Talk:Hawaii Democratic Revolution of 1954

Biased article

This article is so POV, written with a load of Marxist, racially-tinged rhetoric. The same problem exists with the Wiki article about the Democratic party in Hawaii. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbalducc (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The truth about that period is pretty darned brutal; what are your specific concerns? Hawaii in that era was highly racist, and the article itself is fairly even-handed, not glossing over the prominent role played by Communists in the events of the period, nor the dictatorial role played by the big white ranching companies. If specific wording is in violation of NPOV, then make appropriate edits. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Improving Structure, Sourcing and Tone

So I wandered in here (cruising Wikipedia after hearing about The Terror: Infamy), and I find this article needs a lot of help. I attempted to try and clean it up myself but I found I wasn't comfortable making all the changes I thought would help unilaterally without seeing if anyone else had ideas. I additionally don't have access to the books that make up the primary sourcing of the article. A few things I think could be improved;

• Tone of voice is a problem in this article imo. It's subtle but I think the article can acknowledge the oppressive and abusive nature of the Big Five and their political dominance of the territory in a more objective way. I would switch some of the terminology, for example instead of saying the "Republicans ran Hawaii" I would say "Republicans dominated politics in Hawaii." It's more specific and also feels more neutral to me. It lacks the subtle casting of villainy that doesn't quite seem appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I have similar feelings about the use of the words "reign" in the opening section. I would rewrite it to "The Revolution culminated in the territorial elections of 1954 which saw the end of the Hawaii Republican Party's dominance in the legislature, and the ascent of the Democratic Party of Hawaii." The article could also use better clarity who it is talking about, as it talks about the Hawaiian branch of the GoP in the opening, but uses the more general "Republican Party" in most of the rest of the article. The sources are books I don't have. Is it possible for anyone to help check what they say (if they just use "Republican Party" then that seems appropriate, but if they're more specific then the article should reflect them).
• The structure of the opening two sections is a little confusing. I'd like to reorganize it. The ILWU section is sloppily organized, and some of its information feels more appropriately placed in the prelude. The article also notably fails to identify what ILWU stands for (I assume the International Longshore and Warehouses Union?), and regularly uses the ambiguous term "movement" without defining what that means in this context. A collective group that coordinated, a formal organization, or a lose arrangement of individuals who ended up doing some similar things all at once? How does this movement relate to the Democratic Party in the territory? Were they one and the same, did the movement manifest within the party or without? It's unclear from the way the article is worded.
• I feel like there's sourcing out there to build an entire section on the ethnic complexities of the territory, and particularly how this diversity impacted the path to statehood, but I need to hunt those sources down in my personal library. Regardless, there appears to be uncited information concerning native Hawaiians on this subject that seems to have gone uncited for sometime. Does anyone have a cite for it? If I can find one myself I'll add it, but if I can't it'll probably get deleted with everything else I'd like to improve.

I also have a question, namely what is Wikipedia's policy on other encyclopedias? Densho has a well written article on this topic. If I can just cite it, that would be easier, but if that's against policy I'd just have to do the extra leg work of poking through their citations and getting the water straight from the source. These are all things I'd like the work on, but it affectively results in a near complete rewrite of the article. I'm cool with doing that bit by bit, but I'm really not interested in getting sucked into an edit war or anything, so I'm not going to bother if there are strong objections. Lord0fHats (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)