User talk:Makua

Apology Resolution, etc

Aloha Makua, I think you're pushing a bit too hard here. There is plenty of mention and discussion of the controversy regarding sovereignty in a number of articles already. Legal status of Hawaii, Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and of course the articles such as Apology Resolution, Morgan Report, Blount Report, etc. You can see a fairly long list here, regarding links to the Apology Resolution article.

I understand that you feel strongly about the inclusion of the Apology Resolution in the Hawaii article, but I sincerely feel, regardless of position, that it is the wrong article to place prominent mention of the controversy. This would fall under the category of WP:NPOV#Undue weight. The sovereignty movement, and their desire to publicize what they believe is historical truth, is not NPOV.

The issue I'm concerned with primarily is that if we put some mention of the Apology Resolution, then someone will insist on putting in a counter point. Then someone will want to counter that. And so on and so forth. Believe me, there are seemingly endless ways of arguing the issue.

So please, let's keep the Hawaii article clean of that kind of POV battle, and address the issue in the sub articles.

Mahalo! --JereKrischel 05:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of how other independence movements in other states of America are treated, see what links to Californian Indpendence. Note that it does not have prominent mention on the California page. Again, my point is not to quash the information, but to make sure that it is placed in appropriate articles. Mahalo for understanding! --JereKrischel 05:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry that you don't understand. The California situation has no real comparision to Hawaiian Sovereignty. I believe you're pushing far too hard here to remove one small sentence, and that's why your reasoning is colored. If you want to remove the line, then include links to Apology Resolution and Hawaiian Sovereigntyin the section.

--Makua 05:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing I might suggest is that we ask other editors for their views before moving further - we can request comments on our disagreement to see if we can either find an acceptable compromise, or at least find where a consensus might lay. The point being, of course to avoid an edit war and WP:3RR...please give some thought to that if you're not ready to put the issue to rest. --JereKrischel 05:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the last sentence to avoid any POV, and included a link to the Apology Resolution. Surely that should appease you, since there's no POV in this sentence BUT the AR page presents BOTH pov's... what do you think? --Makua 05:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, simply stating its passage, without the proper context regarding its lack of factual accuracy, is POV. I've edited it to demonstrate where this leads...and it really isn't pretty. Let's get some other editors in on this to see if we can hash this out. --JereKrischel 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii is a subsection of the Kingdom of Hawaii. You keep moving it up a level. I also wonder about whether or not we should have a sub-section called "Conquest of the Hawaiian Islands" underneath "Hawaiian antiquity" to give prominent mention to all the major changes of government...again, you see where this leads... --JereKrischel 05:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection thing is just a form error, I didn't look carefully.

By your same argument, one could say that NOT metioning it is POV, don't you get that? When I stated the passage of it, I did not indicate whether it was wrong or right, nor did I represent it's accuracy one way or another. I simply included a way to GET to all those details through the link. You're showing an overaction that simply supports your POV, and your insistence that a nuetral mention not be included is unreasonable. So yes, let's get some editors who are not affiliated with the Hawai'i project in any way to look at it. --Makua 05:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I point you to WP:NPOV#Undue weight, regarding prominent mention of points - not including it is not a POV push, as it belongs in a sub-article. The problem with what you saw as a simple statement was that it seemed to give authority to the controversial bill by only mentioning the fact of its passage, not the critical context necessary to understand the politics around it, as well as the name itself - "Apology Resolution" - which like all legislation, (No Child Left Behind, Child Online Protection Act, Defense of Marriage Act) is built almost intentionally to push POV. For example, should we give prominent mention to constitutional amendment passed in Hawaii that allowed the legislature to ban gay marriage, and state that "In 1998, Hawaii voters passed the Save Traditional Marriage constitutional amendment."? I still think the section should be kept in the appropriate sub articles, but let's see what others say over the next few days. --JereKrischel 05:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm willing to offer yet another olive branch. If, using the wording of my last edit, we link the phrase "joint resolution" to the Apology Resolution, that should limit whatever POV the name of the resolution could imply. Or, call it "Public Law #XXXX", and that will do the same thing. Agreed? --Makua 05:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I've already edited it as such (without the title Apology Resolution), plus I've combined it with the last paragraph to give it less prominence. It should be presented to the other editors that way... IF you don't agree to it. I hope you will agree to it, since I truly believe that the wording is extremely fair and neutral and that I've made serious efforts to compromise here. --Makua 05:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that making the link just say "resolution" was a very good idea, but I'm still bothered by the "addressed to native Hawaiians", without putting the caveat that they were only a minority of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893. I've done some edits, I'm still afraid that this isn't a good idea, but I appreciate you iterating through some possibilities with me! Mahalo! --JereKrischel 06:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jere, I must point out that the section already has a POV push in that you mention Thurston's "Committee of Safety". So, by your rules, that should be removed as well, correct? Or at least given a non-controversial description??? This is a double standard by any measure! So don't stress too much about having the "native Hawaiians" in there, as I'm sure most people can figure that one out, plus they can follow the link. --Makua 06:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per your note, I've obscured the "Committee of Safety" language. Probably a very useful tactic for preserving NPOV. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo nui loa for obcuring the CS language! OK, I read your edit, and I feel far more comfortable with "addressed specifically to native Hawaiians." OK? The last part is just confusing, and they'll easily find that out once they follow the link. My edit gets across your idea exactly... that it was addressed only to the native Hawaiians. Is that pono with you? --Makua 06:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how about, "In 1993, a controversial joint resolution regarding the overthrow was passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton.", with the reference to Bruce Fein's critique? Again, I'm still generally against the idea, and would like other editors to weigh in, but you're certainly on your way to convincing me that it may be possible to give mention to it in an NPOV manner. --JereKrischel 06:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that sounds good to me! Debate is typically a very good thing, and Fein's critique certainly encourages that.

Just FYI, so you know where I stand, generally speaking (and I don't want to really debate it of course):

I do not endorse succession of Hawai'i, but I do believe that native Hawaiians, no matter how different some say their history is from other native Americans, deserve self-governance and rights on par with the other native Americans.

I believe it was wrong for the United States to aid and abett the takeover, and so I believe also there is truth in both the Morgan and Blount reports--the actual truth is somewhere in-between. Since we'll probably never really know ALL the details of what happened (lost to history), I say what's past is past, appropriate reparations should be made, and we should move on.

So you see, not extreme one way or the other, but somewhere in-between... and the details--for me--are hardly set in stone. --Makua 06:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mahalo, Makua! Although we disagree on some of the issues, I greatly appreciate your willingness to work on things together. My personal "in between" is generally an acceptance of the darker parts of history we've all shared, and a healthy amount of shame regarding the past, but a myopic dedication to the idea of color-blind equality. Utopian, naive and unreasonable, by any measure, but I simply can't bring myself to behave any other way. Anyway, thanks again for your help, there are certainly more articles that probably need it on the issue! --JereKrischel 06:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for condescending tone

I just wanted to apologize if any of my talk entries have seemed condescending - I don't mean to be, and if I come across that way it is unintentional. As I'm sure you completely understand, this is a terribly controversial issue, and if you don't already know, I engage in spirited debate in other forums regarding the matter. I work very diligently to keep the two worlds very separate in my mind, and am dedicated to abiding by the NPOV values espoused by Wikipedia.

Your help in moving the article forward is greatly appreciated, and I hope you also help with all of the other related articles - they certainly could use it!

Mahalo again! --JereKrischel 06:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I am stubborn and spirited myself! As you know, I responded in kind, so there's blame to share, and it doesn't seem to matter anymore, cuz it's over. Mahalo for moving this forward too!