Talk:Hawaiian Independence Movement

The three paragraphs added by Loffer seem like a personal POV. I'm considering moving them here to this discussion page pending a more NPOV rewrite that can actually cite/link to sources in international law. Alternatively, perhaps one could simply refer the reader to the Hawaiian sovereignty article, which already has a lot of links to pro and con sources that include detailed discussion of the legal debate on independence. --IslandGyrl 11:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Scottmaui beat me to it by removing the three paragraphs entirely.

Also, under Pro & Con, I‘ve changed "Historian Miland Brown" to "A blogger writing under the pseudonym of ‘Miland Brown‘". This is because the linked-to page, in Blogspot, does not identify its author except for a note that: "Miland Brown is a pseudonym for an academic who works in North America. If you wish to contact me, post a comment on a blog entry." --IslandGyrl 01:10, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality and quality problems

The evolution of this article is taking a problematic direction. First, it is not fully clear why a separate article was created in the present sketchy and incomplete form. Every fact that could be mentioned here could also properly belong in the Hawaiian sovereignty or the history section of the Hawaii article. The article is a subset of the historical facts about Hawaii. How is one to decide which facts to put in the subset and how to organize them?

The article might be justified if it would be reorganized to catalog more clearly and succinctly the arguments made by those who favor Hawaiian independence and those opposing it. However, even the historical basis of this topic has become part of an emergent political controversy that is unfolding even as we wiki. Thus a high-quality analysis might very well run afoul of the Wikipedia rule against "original research". In any case it is very difficult to handle the topic in a neutral, encyclopedic way.

In its present form the article does not clearly lay out and identify pro and con arguments. It is in danger of turning into an edit battle between contributors who support Hawaiian independence and those who oppose it. "Pro" user A mentions fact(oid) X while omitting fact(oid) Y. "Anti" user B inserts fact(oid) Y but neglects to mention fact(oid) Z. "Pro" user inserts fact(oid) Z etc.

Recent edits demonstrate the problem. By adding the reference to (Y) the case of Texas, an anonymous contributor presumably was seeking to balance the pro-independence argument that (X) the annexation is void due to the lack of a treaty as prescribed by the U.S. constitution. But someone might then argue that (Z) although the people of Texas were for annexation and Texas was admitted immediately as a state, the people of Hawaii were overwhelmingly opposed to annexation and Hawaii was given only the inferior status of a territory. That is (goes the argument), Texans were exercising their basic human right of self-determination, but Hawaiians were in fact being deprived of theirs; so the Texas case is not relevant, is it? Without getting into details, basically, some would argue yes, some no. So referring to the Texas case as if its relevance were an accepted fact just compounds the difficulty by adding more POV.

If president Grover Cleveland is to be mentioned, then one should probably mention the reason his administration opposed annexation: namely, that the Blount report to Congress determined that the planters' "republican government" was totally unrepresentative and had no legitimacy among the people. The American president, or so I have read, further recommended that the U.S. reinstate Queen Liliuokalani, by force if need be. If that is true, then that would be very relevant to understanding the phenomenon of support for Hawaiian independence. But then anti-independence contributors would want to insert material supporting the planters' POV, and so on.

The topic of Hawaiian independence merits serious treatment. As the history of Oscar Temaru and the Tahitian independence movement shows, it would be wrong and short-sighted to just say "won't happen" and dismiss the topic out of hand. Due to patriotic sentiments, Wikipedia's U.S. readership may have a strong vested interest in seeing an anti-Hawaiian-independence POV here. That presents an underlying dilemma, as with all Wikipedia topics where all existing historical accounts are highly politicized and even today draw a strong emotional response.

--IslandGyrl 11:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Hawaiian sovereignty article is not neutral. It treats dissenting views as being either apologetic or a backlash. It is not balanced and it does not fairly address the views of a large number of people who are not apologizing and are not in backlash mode about what they feel is the fair and free status of Hawaii today. Any attempts to edit the Hawaiian sovereignty article will almost certainly result in an edit war. As such, this article is best left in place to present a more balanced approach to this topic.

Presenting facts such as how Texas was acquired by the USA does not unbalance this article. Presenting factual information helps to balance an article which is clearly unbalanced and is currently biased towards a pro-Hawaiian independence view.

"As the history of Oscar Temaru and the Tahitian independence movement shows, it would be wrong and short-sighted to just say "won't happen" and dismiss the topic out of hand."

Hawaii and Tahiti are very different cases. Hawaii is an intergral part of the USA just as is Texas, New York, and other states and this has been repeatedly recognized by international law. Removing Hawaii from the Union would have major consequences to American consitutional law. This article would get lots of attention quickly if this issue ever became one that was seriously debated in the USA and would see major editing.

Further, Hawaiians do not favor independence like the Tahitians have in the past. If Hawaiian Independence appeared on the ballot in Hawaii, it would almost certainly lose by a large percentage. The fact that you try to compare apples and oranges here shows you a NPOV axe to grind on this topic.

"But then anti-independence contributors would want to insert material supporting the planters' POV, and so on."

And why shouldn't Wikipedia do this? The Blount Report is balanced by the Stevens Report issued by the US Senate which supported the Hawaiian revolutionaries. Adding this to the article would balance the article further and make it less POV.

As for the link to the Miland Brown article, I see no reference to a pseudnoymn. If it is, who cares? Just about everyone edits at Wikipedia under a fake name. Is IslandGyrl your real name? How does the authorship of a blog with solid historical analysis make any difference? If you don't like the points, refute them in the article. For example, why should the overwhelming vote of Hawaiians in 1959 by ignored by the world? Why did the UN certify this vote if it was wrong? It would help to make this a better article as both sides weigh in and make this more substantive. 172.140.3.96

The blogger in question seems to have changed his page to remove the "pseudonym" reference. Do a Google search for "Miland Brown" and "pseudonym" and then click on the "Cached" link to retrieve [this copy] from Google's cache. The cached copy will go away at some point of course, so anyone interested is encouraged to verify this quickly. I am reinstating my edit to the link. Thanks to 172.140.3.96 for correcting my misspelling though.

The point is, as an encyclopedia, I feel WP shouldn't say "Historian Xxx Yyy" unless it is a verifiable fact that the person truly is a historian and that Xxx Yyy is his or her real name. And if we editors think we know (because the author originally stated such) that the name is a pseudonym, we should disclose that to the reader upfront.

Whether IslandGyrl is my real name is neither here nor there. I think there's an obvious difference between WP editors like us being anon-/pseudonymous and a source being cited as an authority being anon-/pseudonymous. WP policy is that "WP is not a soapbox" for propaganda or advocacy...whether its your axe or mine :-) . If there were no quality standards on links, it'd be too easy to circumvent this by posting "soapbox" material elsewhere on the Web and then having WP articles link to it.

--IslandGyrl 21:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

I notice this article has had a neutrality dispute note on it for some time. Unless someone has objections, I am going to remove it. If there are objectins to this, please offer reasons (and language for the article) which could end this npov dispute. I will wait a few days before removing the tag.LarryQ 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I have an objection. The last couple of paragraphs raise an argument in the editorial voice against the ideas of the Hawaiian Independence Movement. Definitely POV. --Kenji Yamada 09:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Would this work as a replacement:

The legal idea of Hawaiian independence is based on the premise that since the Hawaiian revolution of 1893 was illegal under previous Hawaiian law, all subsequent events were illegal. Critics assert that in international law the legality of a government is not based on the laws of the deposed government, but on international recognition. (See: Legal status of Hawaii)

Every nation with diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii (including the USA and the United Kingdom) recognized the Provisional Government which took power in 1893, the subsequent Republic of Hawaii declared in 1894, and the annexation of Hawaii in 1898. Since 1898, every nation in the world has recognized Hawaii as a part of the United States.

--JereKrischel 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this would work. Would substituting this text be sufficient for removing the neutrality tag? If not, please suggest other language. LarryQ 02:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. LarryQ 04:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should be deleted Jpetersen46321 15:32, 26 June 2006 (CDT)

Why? If you think so, nominate it for deletion at the votes for deletion page. LarryQ 00:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Akahi Nui

Is there any relation between the HIM and the monarchist Akahi Nui? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)