User talk:Eekadog

Aloha

Aloha, Eekadog, and thanks for your contributions -- points well-taken. As you may already have noted, the POV battle rages on Hawaii-related articles other than this one: Apology Resolution‎, Kingdom of Hawaii‎, Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎, Legal status of Hawaii‎, and others. I don't know exactly where you are coming from, and it's not that important; I, for one, am not connected with any activist group (i.e. I'm no radical), but simply find the POV pushing and sophomoric reasoning from a certain editor to be an affront to both the spirit of Wikipedia and to rational discourse in so many ways it's impossible to articulate without violating WP:CIVIL. This has been going on far too long and it's time to end the POV pushing. I'm willing to take the lead (or feel free yourself!) on much of this, but some additional backup would be great. In any case, mustering forces is clearly in order -- if you are interested, your help in bringing the articles back to some semblance of a fair and balanced perspective (to steal back a phrase from a certain right-wing propoganda outlet) would be mucho appreciated. Cheers, Arjuna 06:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

One other thing just to provide a couple of examples (pardon if you're already following this). Quite inexplicably, an understanding of basic definitions seems to have escaped said editor -- see Talk:Kingdom_of_Hawaii#Overthrow.3F_What_overthrow.3F. Good for a laugh if nothing else. Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy‎ is the main battle front I'm waging, slowly, in what semblance of free time I actually have. Anyway, just FYI. Mahalo, Arjuna 07:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Eekadog, thanks for your note. No, I hadn't actually looked at either A4A or GI -- I assume JK had a hand in writing them? Even if so, 1. I don't find that highly objectionable (assuming he's not proprietary, which may be a heroic assumption), and 2. the argument between JK and myself had become too personal and we've both agreed to take a step back for a couple of days, for the sake of the articles (anger is unproductive) and as human beings. JK has said he understands the articles need to come back to the center, so I'm trying not to go and start pressing too many buttons right now. He's not going away, and neither am I, and so your continued contributions are definitely encouraged. Cheers, Arjuna 10:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Eekadog, JK and I have been having a discussion on usage of the term "Hawaiian". I think we're at an impasse and need other people to add their two cents. Do you have any thoughts on this? Thanks and aloha. Arjuna 10:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC) (P.S. To JK, who will also probably read this: this is a genuine call for consensus.)

September 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Native Hawaiians. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Gscshoyru 18:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Eekadog -- pay no attention. I don't know who this person is, but he seems to have an axe to grind as his rv and edit of your addition was thoroughly POV. Thanks for your comments on my talk -- I will have a look at the Overthrow page when I have a chance. Cheers, Arjuna 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna, thanks for the support. Apparently, the individual did not take the time to read the article that JK cited. There was mention of controversy over the Akaka Bill in the article. There was no mention of the "indigenous issue." JKs last edit looked like OR to me. I guess I will include that in the edit summary next time. I must wonder if Gscshoyru looked at the edit history or discusion of the wiki article. After scoping out G's discussion page I noticed that G slapped another person's wrist for repeated reversions that flew in the face of the consensus of editors. I feel that an explanation for this cute little note on my page should be given, as I was just shifting the article back to the consensus. Shouldn't a patroller be neutral? Eekadog 23:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I found this conversation purely by accident, but let me say a couple things in my defense -- first of all, I made a mistake. I make mistakes all the time, especially when vandalism levels are heavy, and I'm trying to keep up. If I make a mistake, rather than talking it about behind my back, please tell me. That way I can apologize for screwing up.

In any case, my reverting had nothing to do with neutrality -- I say removal of content, couldn't immediately figure out eh reason, so reverted it, and warned. As for leaving more explanation along with the template -- the templates exist for speed reasons. If I had to explain my revert to everyone, it would defeat the purpose. If you have a question about what I did, please talk to me, and ask.

Same thing goes for looking at the talk page and discussions, etc, though I do do that mostly, and I guess I was in a bit too much of a rush here. That was a serious screw up on my part, and for that I really apologize.

So, sorry for screwing up. If you have any other problems with anything I do, don't hesitate to tell me about them. Thanks! Gscshoyru 19:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake for not going to you first. Thanks for the post Gscshoyru.

OR

Hey eekadog, what part did you think was WP:OR? The article referred to the controversy of the Akaka bill regarding testimony given on 9/5, and both the testimony and the bill include the "indigenous issue". I can sort of see how you might see this connecting of dots as WP:OR, and I can find a better cite for you if you'd like, but can we at least agree that something should be said about the controversy if we're going to use the "i-word" in the lead? I'm more than happy to move the controversy section till after the break, but if so, we should probably avoid using the "i-word" without context. Is that an acceptable compromise for you? --JereKrischel 03:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

the "i word?" Does that stand for ignore, as in ignore imperialism? I have some questions for you. If Hawaiians are not indigenous to Hawaii how can they be a race? If Hawaiians are not a race how can they have racially biased preferences? Eekadog 08:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The "i-word" stands for "indigenous" - apologies if that term rubbed you the wrong way. To answer your question, a "race" is simply an arbitrary bloodline - you can pick whatever point in time you want. We could declare everyone in Hawaii today a "race", and track bloodline from now on, and give special privileges to this "racial" group. It is the assumption that genetic ancestry or parentage is the defining factor which defines "race". One might just as easily ask the question whether or not Chinese and Japanese are two separate races, or if they are all part of the "Asian" race - where you choose to draw the line is completely arbitrary, but once you draw the line, you track by genetic lineage.

Back to my question though, do you agree that it is appropriate to have some mention of the controversy in the lead if we choose to use the word "indigenous"? --JereKrischel 18:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

JK, as an extreme example do you see people stating that there is some controversy about the Holocaust because some people have argued that it didn't occur. What's next? Changing the title of the article to "Original Inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands" because native is one step above indigenous. Eekadog 21:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

An interesting point, although I'm afraid I might actually agree with you in calling kanaka maoli the "Original inhabitants of the Hawaiian islands" :). Is there a particular reason why you think it is so important to use the "indigenous" word, rather than "original inhabitants"? What do you see as the difference between those two? Maybe if I understood that, I could come up with a reasonable compromise for you. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and P.S. - the overthrow article edit I did only changed to chronological order, I didn't remove the mention of stevens summoning the marines (although that word is a bit iffy). Anyway, please take a look closer at the edit before you revert it - or better yet, let me know what specific sentences with the chronological edit you've got issues with, and we'll work on them. --JereKrischel 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha all. I am going 600mph here at the moment so haven't had time to look at it as closely as I would like to, but... On the Overthrow article, it looks as though there was questionable new material using MR as a primary source. This runs a serious danger of stovepiping and thus violating WP:OR. (JK, this is why merely citing something (anything!) and then claiming it is legit for the article is not valid.) As for "indigenous" -- as demonstrated previously elsewhere, that is the term that best fits and is most commonly used and understood; why JK has a problem with it is, frankly, baffling. "Indigenous" is descriptive and does NOT necessarily have political connotations, while "first nations" etc., which he says he preferred, does have a pro-indigenous connotation. As for changes to the chronological order I don't have a problem with that, but it does seem to have been more than just that -- it seemed to be adding new POV material. Aside from all that, the article is still quite POV and needs a major push back to the center. Cheers, Arjuna 21:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

next level

I believe Viriditas is suggesting that if we can't work things out, we'll go through some sort of formal mediation process. Sometimes this means locking down the article to prevent edits until things are settled, and it can also include strict 3RR violation checking and blocking people from editing. I'm more than happy to try and satisfy both of our positions with you, but it certainly will take more work and discussion between us. If you'd like to skip right to mediation, we can do that too, though - let me know what you think. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 21:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I'm totally cool with "native". Since there is no "U.N. Declaration of Native Rights", and the term is both commonly understood as "originating from" as well as "born in a certain place", I'm good with that. Thank you for sticking through with me on this one, and finding common ground - I seriously appreciate your patience. --JereKrischel 21:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a ploy -- don't fall for it. Thurston Twigg-Smith is a Hawaii "native" since he was born here. Arjuna 22:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Where did V say this? It's hard to keep up with the flurry of changes. Cheers, Arjuna 22:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's on the Hawaiian History page. Thanks for pointing out that I'd fallen into the trap. I was sick of the repeated reverts flying in the face of the consensus, so I made a mistake. I've since changed my edit.Eekadog 23:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries, totally understandable -- I am all for reasonable compromises but that one seemed to be a real trap. I'd much rather not have to battle for the simplest of things too! I'll check out the "next level" discussion -- still haven't seen what the hubub is about. Cheers and aloha, Arjuna 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Legal status of Hawaii: Formal RFC

Just to let you know if you don't already, there's a pretty hot discussion raging on the Talk:Legal status of Hawaii page on the subject of the consideration of the U.S.' actions as potentially illegal being "undue weight" under WP policy, per a formal request (by LarryQ) for outside comment. Everyone who was previously involved is being asked to give their comments. I know you had participated in the page itself, though I don't remember if this specific issue affected you. Please give your mana'o if you have time. Mahalo! Aloha, --Laualoha 01:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

p.s. what's this "next level" stuff? Is it the same thing happening on the LSofH page, or different? Missed it...

Hawaii articles

Hey Eekadog, thanks for your help in trying to keep JK honest. This endless reverting thing is pretty annoying, and it's endlessly frustrating to have to keep trying to get him to accept that his versions are pretty typically POV. But someone's gotta do it! Anyways, thanks. The description of the Akaka Bill isn't perfect, but the compromise you guys reached (with the exception of his continued insistence on "any amount of", which is tendentious) is ok enough as far as I'm concerned, so thanks for your work on that too. Cheers, Arjuna 03:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna I appreciate your attempt to move the articles back to NPOV, thanks for your work.. Eekadog 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha eekadog, could you please illustrate on the talk pages what kind of problems you have with my edits? Both Arjuna and I have worked on compromises on several of the articles you keep reverting. Specifically, removing good cites to Kuykendall really isn't appropriate. If you have problems with tone and language, I'm happy to work with you, but you're not being very constructive right now, no offense.

Please, let me know what your specific problems are, and I'll help you. I'd hate for this to get to a 3RR issue, but I believe that's where it's heading. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 21:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

JK, your accusations are comical, you know that your version of the events is a misinterpretation. Their have been many reasons given for the reverts. How many times do you want to hear the same answers? You are the very one who is reverting many of Arjuna's NPOV edits. How can you say that you've reached a compromise when you are constantly reverting Arjuna's changes (including that specific Kuykendall cite)? Eekadog 02:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai, we may disagree on what is the true representation of the facts, but I've worked very diligently, you must admit, to make sure that we cite our sources, and let the sources speak for themselves. Please, examine the changes you're reverting, and let me know specifically what your problem is. It is nice of you to support Arjuna, but I think doing so simply reflexively isn't help Arjuna or I come to conclusion on some of these differences we have.

JK, I don't make reverts reflexively. You could easily be accused of the same on certain occasions. Eekadog 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your thought and insight into how we can improve these articles, and would hope that you would be more specific in your comments about what you find POV, rather than simply stating that you think it is POV. Knowing that you feel a certain way doesn't help me address the issue unless I can understand why.

JK, How many times do you need to here the same reason for the same revert? Eekadog 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling that you're moving at high speed, and the gyroscopic force of your wheels is keeping you from changing direction on this bike. Can you ease back on the throttle, slow it down a bit, and help me out? Mahalo. --JereKrischel 02:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

JK, please tell Chewbacca to turn the Millenium Falcon's warp drive off. Eekadog 03:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

ha ha - that was funny! Sorry, I'm butting in for no reason, but you guys make me laugh... Aloha, --Laualoha 10:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Eekadog, thanks for the reverts of JK's continued mischief-making. I think I'm already at 2RR on the Republic of Hawaii page and don't want to go over by accident. If you share my perspective on the Pitzer v. TTS issue and want to revert JK's deletion of Pitzer, that would be much appreciated. Btw, if you haven't seen my comment on the Republic of Hawaii talk page re: TTS, it may be of interest. Mahalo, Arjuna 00:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aloha eekadog - please, as per Arjuna, leave some comments when you're reverting edits - at this point, although your support of Arjuna in his edit war is certainly noble, it's not being very productive. We can work through compromises if you're willing to communicate - if not, things won't get very far.

If you'd like to take this to mediation to try and figure things out, I'm cool with that. But your reverts are bordering on vandalism at this point. I know we can work this out, but you have to give it a chance. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 07:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

JK, ridding the articles of your blatant and flagrant POV push is productive. If there is anyone who can be accused of vandalism here it's you. That was a wonderful edit on the Queen's page.Eekadog 09:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

TTS and vanity publication

Aloha Eekadog. The discussion between JK and myself on Talk:Republic of Hawaii has ramped up and reached an impasse re: whether or not TTS's book is a vanity publication (and thus not a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines). Care to weigh in? Mahalo, Arjuna 09:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I'd rather bang my head against a wall. Eekadog 10:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I hear ya, believe me. Won't blame you if you opt out, but hope you might put in two cents. The way JK "wins" is by wearing people out, but my strategy for dealing with a pigheaded, bloody-minded editor is to be equally tenacious. Anyhow, I think one way to deal with this seemingly ingrained tendency is to knock out the foundations he relies on for (spurious) claims to authority. TTS is clearly a divisive, fringe figure and should not be accorded anything approaching the same level of legitimacy as a mainstream commentator or scholar of whatever stripe. (Hi JK, I know you're listening!) Anyway, Cheers, Arjuna 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, be more specific in what you assert is POV pushing - I cannot read your mind, nor can other editors. I understand that you have a different POV than I do, but I'm sure you'll agree I'm vigilant about sourcing my references, and I work hard with everyone to find compromise language when we run into issues.

Simply reverting well-cited material just isn't appropriate. You may disagree with the thoughts of Kuykendall, or Russ, or even Twigg-Smith, but that doesn't make citing or quoting them POV pushing. If you're afraid that their version or take on events is not accurate, or is disputed, find competing quotes - don't just eliminate theirs. Suppressing their POV is not the way to get to NPOV - presenting opposing viewpoints in a neutral, unbiased fashion without in-line editorializing is the way to go.

If you'd like help, please, feel free to point me to a reference you'd like included, and I'll work on incorporating it into a given article. But your own opinions advanced in-line without citation just aren't acceptable. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 13:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

JK please desist vandalism of this page.Eekadog 17:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry eekadog, not sure what's going on with the disappearing Arjuna comments - I may be clicking on the wrong "edit" button when I'm doing diffs to see what the latest changes are - I'll try to be more careful about that.

Arjuna, again, give me just one example in TTS's book that makes him fringe - he cites Kuykendall, Russ, Andrade, and is meticulous in attributing his assertions. Please, just a single shred of evidence, and we can have a conversation - otherwise, you're both just attacking the messenger to try and discredit a POV you disagree with. c/m/t --JereKrischel 20:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

JK, why is it necessary for you to cite TTS when Russ provides an adequate source for the material in question? Please also note that you have reverted to a version on some of the articles that no longer mentions that the Committee of Safety requested troops. Eekadog 20:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with both Russ and TTS. And if you look carefully, the versions I'm reverting to all mention that requests were given by the committee of safety. --JereKrischel 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

JK, you didn't answer his question: why is it necessary to cite TTS, an inferior source (regardless of the vanity pub issue), when an analogous citation from Russ is accepted by all. Frankly, I strongly suspect you are just trying to boost TTS's Google ranking. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Finally, the objection I think Eekadog and I share is that you are cherrypicking things to support the CoS' POV, which is OR. Arjuna 21:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not an inferior source, but moreover, it is an accessible source. I don't give a rat's behind about google rank, nor am I trying to link farm - but like I said before, removing the link and diminishing the accessibility seems like a bad idea...would you object to linking to the pdf if the pdf was hosted somewhere else besides hawaiimatters.com? Would you be willing to host it somewhere?

Finally, in regards to "cherrypicking", pick your own cherries. If you can't find rebuttals in well sourced materials to the statements made by the experts (especially the ones we agree upon), that's your kuleana. Removing material because you cannot find contradictory evidence isn't reasonable, and if you can find contradictory evidence, then removing that material is blatantly POV suppressing. --JereKrischel 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I assume the above is JK speaking? If so, JK, this is NOT helpful and as you know is directly contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. In lashing out this way, you may have just inadvertently tipped your hand that you are more intent on pushing a POV than working together to get articles that are more encyclopediac. We suspected this, but thanks for confirming it. Now, about 3RR.... this makes me far less likely to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll give you 5 minutes. Arjuna 23:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What is directly contrary? Asking you to cite sources and provide balance by adding information rather than suppressing it? BTW, which 3RR are you considering in violation? Be very careful that you don't hit 3RR violations trying to "get back" at me - if you're going to report me, report me, but if you break 3RR too, then we both get blocked. --JereKrischel 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

JK has been reported. Regrettable but necessary -- it's called accountability. Sorry JK. Arjuna 00:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Native Hawaiians

Hey eek, I liked your edits to Native Hawaiians, but I made some changes to that section - it seemed almost to imply that all native Hawaiians lived in Hawaii and never attended public schools anywhere else. Not sure if what I did will pass muster with you, so please, check out the edit, and adjust it as you see fit (making note of the national presence of native Hawaiians, of course). Mahalo --JereKrischel 08:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

valid point. I can't say that I agree with all of the current verbage though. The first sentence that you added should be fairly obvious to anyone familiar with the US concept of public schools. I don't think that it needs to be included. Do we need to say things like "Hawaiians use the same public utilities as other people in the country?" Eekadog 09:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Back to the fray

Hey Eekadog, good to see you back again (I think -- being that the cause is likely related to the reemergence of a certain editor, his sockpuppet, or his clone, this is not an unambiguously happy event.) Anyhow, I don't know the answer to your question offhand, but I've got all the main references and will look it up. You probably already do know that their choice of barracks was suspicious in its proximity to the Palace, when a more logical choice would have been right somewhere on Nuuanu. Anyway, I will check when I have time, and thanks for stepping back up to the plate on the reverts. Shoot me an email if you like -- we can still remain anonymous if that's what you want. Aloha, Arjuna (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Overthrow article (again)

Hi Eekadog, need your help on the Overthrow article. You may wish to refer to the back and forth discussion on the [talk page]. The potential COI issue was also discussed there and on YS's talk page. I don't know how you feel about these issues, but your input would be much appreciated. He just reverted again, and frankly, I feel a re-revert is entirely justified, but I think given where things are (YS seems unamenable to logic if you ask me) it would have more weight if the reverts had the consensus of other editors, so I'm loathe to do it myself (I'm already at 2RR today). Cheers and mahalo, Arjuna (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Please take note and refrain from constant edit warring on the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom article. This is your warning. Please use the article's talk page to discuss changes with your fellow contributors rather than reverting. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

Aloha! You look like someone who might be interested in joining the Hawaii WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you help us :-) —Viriditas | Talk 01:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)