Talk:Hawaii/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Wikiproject

Aloha from Chicago! Keith Higa instituted the WikiProject Hawaii homepage for us on Wikipedia. WikiProject Hawaii is a collection of pages devoted to the management of all Hawaii-related articles. It is meant to be a resource for all editors of Hawaii-related articles on various issues. For example, it will be the home of a standardized guideline of language conventions compiled into a manual of style. You can also list specific article building needs — infoboxes, templates, article requests and image requests. WikiProject Hawaii is meant to be the ultimate Wikipedia laboratory and resource center on Hawaii-related subjects. Please utilize it and make it your home! Malama pono! —Gerald Farinas 11:18, 11 Jun 2005 (CDT)

chocolate production ?

Surely Hawaii is not the the only place of the US for industrial chocolate production.Hershey isn't based in Hawaii. I guess it should be cocoa instead of chocolate in that sentence. Could the maintainer/author of that article correct/confirm this ?

Hawaii recent changes

The simplest way to keep up with new articles and changes to Hawai‘i-related articles is to bookmark Recent changes. This link is also listed on the "Open tasks for Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawai‘i". --Viriditas | Talk 00:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

State fish

It has recently been "discovered" that the humuhumunukunukuapua'a is not the State fish of Hawai'i. The law enacting the legislation had an expiration date and that date has long passed, so it certainly was the official State fish for five years, but no replacement (or re-enabling legislation) has been selected - Marshman 20:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A state senator had it re-instated in June, I believe, even tho it's not unique to Hawai'i. --Makua 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Oceania

I'm not aware of any Hawaiian Wikipedians notice board, so I'm using this page to make contact with Hawaiian Wikipedians.

I've put down some thoughts about a proposed portal at Portal talk:Oceania. Please come and comment.-gadfium 07:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Overthrow of Hawaiian monarchy

Mana, I pruned that para re the overthrow mercilessly BUT set up a link to an article specifically on the overthrow, yet to be created. I'd suggest starting with the article on the Republic of Hawai'i, cutting and moving some of the text at the beginning, and then setting up an outline for discussing the controversy over the event. This needs to be discussed in more detail than we can give it in an overview article; we need space for all opinions to be represented fully. I hope that this will meet some of your concerns. Zora 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration. I don't see a reason to object. Most, if not all, of the current details are generally accepted, so they don't require citation. As long as Jere doesn't object, this will do fine. I also think that putting in a seperate page to the overthrow is a great idea. M.ana 22:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

No objection here. I've referenced some work IslandGyrl started up with me on Template:Legal status of Hawaii as a good starting point for the two points of view surrounding the Hawaiian Revolution. I look forward to your first draft, Mana! --JereKrischel 03:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we're moving in the wrong direction recently, adding in spurious detail that is better kept in the sub-article. Can we agree to prune this section down, and place the contents into the sub-article? --JereKrischel 05:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with pruning it down, provided that the Apology Resolution is mentioned, as it is an integral bookend to the overthrow of Hawaii. I'm afraid that the "historical revisionism of hawaiian sovereignty" that JereKrischel talks about goes both ways. His bias POV seems to ignore that there are at least 2 major ways to look at the Hawaiian sovereignty issue.--Makua 07:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is not the place to argue the Hawaiian sovereignty debate. There are sub-articles where all views can be presented in detail. Zora 07:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not an argument; the Apology Resolution is a historical fact and directly related to another historical fact--the overthrow of the monarchy. Why would the Apology be issued if not for the overthrow of the monarchy (for whatever debatable reasons)? Since JereKrischel appears to disagree with Hawaiian sovereignty, not including the Apology is to his advantage. However, I'm not trying to get POV included in this at all, nor debate, just that the Apology was issued, and let readers draw their own conclusion.--Makua 07:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Many things are historical facts. My daughter was born at Kapiolani Hospital in 1986. That's a fact! So, which facts are important enough to include? The apology is important to Hawaiian sovereignty advocates, who believe that this apology proves that they're right. However, no one else seems to think that the apology has any bearing on the current state of affairs. Insisting that it's an important historical event and MUST be included is itself a political argument, best laid out in an article where there's room to give all views. Zora 07:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh brother! Who's this "no one else" that you talk about? That's hardly quantifiable. The Apology does not necessarily prove anyone right or wrong--readers can decide for themselves. Including it IN the article, but without commentary, is the non-POV, right thing to do. It's directly related to the overthrow, it's part of the whole story, so what are you afraid of?--Makua 08:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Makua, mahalo for your manao, but I think the Apology Resolution is misplaced in that section, as it jumps forward 100 years. It seems appropriate to mention in the sub-article, but isn't really necessary in the summary section. I think Zora is right, we run the risk of putting book-end after book-end after book-end in the wrong place here. Let's simply summarize, and place the details in the sub-article, please. I understand there are many POVs regarding the Hawaiian Revolution, and I respect that people will differ on the interpretation of the historical record. Let's allow the full measure of these positions to be discussed in the specific articles related to them, for instance, Legal status of Hawaii may be a good place to have all the details hashed out. --JereKrischel 10:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

JereKrischel, great job on trying to appease me, but it's not going to work. The Apology Resolution is an incredibly important part of the story of the overthrow. One led directly to the other, no matter if it IS 100 years difference, no matter your POV. In fact, the 100 years anniversary itself is considered by many to be significant. It outrages some that it was even done (like yourself, I'm guessing), and for others it was extremely gratifying. It helped to re-ignite feelings on Hawaiian sovereignty, whatever your POV, and that simple fact makes it important enough to mention.

The Apology Resolution is not mentioned anywhere else in the main Hawaii article (if I missed it, please point it out). It's hardly a "detail"; it was a joint resoluton passed by Congress and signed by the president regarding the US involvement of the take-over of a sovereign nation. It's not the full story! Furthermore, NOT including it also supports your anti-sovereignty views. Therefore, I really can't accept anything less than at least a non-biased, nuetral, one-sentence mention of the Apology Resolution and it's raison d’être. --Makua 20:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree with you Makua, but the Apology Resolution deserves to be dealt with on a different page than this one. As per Zora, the insistence on inclusion of this controversial legislation, is POV in and of itself. There are many incredibly important acts of legislation we don't mention (such as President Bush's declaration of the largest marine reserve recently), and a one-sentence mention you crave is not "non-biased", since it does not illustrate the controversy and challenges of both historical accuracy and intent made to this symbolic resolution. Can you please confine further expanded discussion of it to the sub-articles? Mahalo! --JereKrischel 02:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cut the crap, Jere, you're not sorry at all. You're simply anti-sovereignty and that colors your decisions. Mentioning it is not "dealing" with it; we're not going into detail here. You are correct on this one thing... that we're not going into the "controversy and challenges" here either, BUT that's exactly WHY it IS non-biased! SO either you deal with the one-sentence mention, or I'll give you another option: Create a sentence that explains there is much controversy over the overthrow of the monarchy and issues of Hawaiian sovereignty, and if you like, recommend further reading---but you better include pro-sovereignty reading as well as anti-sovereignty! OR, you can include links to the pages on Hawaiian sovereignty and the Apology Resolution in this article. The "Main Article" mention at the top is hardly enough, there needs to be something else that says there are further issues here--and how to find that information. If you do that, then I'll drop my insistence of the Apology Resolution line. --Makua 04:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Makua, assume good faith. I'm not trying to engage in a POV battle here, I'm simply trying to keep the summary sections here reasonable, and place the discussions of controversy and details in the sub-articles. Asserting that it is essential to include mention of one specific bit of legislation on the State of Hawaii page is quite unreasonable. Let's place the mention in the sub article, and leave it at that. --JereKrischel 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith, Jere, when you are condescending in your talk discussion and POV in your views. That's hardly what I would call civility, and so I responded in like manner. But I'm OK with taking it down a notch and finding a solution: Again, if you figure out a way to point to these details and controversy, then great, I'll let the Apology Resolution go. Asserting that this doesn't need further direction is unreasonable, so don't even go there. Firgure out a way to make it work. I've even offered you the chance to craft the sentence yourself. OR, if you don't wish that, then include the links to the Apology Resolution and Hawaiian Sovereignty beneath the main article link --Makua 04:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask for other editor's opinions here, please, before moving further. Zora and I have already spoken in favor of constraining mention of specific legislation to sub-articles, and Makua is in favor of giving mention of specific legislation here. Any comments, please? --JereKrischel 05:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Too many random galleries

I would say that most of these are unhelpful, particularly the one with all the state officials. Shouldnt' that be on Government of Hawaii or something? (Really, the Mayor of Maui?) Is the article enhanced by having satellite images of eight major islands? Shouldn't the historical kings be at Kingdom of Hawaiʻi? It's distracting, slows down the page, and takes visual space away from what could be informative expansion. I don't object to a few pictures, but this is over the top. Almost all of that content is more appropriate someplace else. --Dhartung | Talk 18:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, some of these galleries really should be removed or moved someplace else. 青い(Aoi) 23:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Recycling in Hawaii?

What kind of recycling programs does Hawaii have? I can find no info on the internet.

Is it appropriate for the article? If so, I'll add it. I was able to find this state site which has fairly updated info via press releases. Here's some more: [1], [2], [3],[4] —Viriditas | Talk

Merging Sandwich Islands here?

Sandwich Islands is just an old name of Hawaii, and I propose the article to be merged here. // Habj 00:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Until such time as there is a substantial article written on the Sandwich Islands, this seems to be a reasonable proposal. --71.36.251.182 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Merge but be sure that the Hawaii article includes fair mention of its "former" English name. CPAScott 19:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and justification for deleting content

The policy states:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. 2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In accordance with this official Wikipedia policy, I will begin trimming away some of the material in the Hawaii article, where supporting citations are lacking. Anyone who wants to add deleted material back is obligated to provide references AND citations (with page numbers) to those references. References alone are not enough. Inline citations are required.

Agent X 23:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea, I am the one who tagged the article. See Minnesota for some ideas and sources. -Ravedave 03:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

On the remoteness of Hawaii

"The islands are the furthest from any other body of land in the world, except for Easter Island"

What about Tristan da Cunha? Is there any consensus what is the most remote island? It's a matter of maths, hasn't anyone calculated this yet?

Demographics: Ethnicity

Please give feedback on whether I am correct in this. Under the Ethnicity section in the Demographics part of the article, as currently written, it reads "...Hawaii is the only state that has a majority group that is non-white..." If one then looks at the statistics, however, there is no majority group. The largest group listed is Asian-Americans, at 41.6 percent. This is a plurality (largest group of all listed) but not a majority (greater than 50%). My only thought is that when talking about a majority group, the author viewed population as split into only 2 groups - white and not-white, which seems a little simplistic. Any thoughts on rewriting this to state that "Hawaii is the only state which does not have a white majority", which would be more consistent with the data given?

Hawaii is 58.13% asian, according to the 2005 Census population figures. All other states have a white majority. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 22:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Hawaiian Kingdom & Republic: POV issues

I invite a discussion of the POV issues involved in the section on the Hawaiian Kingdom & Hawaiian Republic. Significant re-editing is occuring that needs to be discussed. I believe that the current version is both well documented and NPOV. Why? 1) I have excluded references to racial, ethnic or purported national origin with respect to participants in the revolt against the Queen. The inclusion of such references panders to the current POV advocated by Hawaiian secessionists. Its omission does not affect either the clarity or historical accuracy of these sections. 2) The so-called "Apology Resolution" has been highly criticized for the way it was passed. Recent debate over the Akaka bill revealed that various congressmen believed that they had been deceived into voting for the resolution. Documentation is provided to support fact. 3) Extreme POV questions arise with respect to the annexation of Hawaii. Rather than state which president preferred what, the facts should just be stated. Presidential opinions can be studied in the Wiki-section covering the Morgan Report. 4) References to Planation owners and their politics again panders to the current POV advocated by Hawaiian secessionists and its omission does not affect the flow of the article. I invite a conversation over these changes and will agree in good faith to legitimate compromises over content. Jpetersen46321 21:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're going to reach a consensus on the POV issue. This seems to be an issue like abortion, where decades of activism haven't budged the public opinion polls an inch.

However, I'd like to suggest that your current revision is NOT, as you claim, well-documented. There are NO sources cited in the "Hawaiian Kingdom". The section entitled "Revolt Against Monarchy" has two cites - but the one is a discussion board, which doesn't meet the Wikipedia:Reliable Sources standards, and the other one is a bad link. The "Hawaiian Republic" section has NO sources cited.

It's important to any article that you provide citations for every fact you state. Anything less is considered unacceptable by Wikipedia:Verifiability and the policy says that any editor may legitimately remove such content.

Hawaii is 1 of about 370 pages on my watchlist. On any page, when I see someone is removing content which is sourced, they better have a darned good explanation, or I revert them. I'm not the only editor who does this. But that's not been the case here. When someone replaces Wikipedia:Original Research with different Wikipedia:Original Research, I figure one flavor of bad content is no better than another flavor of bad content.

The first side that puts together content that has Wikipedia:Reliable Sources to support it, content that isn't blatantly POV, is going to find that all of a sudden, the momentum is on their side, because editors will jump in to protect that content from being replaced with something that's obviously less valuable.

I don't know enough about Hawaiian history to judge who's right - but I know that if you want to explain Hitler is an evil man, the best way to do it is not to line up 500 character witnesses who say everyone agrees Hitler is evil, but rather to simply line up incontrovertible facts, and let the reader judge for himself. And you'd be surprised how much more effective it is when you trust the reader, instead of trying to spoon-feed him pre-formed opinions. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 23:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Mahalo for your concerns Jpetersen46321, but I think your recent edits are not moving in the right direction. Perhaps we could discuss this paragraph by paragraph. I think that there is no escaping the fact that it was primarily American and European Hawaiian Kingdom subjects that participated in the Hawaiian Revolution, but we can certainly mention participation and support from some native Hawaiians. Could we hash this out together one small bit at a time? Thanks! --JereKrischel 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the input above. Nevertheless, neither editor has responded to the above itemized points. For uninformed readers, a raging political debate exists today over the legitimacy and origins of the annexation of Hawaii. A certain POV has an agenda to highlight alleged involvement of Americans while downplaying the actions of native Hawaiian citizens. Since an equally passionate alternative POV denies such involvement, I suggest eliminating references entirely. Btw, although I agree with editor Jere Krischell that discussion is best, I disagree with his simultaneous wholesale re-editing. As such, I will revert to my previous edit and attach a POV warning until a consensus is achieved. Jpetersen46321 03:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me address what I've reverted point by point, and we can discuss further:

• The mention of U.S. and British troops is critical to the election of Kalakaua and the following riots - it sets the precedent that U.S. peacekeepers had previously landed and remained neutral prior to 1893.

• The Honolulu Rifles and the Committee of Safety were predominantly European and American businessmen - being stated as such is not NPOV, but a simple fact. If we were to characterize them as "imperialist" or "greedy", that would be NPOV, but plain statement of their background does not seem particularly offensive.

• The fact that Asians were completely disenfranchised by the 1887 constitution is crucial and relevant - especially when combating misinformation regarding who "lost the vote". Many pro-sovereignty activists will claim that the 1887 constitution disenfranchised native Hawaiians, when in fact, it disenfranchised Asians, and the poor.

• "Revolt against the Monarchy" is certainly POV pushing. And also contrary to the POV of the Committee of Safety, who found the Queen in revolt, and considered her "virtually abdicated". "Revolt against Liliuokalani" might be more accurate, but it seems like uneccessarily POV. I'd be happy with "Hawaiian Revolution" or "The 1893 Revolution" - maybe "Overthrow of the Queen" would be better (since the Kingdom still existed, only the queen and her cabinet and marshal were removed from office).

• There is no indication at all that the Republic of Hawaii was a popular government by any stretch of the imagination. They effectively controlled Hawaii, and presided over an economic boom, but the bulk of the populace was not particularly supportive (nor particularly against).

• I didn't like the mention of the Apology Resolution either, and would be happy to see it go - I don't think it merits inclusion, but in the current form I think it is as NPOV as it can get. Other editors could weigh in here.

Hopefully that answers some of your questions, Jpetersen46321. Please feel free to continue the discussion so we can address specific issues you have with wording. --JereKrischel 05:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Map Deleted

Hi, I have deleted the map from Hawaii showing the islands related to the continental States because the islands are simply not there were they appear in that map (its actual position is quite more west-northwest than the one showed there). Unfortunatelly I am not trained to download maps and things like that and I can't replace it with a correct one. I hope someone who knows makes it soon. Thanks. Mountolive 05:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii an "ethnic autonomous region"?

Hawaii is listed at Ethnic autonomous regions. Comment on the accuracy of that designation seems appropriate: please comment at that article's talk page.Paul111 12:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Latitude of Hawaii

In the article, the latitude range that Hawaii falls in is given as 18°55'N to 29°N. However, the article also states that Hawaii is the only state that: (1) lies completely in the tropics. This is a contradiction since the tropics don't extend beyond 23°26'. Google Earth seems to show that Hawaii does indeed lie completely within the tropics, in which case the stated latitude range must be wrong. Could someone verify and update the article with the correct latitude range? ----Chipmunk 06:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in geography but it appears the article includes the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, which technically is part of the State of Hawaii. According to Kure Atoll's article (Kure Atoll is the northernmost island in the Northwestern Hawaiian Island chain), the atoll lies at latitude 28°25′N. A quick look in an atlas confirms this. The latitude range in the Hawaii article is true and the claim that Hawaii lies completely in the tropics is false; I'm removing this claim. Thank you for finding this factual error, Chipmunk. 青い(Aoi) 07:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Overthrow of Hawaiian monarchy

Someone -- looks like it was an anonIP -- replaced the whole overthrow section with a much longer one that is pure Hawaiian sovereignty rant. I restored the version that was there about three weeks ago.

WP is not a soapbox! The older version indicates that there are various POVs about the overthrow. We have to give all POVs, not just one.

I suppose I need to check the main article on the same topic; it's probably been trashed too. Zora 03:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice catch Zora. I reverted User:66.133.253.117's POV push on Overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy, but missed reverting it on October 29 on the Hawaii page - well, I reverted it once, but I missed their second blows from 21:13-21:17. --JereKrischel 09:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Objection to blanking

I strongly object to the blanking of extremely important contextual information I added earlier today regarding the status of the Hawaiian nation and its independence during the 19th century. This information is no less important than any other information in that section and leaving it out makes it appear that the islands were simply some kind of backwater, without international status and embassies. Please restore this information. It was bad form to blank it without first discussing, as the information was not added frivolously nor in error. Badagnani 04:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The sections removed are as follows:

In London on November 28, 1843 the British and French governments formally recognized Hawaii's status as an independent nation.[httpx://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/constitutional_government.htm]

In the fifty years following Hawaii's independence in 1843 the Hawaiian nation signed treaties with more than twenty nations, and established over 90 embassies and consulates in cities around the world.[httpx://www.alohaquest.com/arbitration/constitutional_government.htm]

I don't believe either of these items is of minor significance to the Hawaii article; the 1843 independence declaration and existence of embassies are both of signal importance to an understanding of the former existence, and later undoing of, the Hawaiian nation and kingdom. Please restore. Thank you. Badagnani 04:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if you took offense at my reverts of some of your edits - the Paulet affair deserves detail in the Kingdom article, not the main Hawaii article. I don't think the assumption is that the Kingdom was some "backwater", but it seems like the links you cited are trying to push a certain POV. I don't think the detail is in the appropriate place, and I'm afraid that such detail would invite a tit-for-tat (for example, the Republic of Hawaii, which replaced the Kingdom of Hawaii on July 4, 1894, was universally internationally recognized by every nation who had relations with the Kingdom).

One could argue that the Great Mahele was just as important as the resolution of the Paulet affair, but we don't include that kind of detail in the Hawaii article either. Please reconsider your objection, and help me add information regarding the Paulet affair in the Kingdom article. Thanks! --JereKrischel 04:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Paulet isn't of primary concern here, but the international status of the nation of Hawaii for that 50-year window, which is generally unknown by most people, perhaps including many Hawaiians themselves. I disagree that the two points blanked are not of great importance to the Hawaii article. The particular websites were added simply because they contained verification for the two points of information, not for any other purpose, so please do not impute one. Thanks for restoring those two points and I'm glad my contributions, which were made in all seriousness, are being valued. Badagnani 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think that the discussion of the international status of the Kingdom of Hawaii does not belong on the page primarily discussing the U.S. State of Hawaii. I've added a section in the Kingdom of Hawaii article with the references you made, and would appreciate any help you could offer in expanding that section there, where it is most appropriate. --JereKrischel 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly object to such cherry-picking of history. The Kingdom and its international relations are, in fact part of the State's history. When I first learned that Hawaii had such international relations and embassies, I must admit that I was shocked, and it makes the improbable road to statehood even more interesting. The Hawaii article does not exclude discussion of pre-State history, including that of the Kingdom. Thanks for reconsidering your blanking. Badagnani 05:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why would having embassies and international relations make annexation and statehood shocking? The Republic of Hawaii, which replaced the Kingdom of Hawaii, had international relations and embassies. As a weary veteran of POV wars regarding the pro-sovereignty POV, I have to say I'm very skeptical that adding citations of international recognition for the various governments that have ruled over the Hawaiian islands adds very much to the article. I would suggest that if you would like to introduce your citations back into the article, that in order to avoid the cherry-picking of history you mention, please also include citations that the Republic of Hawaii was universally internationally recognized, and the annexation of Hawaii was universally internationally recognized. Only highlighting the international recognition of the Hawaiian Kingdom seems to be POV pushing if the other governments of Hawaii are not accorded the same detail, don't you think? --JereKrischel 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the above. The paragraphs about international recognition and embassies is of great importance to an understanding of Hawaii's position vis-a-vis the other nations in the world (i.e. recognized as a nation) during this period. When I said I was shocked, it was because I had had no idea before that Hawaii had such wide international relations in this period. This is not generally known and should be. The text needs to be un-blanked. Badagnani 05:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your statement that such information is important to the understanding of the Kingdom of Hawaii during this period - whether or not it is notable for the State of Hawaii is my objection. I'm surprised regarding your statement that the wide international relations of the Kingdom of Hawaii are "not generally known" (insofar as anything about Hawaii is generally known) - of course, I grew up in Hawaii, so I don't have the outside view. Do you have any citations for your belief that it is "not generally known" that the Kingdom of Hawaii had wide international relations before it was annexed to the United States? Perhaps some citation like that could help convince me that adding in the various statements of recognition for the Kingdom, Provisional Government, Republic and State of Hawaii is of some utility. --JereKrischel 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not generally known. Badagnani 07:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the mention of international recognition of the annexation and Republic, of course it should be added if it is factual! I don't know if "universally" is accurate in these instances, however, as even within the United States at the time, in Congress and the Senate there was a vigorous debate over whether the U.S. should take over overseas nations like Hawaii, the way many European nations had been doing around the world; as you probably know this debate extended into the Spanish American War period as well. Badagnani 06:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that it should be added simply if it is factual - I think that it invites a POV battle regarding international recognition and its implication for pro-sovereignty activists. When I use the word "universally", I am speaking of the universe of all countries which ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii, although arguably it could be said that includes every country in the world from 1893-1900 (certainly no example of any country has ever been put forward of continuing to recognize the Kingdom of Hawaii monarchy post 1893). Regarding the internal debates of the U.S. congress (or any other foreign country's legislature), one will note that regardless of reservations that individual politicians may have had, the United States afforded official political recognition to both the Provisional Government and the Republic of Hawaii.

I think that I'd like to hear other editor's opinions on this. I'm more than happy to add in the copious detail regarding both the Kingdom, Provisional Government, Republic, and Territory international recognition, but I'm skeptical as to its utility. --JereKrischel 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not "copious," just two details: the fact that during that 50-year period Hawaii had international recognition as a nation, and many embassies. This is not generally known. Badagnani 07:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that in order to be fair, copious details should be made prominent regarding not only th 50-year period of the Kingdom's international recognition, but also the 1-year period of Provisional Government international recognition, the 5-year period of Republic of Hawaii international recognition, and the 60-year period of the Territory of Hawaii's international recognition as part of the U.S., and the 46-year period of the State of Hawaii's international recognition as part of the U.S.. Cherry-picking, as you pointed out earlier, shouldn't be acceptable. --JereKrischel 00:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as improbable roads, did you realize that after the Paulet affair, Kamehameha III negotiated a treaty of annexation with the U.S., which was only thwarted by his untimely death? Had Kamehameha III lived longer, Hawaii may have become a part of the United States nearly 50 years earlier than it did. --JereKrischel 05:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Badagnani, I don't think it's true that diplomatic relations between the Hawaiian kingdom and other countries are "unknown." Any work of Hawaiian history describes such relations. Extensively. So apparently your target audience is folks who have never read any Hawaiian history. What they believe is not known. You're insisting that they don't know (for which you have zero proof) and that they SHOULD know (presumably because it bolsters your argument). You're trying to use WP as a soapbox, which is forbidden. As Jere points out, this is a survey article which is already longer than desirable. Adding more stuff is right out. Just make sure that your arguments are covered in the proper articles re Hawaiian history. Not presented as the TRUTH, mind you, but just one opinion out of many. Zora 07:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply added two, properly sourced facts that should be acknowledged regarding Hawaii's status in the 19th century to the article. I do not believe this information to be extraneous, but in fact integral to an understanding of Hawaiian history. Your SHOUTING and accusation of my using WP as a soapbox is absolutely uncalled for; in fact, it is so uncalled for that I really must ask for an apology for this. You have no right to impute any unsavory motivation for my edits, as I have not treated you in such a way; I am a productive and longtime editor. The argument that we should tailor our article primarily to those persons from Hawaii who know esoteric aspects of Hawaiian history well is unsound. The fact that these two things are not generally known was only a part of my reasoning why it should be covered here, the other is simply that it is of great importance to a contextual understanding of Hawaii's history. Badagnani 07:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a citation to back up your statement that international recognition of the Kingdom of Hawaii is "not generally known" or "esoteric"? And can you explain further why you think international recognition is of "great importance"? --JereKrischel 21:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your questions. The first is due to my own personal experience; while always as familiar with Hawaii as any other American from the mainland, I had never known before a few years ago that Hawaii had international recognition as a nation in the 19th century. Regarding the second point, I have already explained that an understanding that for a 50-year period Hawaii was internationally recognized and had embassies around the world is extremely important for a contexual understanding of Hawaii as it is today. And, of course, that is the main question regarding inclusion, not whether these facts are well known or not; that was only a part of my reasoning for inclusion. I might point out that you don't seem to have addressed my points nor, seemingly, even seriously considered reverting your blanking of my modest, properly sourced additions. That, to me, does not seem very collegial. Badagnani 22:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I haven't been able to communicate my responses to your points well. Let me try again.

First off, I don't think your own personal experience regarding lack of knowledge or preconceptions about the Kingdom of Hawaii represents a reliable source. If you could find some citation that could justify your anecdotal experience on a larger scale, perhaps I could see the utility and necessity of including detailed information on the international diplomatic recognition of the various governments of the Hawaiian Islands. Otherwise, it seems like an awfully personal addition.

I'm still unsure as to why you feel the explicit international recognition is "extremely important" to understanding Hawaii today. What misunderstanding do you think occurs if someone is not consciously aware of the international recognition of the various governments of the Hawaiian Islands? Do you feel that without including such information, people would have misconceptions about Hawaii? If so, what do you think those misconceptions would be?

I'm trying to understand your position, and I am very seriously considering your additions, but I simply don't fully grasp your point yet. Let me give a for example, to show you what I'm trying to hear.

For example, a common misconception is that Hawaii is not part of the United States. Mainland visitors often arrive, and ask, "When was the last time you visited America?", or other questions of the sort. A reference to such misconceptions can be found here. It is of critical importance to the article that Statehood be prominently mentioned and explained, to battle such misconceptions.

Can you frame your position in such a manner, to help me understand it better? Thank you! --JereKrischel 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comments: the statement "I disagree that it should be added simply if it is factual - I think that it invites a POV battle regarding international recognition and its implication for pro-sovereignty activists" is a very poor argument. That is not our concern; covering the facts of this place in a thorough manner, doing justice to our readers without being influenced by such a dispute is a high standard from which we should not lower ourselves. Further, if "Any work of Hawaiian history describes such relations. Extensively", then our history should as well. The unwarrantedly searing response I received above, added to the comment about adding such historical context might invite controversy from "pro-sovereignty activists" shows that there are issues that are improperly influencing the article's content, over and above the article's total length. If my additions were of great length or of lesser importance, and were the above two arguments of greater validity, I would agree. However, as yet there has been no valid reason presented why the two pieces of information must be excluded from the article. In fact, the "Any work of Hawaiian history describes such relations" comment lends support to the inclusion of such contextual information about Hawaii's position vis-a-vis other world nations in the 19th century. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. Badagnani 07:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kuykendall devotes three (I think it's three) volumes to Kingdom history. Daws's best-known history (Shoal of Time) is 400 pages long. Saying that if they treat something in detail WP is obliged to do the same is prima facie ridiculous.

You say that because you were ignorant, other people must be as ignorant. That is mere anecdote, and unconvincing. WP doesn't accept personal anecdotes as reliable sources.

The Hawai'i article is a survey article and it's already TOO long. We have what are called breakout articles to discuss in detail matters that are covered in one or two sentences here. I have the impression that you want your arguments here, rather than in a breakout article, because you think more people will read them here. You are trying to use WP for propagandistic purposes. We're trying to write an encyclopedia.

Badagnani, if you really want to support the Hawaiian culture and people, how about doing some research and expanding our coverage in that area? We need some references in the Heiau article. It should be linked to the Luakini article. It would be nice to have a list of all known heiaus, even if they've been destroyed. We'd want to know what gods were worshipped there, and whether or not they were luakini heiaus. Maps would be nice. Pictures of old kapa patterns, hula implements, etc. List of kalo varieties grown by ancient Hawaiians? Our coverage of Hawaiiana is really abysmal. Another wonderful thing to do would be start adding articles to the Hawaiian language wiki. I think I'll try doing that when my Hawaiian is better (right now I'm just a first-year student). Zora 00:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your failure to apologize for your earlier accusations and insinuations, and your repeated unfounded accusations are absolutely unacceptable. I demand an immediate apology for these reprehensible statements. I maintain that my original additions, which were factual and of only modest length, must be restored to the article; the summary blanking was unjustified and the original reasons for removing them was enrirely unsound. I added them in good faith in order to provide a complete contextual understanding of present-day Hawaii by making reference to this important 50-year period in the 19th century and this text needs to be restored to the article. Badagnani 01:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to apologize for defending Wikipedia policies. You are free to file an RFC or a RFAR if you want to punish me; however, I don't think you'll get very far. Zora 02:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Twice making unfounded accusations, as you did, against another editor, does not represent any aspect of upholding Wikipedia principles; it was just wrong. Why would I need to use some sort of quasi-legal procedure to try to procure an apology from you? An apology should be offered sincerely, as your statements were made in error. There is nothing wrong with admitting a mistake. I have not similarly accused any editor and expect the same, as my edit was made in good faith. Badagnani 03:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that your edit was made in good faith, Badagnani, and you've definitely stepped into a controversial matter that you didn't intend and gotten some responses you may not have expected or deserved. However, your insistence that your edits be restored is unjustified. Your support for inclusion relies solely on your own personal anecdote of ignorance, and you have been unable to give any rationale as to why your edits are notable or of any utility to the article - simply insisting that on a personal level it is "important" is not sufficient. The removal of your edits was done in good faith, to avoid a POV war and because of the significant lack of notability or support for your rationale for inclusion. My apologies if you've interpreted that as a personal attack.

If it isn't already clear, let me spell out explicitly the POV war concerns regarding what you see as "important". Pro-sovereignty activists, a small minority group in the islands primarily in favor of the creation of a de facto race based government of anyone with genetic ancestry in Hawaii pre-1778, have attacked the legitimacy of the State of Hawaii since the early 70s. Although there are certainly those that hold that position in good faith, the tactics of some of these activists include a cherry-picking of history that you mentioned earlier. In this case, as per the citations you found on alohaquest, the legitimacy of the State of Hawaii is indirectly attacked by citing international recognition of the Kingdom of Hawaii, with the direct implication that a) such recognition was never sundered, and b) similar recognition was never achieved by other Hawaiian governments. You echoed this POV, when you described the "improbable road to statehood", implying that the road to statehood was somehow engineered or illegitimate.

Now, we could add in the facts you mentioned, without leading to the false implications of a) and b), if we made clear that the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii which succeeded the Kingdom of Hawaii also had international recognition, and ran the same embassies and abided by the samed treaties as the Kingdom, all of which became responsibilites of the United States upon annexation (which was also internationally recognized). However, such addition adds little to the article except an attack on the State of Hawaii, and a defense of the State of Hawaii.

Of course, simply adding in your edits without such balancing information would do a genuine disservice to those learning about Hawaii, giving them reason to believe, as you perhaps still do, that the road to statehood was somehow "improbable". My guess is that you have recently been exposed to a slanted view of Hawaiian history, and urge you to download a free pdf of "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?" at http://hawaiimatters.com, if you'd like to expose yourself to some alternative points of view.

I hope I've been clearer in the explanation of my concerns with your edits, and I invite you to correct any misconceptions you believe I'm operating under, as well as ask any detailed questions regarding my rationale. Your contributions are valued, even if they are occasionally found inappropriate by other editors. --JereKrischel 11:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, I have stated, several times now (and it is becoming tiresome that you negate this in your comments again, and again, and again, perhaps out of wishful thinking) that the international status of Hawaii between 1843 and 1893 is of significance to this article, regardless of whether I learned this in school or not, as I have also stated. The 1843 date of recognition is not even mentioned in the article? That is a glaring error, and the omission of the nation's 50 years of international recognition and 90 embassies is of only slightly less glaring of an omission. The justification for the relevance and importance of this fact is self-evident and thus it merits inclusion in the article. I have no interest in whatever controversy into which you seem to be trying to embroil me. And I still demand an apology from your colleague for the decidedly un-Wikipedian treatment to which I was unjustly subjected. Badagnani 07:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1843 date of official statement by France and Britain not to interfere with the Hawaiian Kingdom was not, AFAIK, the first international recognition ever afforded to the Hawaiian Kingdom - and in fact, it is certainly no more important than the Great Mahele of 1848, the Kuleana Act of 1850, or the Reciprocity Treaty of 1874. These details are more appropriate for the Kingdom of Hawaii article, and should be placed there. The fact that you see the justification as "self-evident" is apparently a misconception - certainly, it has not been self-evident to me, and you've so far been unable to explain why it should be. I believe that it is self-evident that the 1843 Paulet Affair and subsequent promise of non-interference by France and Britain should be discussed in the Hawaiian Kingdom article, and my stated rationale is that the fact is a Hawaiian Kingdom detail, not a State of Hawaii detail. --JereKrischel 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My use of the word "improbable" was simply to highlight the unusual nature of Hawaii's addition to the United States--particularly to people of the late 19th century, as (like Hawaii) it is a region distant from the mainland. The addition of Hawaii as a U.S. state would not have been seen as inevitable to most U.S. citizens in the late 19th century, including many congressmen and senators of the time who debated the issue of the U.S. getting into the business of claiming overseas territories in the manner of the U.K. and France, as mentioned earlier. Of course, from hindsight it may seem entirely natural but I was speaking from the point of view of the people of that time, when Hawaii had been an internationally regognized nation for a period of 50 years (though our readers, strangely, wouldn't know that from reading the article now, as it stands, as this fact seems to be arbitrarily excluded by two strong-willed (and one outright vitriolic) editors who don't seem to have a proper justification for this selective exclusion). Badagnani 07:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii had been seen as an extension of the U.S. by many Americans since as far back as 1820. Certainly throughout the Kingdom period they took on U.S. custom, used U.S. currency, and were greatly influenced by the United States. Kamehameha III negotiated for annexation to the United States decades before Hawaii became a territory, so from the Hawaiian side it was certainly a considered and reasonable possibility. Given the tight integration of the U.S. and Hawaii economy following the 1874 Reciprocity Treaty, many folks saw the integration of Hawaii into the U.S. as inevitable - and Kalakaua's corruption simply accelerated the trend.

I think you probably need to read more of the source material to get a better understanding of whether or not Hawaii becoming part of the U.S. was "improbable" - you seem to be operating under some misconceptions. There were certainly a host of Southern congressmen who opposed the inclusion of a territory that was not majority-white into the Union, and other anti-imperialists who did not want to expand beyond the continental U.S., but to assert that it was their view that was "probable", and that the opposing view was "improbable" is a judgement I'm not sure we can make.

I believe it is clear to the readers that the Kingdom of Hawaii was a legitimate nation, and pasting the label of "internationally recognized" on just the Kingdom of Hawaii, to the exclusion of the Provisional Government, Republic, Territory and State of Hawaii, come across as an indirect attack on the legitimacy of the State of Hawaii. I'm sorry I haven't been able to effectively communicate my issues and concerns to you with your proposed edits, but just as you see no "proper justification" for "selective exclusion", I don't see any justification for your selective inclusion of international recognition, and it doesn't seem like you have much sympathy for the concerns we have for the length of the article. --JereKrischel 08:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Please re-read the article. The word "nation" appears neither in the "History" section nor anywhere else in the article. I will be curious to hear your response. Badagnani 09:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, specifically, the Kingdom of Hawaii was a nation of Hawaii, the Provisional Government was simply an executive government of the Kingdom of Hawaii, so it was the same nation, and of course the Republic of Hawaii was a nation of Hawaii, and when annexed, the Territory of Hawaii became part of the nation of the United States. I don't think explicitly using the term "nation" is necessary or required - is there a reason why you believe it should be explicit? --JereKrischel 09:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's an easy one: you stated that the article makes it clear to our readers that Hawaii was an internationally recognized nation from 1843 to 1893, and I pointed out that nowhere in the article does the article include the word "nation." Thus, the fact is that the article does not make it clear, perhaps willfully, I don't know. Maybe, from what you said, earlier, you would find it dangerous to include this information due to whatever conflict has been going on at this page. However, the fact of the 1843 recognition of and 50 years of international recognition (with 90 embassies around the world) is definitely of great importance in providing a contexual understanding of Hawaii as it exists today. The fact that Hawaii was under U.S. influence during this period is of interest, of course, but that is tangential to the 50-year period of Hawaii's international recognition as a world nation. As it stands now I believe not one of these things is mentioned, a glaring omission. If history is split off into History of Hawaii, perhaps this information could go there, supplemented with the context you discussed in your last couple of edits. Badagnani 10:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

"...it doesn't seem like you have much sympathy for the concerns we have for the length of the article." This is poor justification for the glaring and willful omissions stated above. However, I'm curious how you can state this in good faith unless you are failing to read the discussion thoroughly. I'm referring to my edit of less than 1 hour ago, which addressed just this point. I will be eager to hear your response. Badagnani 09:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I was typing my comment while you were posting yours. I must have started my reply before 8:42, and taken 15 minutes to complete it. Thank you for your support to move the history section, I believe that it is a good idea, and fully support a more thorough treatment of relevant dates and events in the History of Hawaii article. --JereKrischel 09:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)