Talk:1887 Constitution of the Hawaiian Kingdom

POV

   I HATE HOW THEY TOOK OVER HAWAII!

Interesting article for me to read as I never heard of this on all my years of public or private education. With the recent success of Eminent Domain being used by private corporations in the contiguous United States it appears nothing has changed.

Some sources of this page would be nice. Also, I don't know much about Hawaiian History but this article sound very pro-sovereignty--in other words, POV. JohnJohn 20:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It sounds okay to me. However, it has a much more detailed coverage of the overthrow than the article Overthrow of the Hawai'ian Monarchy, so I think some condensation and/or retitling is in order. KarlM 01:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC) b

Definately POV - the title is given as 'commonly known as the Bayonet Constitution by its opponents' - clearly POV. It should be combined with whatever is the 'non-POV' version, and be referred to that. --Dumarest 20:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved over to 1887 Constitution of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and created redirect from Bayonet Constitution. --JereKrischel 21:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The comparison of Article 62 of the Constitution of 1864 with Article 59 of the 1887 Constitution is disingenuous. Article 62 deals with the House of Representatives, Article 59 deals with the House of Nobles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 06:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed "disenfranchised most of the native population" from the overview since the actual text of the constitution shows that it reduced the qualifications for voting, thereby extending the franchise to many native Hawaiians who had not previously met the income or property requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.77.28 (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the point is that it raised the qualifications for the upper house (actually previously was appointed). Need to clarify this in the text, instead of quoting whole portions. Moreover, the claims it "established the cabinet" or the constitution was "written by Lorrin A. Thurston" only are not supported. ... Ah, Kuykendall does say Thurston wrote the constitution of the Hawaiian League, which is probably what confused somebody. Will fix. W Nowicki (talk) 21:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the point is that it raised the qualifications for the upper house No, it lowered them, since previously there was no voting for members at all. This claim is a widespread lie that only stands because no one actually reads the text in question.64.65.77.28 (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are right to the extent the qualifications for voting for the upper house were new, not "raised", since before only one vote counted: the King's! There previously were no wealth requirements for serving in the house, so those were "raised", although suspect the Nobles met them in practice. But I think that is what the article says. Is there a specific claim in the article that you think is a "lie"?

POV: The article claims the Senate was elected by "wealthy" landowners, but converting the voting requirements to 2009 dollars shows that the requirements were not particularly high.64.65.77.28 (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

But you need a source for any conversions. 130 years of inflation is notoriously hard to calibrate acurately so any estimates in dollar terms would probably not be relevant. What makes more sense would be what percentage of the people met the qualifications?

Actually the POV problem I see is that it does nto discuss at all the issues that led to the imposition of the document and the change in cabinet, e.g. the John Edward Bush expedition or other actions of the Gibson regime, etc. W Nowicki (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

"The wealth requirements were removed during the short reign of Lunalilo in 1874" is unsupported by the citation, which states simply that Liliuokalani was unable to make any changes to the Constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.49.147.98 (talk) 05:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Campaignbox covers article text

The campaignbox containing "Hawaiian Revolutions" covers part of the article text in the section "Rebellion of 1887". I do not know if that is an issue with the Campaignbox template. The military history style guide does acknowledge some alignment problems caused by the template, but I am unsure if any of the proposed solutions really address this situation.--Rpclod (talk) 13:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Removed

At the time this constitution came into effect, native Hawaiians, both full and part, accounted for less than half of the total population, yet enjoyed significant electoral advantage because of the disenfranchisement of Asians. When the Hawaiian government of Queen Liliʻuokalani was overthrown in 1893 by Thurston and his co-conspirators, about 75% of ethnic Hawaiians could not vote at all because of the gender, literacy, property, and age requirements.

open until we find a source. The two-thirds statement was applied to 1889, so I will say that and source. W Nowicki (talk) 22:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC) [[Category:Hawaii articles without infoboxes

Article name

I feel the name this is most well known as is; Bayonet Constitution and would like to usurp the redirect that that title currently is, to be the actual page for this article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Asian disfranchisement

Finding sources for isn't easy. This mentions something in regards to the Chinese vote (it is assumed that a few Chinese gain citizenship during the period before 1887 and were thus able to vote).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kingdom of Hawaii which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)