and vetted historians like Fein and Hanifin” – unless there are some other publications I’m not aware of, this is a completely false statement. Who published them? Fein is a legit scholar (he’s not a historian btw), but his paper was commissioned by a right-wing advocacy organization, not actually “published” in the sense that “real” books are published, and thus is COI. Hanifin’s paper is legit, but it is about legal issues surrounding Hawaiian citizenship and not about the overthrow or anything to do with this article. Twigg-Smith is a vanity publication by Wikipedia definitions. Any of them, regardless of whether or not they are real, legit publications, are the view of at best a “significant minority” and thus to put them on an equal footing (“balanced” as you put it) is undue weight by Wikipedia standards. You misapprehend the nature of Wikipedia if you do not understand what this means. If so, I would again encourage you to explore Conservapedia, where your efforts may be better suited. Re: Kinzer. You say that “Kinzer…goes beyond the mere circumstances of the overthrow to advance wildly erroneous legal and moral judgements”. Thanks, now we know your opinion. It doesn’t matter. Kinzer is, unfortunately for you, published by a mainstream publisher, well-reviewed in the NYT etc, his arguments are seen as largely non-controversial, and thus is “mainstream” by Wikipedia standards.

All of this is Q.E.D. (Look that up if you are unfamiliar with the term.) If I or the other editors here were trying to push a POV here, we’d be citing Trask, Silva, and other published (and thus perfectly legitimate by Wiki standards – far more than any of your sources can claim). In fact if you continue to belabor this, I will start doing just that. I would agree to compromise if you had any argument that held up to scrutiny, but you and the other serious editors here do not agree. You are surrounded and overwhelmed by force of superior argument. I know that must be difficult to accept for someone of an ideological disposition, but it’s time to move on. You seem to be most exercised by the legal status and ethnic (a.k.a. “racial”) issues, so go knock yourself out there. This article is about the overthrow and you are raising all sorts of tangential and non-sequitur issues to go with your ideological agenda.

And finally, this really should be JK’s battle and I won’t fight it for him, but I think it’s very telling as to your character that you would not answer repeated direct questions from us (“Are you JereKrischel?”), and thus leading us to think that you were him, and thus casting a temporary shadow on his reputation here. If I were him, I’d ask for an apology from you. In general, however, you can congratulate yourself on having quickly generated a bad reputation here on Wikipedia by being unreasonably combative, unamenable to reason, and unwillingness to compromise. Arjuna (talk) 21:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA, [here]--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing I have said is a personal attack, though since you raise the issue, it is also telling that you defended the guy from Georgia who accused Viriditas of being a "racist" and "Neo-Nazi". You apparently seem to be applying a double standard. Frankly, I find it outrageous and disgusting to defend that kind of trash talk. Those kind of unwarranted personal attacks have no place here, and you should disavow them instead of saying it was "acceptable". Arjuna (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[and again]--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have only called you out on your words; that is not a personal attack. Arjuna (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion - Unofficial mediation

I am reading the lengthy and vigorous debates in these pages, and I think that editors here may benefit from mediation as offered by the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. The mediation cabal is not an official step in dispute resolution, but its volunteers are very experienced in assisting editors with content disputes. You may enjoy the respite that can be provided when a third party comes in and help you achieve a good and balanced article. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to your suggestion. What's the next step?--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal#How_to_list_a_MedCab_request ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are jumping the gun on this. We have only just begun to get to the meat and potatoes, and you're calling for desert. I am willing to break this stalemate and offer a compromise. —Viriditas | Talk 21:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with V that this is jumping the gun. I reserve judgement on any proposed compromises, as I think it is clear that Y's arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed. Arjuna (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

We need to have an open mind. Kinzer does not explicitly state that "The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and the subsequent annexation of Hawaiʻi has recently been cited as the first major instance of American imperialism" but he does seem to argue that position. On the other hand, he does say that Hawaii was the first foreign government to be overthrown by the United States. I think we need to be very clear with our sources, and attribute them to the author whenever possible. We should expand Kinzer's argument in another section before representing it in the lead, and the same goes for Pauline King. So while I don't agree with the reasons offered by Yosemitesam25 for removing paragraph five, upon further examination, it needs to be fleshed out in the article first before remaining in the lead; The same goes for paragraph six. Let's stick to the basic, historical facts of the overthrow, and leave the politics and interpretations for the appropriate section. Then, when we have accomplished that goal, we can represent significant views in the lead. So I am saying that we should agree to Yosemitesam25's proposal to remove the two paragraphs, but for different reasons. As it stands, the lead section could appear biased to someone not familiar with the history. I think this is part of Yosemitesam25's objection. That is not to say the information isn't correct, but rather that the lead section isn't supposed to introduce new material, and should be balanced in proportion to the full article. If one sees the article from Yosemitesam25's perspective, one might think it is favoring one side over another. Expansion of the article will solve that problem. —Viriditas | Talk 22:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Viriditas. I don't understand your point about Kinzer. The statement "The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and the subsequent annexation of Hawaiʻi has recently been cited as the first major instance of American imperialism" was referenced to Kinzer. It's not a meta-reference. What am I missing? Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I provided some excerpts of the text in the above section. On what page does he actually state that point? Also, whenever a source is challenged, it's a great idea to find two or three that say the same thing. Obviously, Kinzer is citing someone else in his notes. Do you know which source? In any case, I expect there will be time to discuss this, but paragraphs five and six don't exactly meet WP:LEAD, which was the overall thrust of my argument. I'm not disputing the content in any way, but rather bringing WP guidelines and policies into this as my main concern. —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree Viriditas. For now, I think we ought to remove paragraph 5 and 6 altogether. Then we can discuss a compromise on Kinzer/King and Hanifin/Fein here on the talk page. Once we agree if and when to include a new section with those views represented (which we might not want to do because they are already represented on other Hawai'i pages) then we can work it into the article. If we can't still can't come to terms after that, then we could still explore the mediation option --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It might help to get the ball rolling by adding your material on Hanifin/Fein to the talk page in a new section. Arjuna and myself should do the same with the Kinzer/King material. But it is unlikely that any of this material will be used if it isn't directly about the overthrow. —Viriditas | Talk 23:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try to work something up in the next couple of days. But my inclination (just a suggestion) is that we leave the ancillary information out of this article and let this article stand alone as an article directly about the overthrow. This is off topic but maybe we could move on to working on improving the template. I came across a well-organized one here. I'm not very adept at developing templates however--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't agree. Fein, Twigg-smith etc. are not acceptable sources. Hanifin would be fine but it's not about the overthrow. And even if they were, as "significant minority" views, to put them on an equal footing with Kinzer etc. is undue weight. To illustrate that I am amenable to compromise, if acceptable sources can be found and if that material is indicated is accorded less weight, then that would be ok. Actually I've said that all along but perhaps it is helpful to state it directly. Arjuna (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least let him make his argument on the talk page for others to see. We need to start working towards compromise, rather than digging trenches and holding down the fort. Let's all keep WP:BATTLE in mind. —Viriditas | Talk 23:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I misunderstood that this would be removing protection from the article and working from there instead of here. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point I think we ought to seek mediation. My guess is that any comparison and contrast between King/Kinzer and Fein/Hanifin would look something similar to what we had when the edit war started. We could refine it but based on what I'm reading now, we don't have a compromise and we're back to square one. I'll start the mediation tomorrow morning. Regards,--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then, I encourage you and Arjuna to seek mediation together, because I have already made an offer to remove paragraph 5 and 6 to the talk page pending the addition of new sources and development of content. Since you seem to think that a compromise that meets your original request is not good enough, I will not be participating in mediation. —Viriditas | Talk 04:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. Agreeing to remove paragraph 5 and 6 is fine with me for now. Is that where we stand? --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's acceptable to me. You will need to discuss it with Arjuna. He will insist on terms and conditions. I would recommend agreeing to use the discussion page before adding or removing any major content as a requirement for unprotection. —Viriditas | Talk 05:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds good.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been busy but am formulating a response on this. Bear with me. Arjuna (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I don't want to misrepresent anyone's position but I think we have a consensus that paragraphs five and six ought to be removed. For the time being, I support removing them[[2]][[3]], it appears that Viriditas agrees[[4]][[5]], but Arjuna may have concerns requiring protracted negotiation[[6]]. Therefore, I'm requesting an edit to the protected page. I still think the page ought to remain protected but would you be able to remove paragraphs five and six for the moment? We may still have a long way to go but I think, in fairness, that it would be appropriate to reflect the current consensus pending further compromise. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yosemite seems to be jumping the gun on this, as Viriditas has specifically suggested that proposed changes be discussed here on the talk page first and not the article itself. I would ask Viriditas, whatever his inclination as to the proposed compromise, to support giving me (and any others obviously) a chance to weigh in before making any changes. I'm kind of tied up with things right now but am working on a response. Arjuna (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

What I've suggested is implementing the current consensus and in no way contradicts what Viriditas suggested. We have to move forward step by step and this is the first step. To the administrator reviewing this: The fifth and sixth paragraph that we are asking you to remove begins with, "The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and the subsequent ..." and ends with, "...either through their government or through a plebicite or referendum."--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree. This does not seem consistent at all with my reading of what Viriditas wrote, but I do not speak for him. Yosemite, you seem to be in a bit of a hurry. Why? Arjuna (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree as well. With regards to paragraph 5 only, perhaps we should go with the sentence below. (One can argue that American Imperialism began in North America with the taking of the French, Spanish, and Native American holdings. I think history may have been skewed to make us think of the Native Americans simply as tribes instead of nations with established territories).

The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and the subsequent annexation of Hawaiʻi has been cited as an instance of American imperialism.[2]Eekadog (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a paragraph and page number for that quote please?[[7]]Oh, and by the way, welcome Eekadog. We haven't heard from you lately. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't a reference to the more specific statement that I based my verbage on listed somewhere? To give an example, it's as if we had text based on a source that said "the cat was black, first born, and tall" and I changed it to read that "the cat was black and tall," because an editor took issue with the term "first born." Doesn't the reference for the "black, first born, and tall" sentence cover the "black and tall" sentence?

Since I'm assuming that you didn't like that verbage? How about this..... "The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawai'i and the subsequent annexation of Hawaiʻi was part of the overseas expansion of the United States that took place during the Age of Imperialism.Eekadog (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing WP:LEAD, I agree that paragraphs 5 & 6 don't comply with the Wikipedia guidelines as the article is currently written, and I agree to their temporary removal. I want to emphasize that once a new section on 'historical analysis' (or some such title) with multiple citations that comply with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE is added that those paragraphs can be accurately added back to the lead. Finally, since Eekadog has commented on this matter tonight, I'd ask the Admin to give him a chance to weigh in before the changes are made. Thanks. Arjuna (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To the administrator reviewing this: it appears as if we have another editor joining in the consensus to remove paragraphs 5 and 6 [[8]]. We are now waiting for Eekadog to weigh in.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 11:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, for now...Eekadog (talk) 17:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Please describe *exactly* what is the agreed edit that needs to be done. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Do you mean deleting paras 5 and 6 from the lead? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, delete paragraphs 5 and 6 in the lead:

• "The overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and the subsequent annexation of Hawaiʻi has recently been cited as the first major instance of American imperialism.[2] Historian Pauline King notes that "Today, many if not most Hawaiian and American historians...do contend that the islands were 'stolen' from the Hawaiian people by the United States."

• Hawai'i Senator Daniel Inouye, a World War II veteran, argues that, "Hawai'i remains one of the greatest examples of a multiethnic society living in relative peace."[4] Senator Inouye has also stated that "The Apology Resolution (of 1993) acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands to the United States, either through their government or through a plebiscite or referendum."--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Y Done ≈ jossi ≈ (talk)

Hello: I am the one who brought Kinzer into this. I happen to be reading this book. I brought him up ONLY to discuss whether or not the American government had ANY effect on the change in government in Hawaii. An argument was made that because the members of the committee were Hawaiian subjects, that that could not be concluded as "American" overthrowing. Later it was said that 162 Marines could not constitute a threat (not exact wording). I do not think Kinzer's entire book, or the focus of his book are of any importance. I only think whether or not certain statements listed in his book need to be proven or not to fairly say Hawaii was overthrown by the United States.

On page 17 it is reported to Thurston (founder of the annexation club)that President Benjamin Harrison said "if conditions in Hawaii compel you people to act as you have indicated, and you come to Washington with an annexation proposition, you will find an extremely sympathetic administration here." IS THIS TRUE Did the President say this. Kinzer says Thurston said this in something where he describes this meeting. This is before the Queen tries to change the constitution, so that means the idea was out there before anything she did. On page 17 it also says that American Naval Commander Felix McCurley, promised that the navy would "fully cooperate and sustain him in any action he may take." IS THIS TRUE? Did the commander say this? Kinzer says he did, quoting Russ On page 20 Thurston meets with John L. Stevens the American Minister(ambassador?) on Jan 14 and disscuss overthrowing the queen and organizing a provisional government, with the support of American troops. IS THIS TRUE? Kinzer says he got this from Thurston's memoirs.

On page 22 JAN 16 a letter is written to John L. Stevens claiming a "need for protection" Kinzer says this letter is in Russ and the Hawaiian Revolution p77 so the letter WAS written, IS THE LETTER TRUE? I'm just on the jury here, so I would say that there is a possibility that this letter is a hoax, if two days before you had a discussion about putting another government in place. And then they would say, "all we were trying to do was stop the queen from changing the constitution"

On page 23 Kinzer states that an official proclamation had been posted around town that stated the queen would seek to change the constitution "only by methods provided in the constitution itself" quoted from Russ and Hawaiian Revolution p80 Just the jury here but, didn't Queens and Kings make whatever rules they wanted back then? But IS THIS TRUE? did she write this, was it posted?

On page 24 on Jan 16 in the afternoon, Thurston went to Stevens and asked for a delay in the troops. Stevens told them "the troops of the Boston land this afternoon at five o'clock, whether you are ready or not" TOME just a jurer here it doesn't sound like "public safety is menaced and lives and property are in peril" once again IS IT TRUE? Kinzer says it is in Russ, Hawaiian Revolution p81 and Steven's notes to Wiltse:House Executive document 48, 53rd congress second session p487

On page 24 still Jan 16, (John L. Stevens AMERICAN minister, wrote to Captain Gilbert Wilste of the BOSTON a naval ship at Pearl Harbor requesting that they land marines and sailors, to protect... American life and property. (so is Thurston American or Hawaiian again, I forget)

On page 25 still Jan 16th I believe, a letter is written to John L. Stevens from Foreign Minister Samuel Parker stating (a lot) 1)no need for US interference, 2) by what authority do you do this? 3) If Americans need protecting, Her Majesty can do it.

I'm only interested in number two. IS THERE A LAW (from that time) that ALLOWS an AMBASSADOR to call the military from his own country onto the shores of another country, FOR ANY REASON?

So if you all can provide answers to these questions, that are different than Kinzers, we can get on with whether or not the US, OVER THREW Hawaii. Did I also read where the US has already apologized? Isn't that proof enough? Aicram62 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)aicram62Aicram62 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, look at Stevens’ article it says he was sacked for his participation in the overthrow. Also his lame excuse for landing the Yanks was to protect properties of American citizens.

SORRY ME again. This is important to me because, this is my first time even knowing that there were kings and queens in Hawaii. Yosemite I don't want to be partial to one version of the story to another, but to me throughout history(as I'm starting to learn)when people cry "foul" they are labeled leftist et al. And the justifiers use power and laws to standardize anything, even torture in Abu-Gurayb) NOW I'm repeating something you wrote and I want to question it.

• "The overthrow(overthrown or not?) of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi and the subsequent annexation(annexed or not) of Hawaiʻi has recently been cited (recently been cited or not)as the first major(first major or not) instance of American(american or not) imperialism(imperialism or not).[2] Historian Pauline King notes(noted or didn't) that "Today, many if not most(few or none) Hawaiian and American historians...do(do they or don't they) contend that the islands were 'stolen' from the Hawaiian people by the United States."

• Hawai'i Senator Daniel Inouye, a World War II veteran, argues that, "Hawai'i remains one of the greatest examples of a multiethnic society living in relative peace."( yeah so what, they live in perfect harmony NO POINT HERE)[4] Senator Inouye has also stated that "The Apology Resolution (of 1993) acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands to the United States, either through their government or through a plebiscite or referendum." (Whatever this might or might not be a precedent for, doesn't change that America overthrew Hawaii) 208.11.176.193 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)aicram62208.11.176.193 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Look at the Larsen Case (a sub-section I set up in the Newlands Resolution article) that challenged the Joint Resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Conflict Box

Who are the bola heads messing with my conflict box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.223.116 (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Do not understand your comment above. You can click on the "History" link to see who did what. If you created an account (and signed your messages) it would make it easier to track your edits. Please add your opinion about my suggestion above here, and be specific. And of course if that was meant as a personal attack, it is not welcome. W Nowicki (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

United States a belligerent?

I don't think that it's accurate to list the United States as a belligerent in the conflict, or to place an American flag next to the name of the Hawaiian League or Lorrin A. Thurston. The members of the Hawaiian League, including its leader Thurston, were by and large Hawaiian citizens and the United States did not fire a single shot. (The Hawaiian League itself fired only one.) In view of these facts, I'm changing these elements. JediScougale (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The U.S. military role in the overthrow was a very murky one at best, but I agree with you that it is an overstatement that they should be listed as formal belligerents. It was the Committee of Safety (not-so secretly backed by the U.S. Marines) vs. the Kingdom government. Again, the U.S. role, while demonstrably crucial to the success of the overthrow, was informal and so ultimately I agree with your edit. Arjuna (talk) 20:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with the infobox edit that lists the marines under "strength" rather than "belligerent", thanks. Although, if it were me, I would use the current Hawaii state flag as the flag for the Hawaiiian League side, and use the House of Kalakaua royal coat of arms File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Hawaii.svg or perhaps for the Kingdom side. Actually there seems a reasonable argument to use the for Hawaiian league since they did in fact use this flag, though agree it would be confusing. Another alternative would be to use the Kanaka Maoli flag, but not clear that would be historically accurate. Right now, clicking on the flag on the Kingdom side gets you to the article on the U.S. state, which seems exactly wrong. It should be some symbol of the kingdom to represent the kingdom and link to the kingdom and link to the kingdom, and a symbol of the Hawaiian league to link to them. I vote for File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Hawaii.svg W Nowicki (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ay, ay, ay. Thanks. I see what you mean in terms of complications. No ideal options really. My vote would probably be the current Hawaii state flag as the flag for the Hawaiiian League side, and use the House of Kalakaua royal coat of arms File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Hawaii.svg for the Kingdom side. If so, then the COS flag should link to the Republic of Hawaii, which it does not now do. I don't think the Kanaka Maoli flag is appropriate or accurate. I also don't think that the U.S. flag is appropriate or accurate, and before someone jumps all over me, note that I have been a strong defender of historical accuracy in these articles against attempts to whitewash the U.S. role in the overthrow. But using the U.S. flag to represent the COS -- even if they themselves used it -- is an unacceptable overstatement if for no other reason than that the U.S. Government under Cleveland was not supportive of the COS. Anyway, my two cents, and thanks for your effort on this. Arjuna (talk) 23:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, I see the House of Kalakaua article does not use the coat of arms! Perhaps I can fix that if I have time. The other idea would be to try to come up with some simpler symbols that would be readable at that small size. The crossed paddles in the Kanaka Maoli come to mind, but it does seem the coat of arms is a reasonable choice. Maybe mention in the text about the flags. Also a nit: the box says "Hawaiian Kingdom" but elsewhere it is the "Kingdom of Hawaiʻi", so should be consistent? And I would shorten the lead and put more detail and citations into the body, but we can do that over time. W Nowicki (talk) 00:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The US was put back in without a comment here. The best arguments I have heard was that the Queen surrendered to the US, not to Thurston, and the Grover Cleveland statement. So is the consensus to keep the US or revert? I fixed the Kalakaua article as above. W Nowicki (talk) 23:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Second Overthrow"

Anonymous user 72.234.223.116 added a new section on the so-called "second overthrow" that is inappropriate. First, this article is about the events of 1893. Second, the 1954 elections are not generally known as the "second overthrow", and so referring to those events with that name is WP:OR. Third, there are no citations added, and the material seems highly POV. Note that I do not personally disagree that the 1954 elections were a good thing, or that the problems referenced did not exist (indeed, many do even today in many respects). I am saying that this material is OR, unverifiable, and tendentious, and thus has no place in the article, which is about the events of 1893. Arjuna (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Warming up again?

It states the the annexation of Hawaii was a victory but it was not. There are no annexation documents ever found up to present day. The congress had to vote to annex Hawaii but they did not ever receive enough votes to ofically annex Hawaii and today remains as land occupied by the United States and is not owned by the United States, but by the people of Hawaii. It also states that there were no casualties and only one wounded in the overthrowing of the kingdom which is definetly not true. Many natives lives were lost which led to the Queen surrendering in an act for peace and not to continue the violence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chasekale (talk • contribs)

[above unsigned and misplaced comment moved here - I mentioned the usual source verifiability rules on the editor's talk page ]

The issue I do see (trying hard to be neutral) is that there is a confusion if this article and the infobox only applies to the events of January 1893, or the whole annexation movement until 1898. It is generally fine to focus on one event (1893) but include summaries of the background and following related events. Thus if the infobox is only for 1893, I would actually agree it was not an "annexation victory" since it took five years and a change of party, not to mention the war. Also resolution was in 1898, so was the celebration in 1896 premature, or is this a mistake? W Nowicki (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

So much action

Someone should consider breaking down this event into a simple timeline with bullet point at the end of the page so people who don't want to read the entire article can get the jiss of it because the overthrow happen in a matter of two or three days.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently a minor error

In the first paragraph under the "Summary of the event" heading there is (part of) a sentence that reads "a coup d'état led by six non-native subjects of the Hawaiian Kingdom, five American nationals, one English national, and one German national ...". So far as I know, 5+1+1=7, not 6. Or is the sentence implying it was led by 13 individuals? Either way, changing this sentence might be something to consider.75.106.248.158 (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it is listing 13 individuals. Non-native subjects are Hawaiian nationals while the other were residents with citizens of US, Germany and Britian.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2013 (UTC)