Talk:Republic of Hawaii

Suffrage and Elections

User:Kaolelo put in a POV pushing snippet about the Republic not being elected, and suffrage being limited during that time - but that was also true of all governments prior to the Republic. Does it really belong in this article? I think if we're going to chastise the Republic for not being duly elected by a population that enjoyed universal suffrage, to be fair we'd have to put the same type of language on the pages for the kingdom. --JereKrischel 19:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hawaiian Language Dispute

Most discussion over the use of the 'okina and kahako are at the main talk page for the article about Hawaii. See Talk:Hawaii.

Point of View in Dispute

Obviously, the writer of this page is under the delusion that the American form of Democracy is what every one wanted or wants. History has shown that the Hawaiian people neither understood nor wanted an American style government. After seeing different parts of the world I have found that our style of Democracy might accually prolong "wars" in areas where the people feel they have nothing left to lose. We go in to rid them of a tyrant, only to see him replaced with several small tyrants.

Most of also beleive and hope that if the Queen had called for a full on war our ancestors would have been there to die, not only for our Queen, but our country.

While the time has pasted for a ruling Hawaiian Monarchy, the decision to overthrow the Queen was not made by the people of Hawaii, but by guests who did not know how to act at someone elses home.

Indeed. The page is not NPOV. Node 02:34, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also vote that this article is not NPOV and needs vast amounts of editing and/or rewriting from scratch. When you read the articles I wrote for Kingdom of Hawaii and Territory of Hawaii, and then come to this article, the point of view is so blatantly anti-Hawaiian in comparison. Gerald Farinas 21:42, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Was anything done about this?? Huangdi 09:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of NPOV, and also addressing the section below "Rewriting to Negative Bias", if we wanted to be writing from a NPOV, why is there mention of the Queen drafting a constitution that would give her absolute power? Why not point out the articles from the 1887 Constitution & compare it to her draft 1893 Constitution as well as compare the changes made from the 1864 Constitution that prompted Lorrin Thurston, et al. to create the significant changes in the 1887 Constitution that was never ratified by the Legislature, not to mention let's point out those particular articles in the 1864 Constitution such as Article 48 about Legislative Power and how they had the power & authority to amend the constitution. The draft 1893 Constitution that Liliuokalani wanted was simply addressing the articles from the 1864 that was altered by the un-ratified 1887 Constitution. Clearly writing out the facts rather trying to write from the point of view of a spectator or from the Queen's point of view is nothing but a point of view. Mamoahina (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"The U.S. Military was present but only as observers, as they had an obligation to protect the hundreds of American lives and property in Honolulu at the time.[1]" That is inflammatory non-NPOV BS. — Muckapedia (talk) 26^e fév. 2016 14h08 (−4h)

Rewrite to Negate Bias

Before I begin rewriting this for a more unbiased approach to the subject, I thought I should copy and paste the original body text here for a moment. Gerald Farinas 19:08, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The reign of Queen Lili‘uokalani (1891 - 1893) displayed a trend to autocracy. The legislative session of 1892, during which four changes of ministry took place, stretcheded to eight months long, chiefly due to the queen's determination to carry through the opium and lottery bills and to have a pliable cabinet. She had a new constitution drafted, practically providing for an absolute monarchy, and disfranchising a large class of citizens who had voted since 1887; this constitution (drawn up, so the royal party declared, in reply to a petition signed by thousands of natives) she undertook to force on the country after proroguing the legislature on 14 January 1893, but her ministers shrank from so revolutionary an act, and with difficulty prevailed upon her to postpone the plan.

An uprising similar to that of 1887 declared the monarchy forfeited by its own act. A third party proposed a regency during the minority of the heir-apparent, Princess Ka‘iulani, but in her absence this scheme found few supporters. A public meeting appointed a "Committee of Safety", formed a provisional government and reorganized the volunteer military companies, which had disbanded in 1890. The "Sons of Missionaries" (as E. L. Godkin styled them) emerged as the leading spirits of the Committee. They stood accused of using their knowledge of local affairs and their inherited prestige among the natives for private ends and of founding a "Gospel Republic" (actually a business enterprise). The provisional government called a mass meeting of citizens, which met on the afternoon of the 16 January 1893 and ratified its action.

The United States steamer Boston, which had unexpectedly arrived from Hilo on 14 January 1893, landed a small force on the evening of 16 January, at the request of the United States minister, Mr J. L. Stevens, and of a committee of residents, to protect the lives and property of American citizens in case of riot or incendiarism. On 17 January 1893 the Committee of Safety took possession of the government building and issued a proclamation declaring the monarchy abrogated and establishing a provisional government, to exist "until terms of union with the United States of America shall have been negotiated and agreed upon".

Meanwhile two companies of volunteer troops arrived and occupied the grounds. By the advice of her ministers, and to avoid bloodshed, the queen surrendered under protest. She did so in view of the landing of United States troops, appealing to the government of the United States to reinstate her in authority.

Toward the end of the 1894 a plot formed to overthrow the republic and to restore the monarchy. Plotters secretly landed a cargo of arms and ammunition from San Francisco at a point near Honolulu. There they collected a company of native royalists on January 6, 1895, intending to capture the government buildings by surprise that night, with the aid of their allies in the city. A premature encounter with a squad of police alarmed the town and broke up their plans. Several other skirmishes occurred during the following week, resulting in the capture of the leading conspirators, along with most of their followers.

The republicans found arms and ammunition and a number of incriminating documents on the premises of the ex-queen; they arrested her and imprisoned her for nine months in the former palace. On 24 January 1895 she formally renounced all claim to the throne and took the oath of allegiance to the republic. The ex-queen and forty-eight others received conditional pardons on September 7, 1895, and on the following New Year's Day the authorities released the remaining prisoners.

The new government of Hawai‘i negotiated a treaty of annexation with the United States during the next month, just before the close of President Benjamin Harrison's administration, but President Harrison's successor, President Cleveland, withdrew the proposed treaty on 9 March 1893, and then despatched James H. Blount (1837 -1903) of Macon, Georgia, as commissioner paramount, to investigate the situation in the Hawaiian Islands. On receiving Blount's report to the effect that the revolution had utilised the aid of the United States minister and the landing of troops from the Boston, President Cleveland sent Albert Sydney Willis (1843 - 1897) of Kentucky to Honolulu as United States minister with secret instructions. Willis with much difficulty and delay obtained the queen's promise to grant an amnesty, and made a formal demand on the provisional government for her reinstatement on 19 December 1893. On 23 December President Dole sent a reply to Willis, declining to surrender the authority of the provisional government to the deposed queen. The United States Congress declared against any further intervention by adopting on May 31, 1894 the Turpie Resolution.

On the inauguration of President McKinley in March 1897, negotiations with the United States resumed, and on June 16, 1897 Hawai‘i and the United States signed a new treaty of annexation at Washington. As the United States Senate appeared uncertain to ratify the treaty, its supporters took extreme measures: the Senate passed the Newlands joint resolution, by which the cession was "accepted, ratified and confirmed", by a vote of 42 to 21; the House of Representatives accepted it by a vote of 209 to 91, and the president signed on July 7, 1898. The formal transfer of sovereignty took place on August 12, 1898, with the hoisting of the flag of the United States (the same flag hauled down by order of Commissioner Blount) over the Executive Building with impressive ceremonies.

Motivations

The current version seems good on NPOV and fills in some gaps in my knowledge, but I was left a little mystified about motivations - both the publicly announced reasons for actions and historians' current theories as to underlying drivers. For instance, business types usually don't want to run governments, they want other people to do the work and give them a free hand to run the business. Were they afraid of the monarchy's actions, sinfulness, what? A few references would be good too, where does all this material come from? Stan 14:42, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More POV problems?

Does it seem to anyone else that this article has regained some anti-Hawaiian POV over the last few months, especially with the edits from 64.75.x.x? Some of the text about the Blount commission, as well as talk of Cleveland "continuing to interfere in the internal affairs of Hawaii" sounds like it could have been written by Thurston Twigg-Smith, as does this seemingly non-neutral sentence: "President Cleveland ordered a group of investigators friendly to the queen to go to Honolulu to produce a report that would support restoring the queen to power."

I hestitate to make changes myself since I'd most likely swing the article the other way. I think this article needs more rewriting, though. --Salor 13:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Would the sentence be better put, "President Cleveland ordered James Blount to go to Honolulu and produce a report sympathetic to the queen's interests."? I'm not sure if anyone has ever claimed that Blount was neutral, and characterizing his report as having a certain end in mind is fairly accurate.

Insofar as "anti-Hawaiian" POV, I'm not sure if I agree with that characterization...definitely anti-Royalist perhaps, and even anti-Cleveland, but I'm not sure if characterizing it as "anti-Hawaiian" is really fair. I think one of the problems we have here is that there is a sense of racial identity recently with kanaka maoli (native hawaiians) and the overthrow, even though at that moment in history the Kingdom of Hawaii was a multi-racial and multi-cultural one. Anything vaguely critical of the monarchy and the royalists is seen as an attack on the kanaka maoli, when I'm quite sure it isn't intended that way. There is actually quite a bit of pro-royalist stuff around the 1893 revolution that needs to be more NPOV all over wikipedia. Hopefully we can consolidate some of the information and organize it better - I'm noticing that depending on the page, the POV is slanted pro-royalist or pro-overthrow, even though they contain pretty much the same information --JereKrischel 16:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

As regards Blount's investigation, Cleveland certainly claimed that the investigation was supposed to be impartial. From his message to the U.S. Legislature: "I conceived it to be my duty therefore to withdraw the treaty from the Senate for examination, and meanwhile to cause an accurate, full, and impartial investigation to be made of the facts attending the subversion of the constitutional Government of Hawaii and the installment in its place of the provisional government. I selected for the work of investigation the Hon. James H. Blount, of Georgia, whose service of eighteen years as a member of the House of Georgia, and whose experience as chairman of the Committee of Foreign Affairs in that body, and his consequent familiarity with international topics, joined with his high character and honorable reputation, seemed to render him peculiarly fitted for the duties entrusted to him. His report detailing his action under the instructions given to him and the conclusions derived from his investigation accompany this message." Those instructions were secret at the time, but his investigation was not, at least according the Pitzer article I linked in the External Links section.

I still think that the section entitled "Appeal To The United States" can be removed, since it is a rehash of the information in the section immediately following, which is much more NPOV than "Appeal." --Salor 21:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Cleveland wouldn't be the most neutral party involved, having such a close relationship with the queen! I think that the Morgan Report, which was bi-partisan, open and offered the chance at cross-examination thoroughly chastized Blount for being one-sided. I've heard there are actually grant proposals to scan in both the Blount Report and the Morgan Report - I can't wait to be able to actually refer directly to the full text of them. I agree the information was mostly duplicate, but have also worked on some minor wording to show that the request for amnesty was delayed by the queen herself, and that the demand for her restoration happened after the matter had been referred to congress, and that the PG assumed it was a good faith demand but rejected it anyway, implying that the U.S. Government did everything in it's power to reinstate the monarchy, but was rebuffed by revolutionists who had successfully gained and held onto power. --JereKrischel 00:23, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Blount hated Dark Skinned people and wanted them out of USA 2603:800C:2801:54DD:898:ED18:FA9B:8931 (talk) 09:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Morgan Report

Could someone help put a section on the Morgan Report in right after the Blount Investigation? Seems like we're missing a whole chunk of really important history there. I could put something in, but I'd like to work with someone more sympathetic to the pro-royalists so I can manage an NPOV. Please message me if you're interested and have a pro-royalist stance. --JereKrischel 00:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the Blount Report is irrelevant ...The Morgan Report was honest. 2603:800C:2801:54DD:898:ED18:FA9B:8931 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Bias in article

I've marked this article as of being of dubious neutrality, will someone please correct it? The non-neutral points of view are woven throughout the article:

1. Opening paragraph is trying to clean up the Marine Corp's action, and is out of place with the text flow. If such was the behavior of the USMC, then the men were personally at odds with the mission they were carrying out: overthrowing the Hawai'ian monarchy while at the same time showing it the utmost respect.

I agree that the text flow is out of place, but your characterization of their mission is incorrect. They were never ordered to overthrow the monarchy, and remained completely neutral much to the chagrin of the Committee of Safety:

Samuel M. Damon reported the American troops were leaning against a picket fence, their arms stacked, not even at ready. This shook him. “I could not imagine why we were there without being supported by American troops . . . . We were not supported in any way. - Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter?

The allegation that the USMC were part of the overthrow is spin from the royalist position that is difficult to reconcile with the fact that no shots were fired, no aggressive action was taken, and the U.S. troops stood with their backs to their "enemy" at parade rest. Pictures of the US troops on that day show civilians frolicking around them, which makes the royalist case for their complicity in the overthrow fairly weak, although strongly held nonetheless. The assertion from the republic point of view is that the Queen took advantage of the USMC's presence under the direction of her legal counsel Paul Neumann, and tried to surrender to the U.S. instead of the Provisional Government - they were hoping for a repeat of 1843, where the British task force siezed Hawaii, and later through diplomacy had sovereignty returned by the British. This obviously didn't work out the same way because the USMC troops did not sieze the islands and did not participate in the overthrow, and even when Cleveland sent Willis to demand the queen's reinstatement, the Provisional Government refused. Although one could possibly portray the queen in a less cynical light, and assert that she truly believed that the U.S. troops were arrayed against her and the Committee of Safety preyed upon her confusion about their true intentions, the USMC in no way acted contrary to their mission of protecting american interests - and the Morgan Report (the official congressional investigation) thoroughly exonerated the troops from any wrongdoing. --JereKrischel 17:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Lili‘uokalani's Trial: description plays down the queen's imprisonment and is at odds with what is found under Liliuokalani.

Reconciling the articles with pro-royalist and pro-annexationist spin is going to be difficult, to be sure. I think the Liliuokalani is actually less accurate though - to say she was confined to a "small room" versus her "bedroom" makes it sound like she was kept locked in a closet.

Convicted of having knowledge of a royalist plot, Lili`uokalani was fined $5000 and sentenced to five years in prison at hard labor. The sentenced was commuted to imprisonment in an upstairs bedroom of `Iolani Palace.

During her imprisonment, the queen was denied any visitors other than one lady in waiting. She began each day with her daily devotions followed by reading, quilting, crochet-work, or music composition.- http://www.iolanipalace.org/history/queen.html

I think this article had a more neutral depiction of her - to downplay her imprisonment is hard to do, since she had lady in waiting at her beck and call. --JereKrischel 17:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

1. Picture captions sounded too sympathetic with the independent kingdom by repeating facts which can be found under several other articles: the Bayonet Constitution, threats to the Queen, Wilcox's acquittals - neutrality is best served by cutting such comments short and linking to specific articles, rather than "making a point" here; after all, this article is about the Republic of Hawai‘i. I've made the changes to the captions myself.

If you have any questions to pose me, please use my user talk page. Thanks -- Tintazul 13:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't have time to do a comprehensive listing; the article is diffuse with POV, subtly tendentious wording, and a selective presentation of the facts in order to present a overall misleading picture of the historical facts as accepted by most mainstream scholars of the U.S. role in the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii; including an inappropriate valorization of the Morgan Report (i.e. without also mentioning that the role of U.S. agents and government officials in abetting the conspiracy is widely accepted). This should suffice for now in justifying inclusion of the POV tag, although it should be rather obvious anyway. Arjuna 08:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I accept that you believe what you say Arjuna, but can you please provide clearer citations to bolster your points? Perhaps our definition of "mainstream scholars" differs (I would cite Kuykendall, Daws, Andrade, and Kirch...you may include those I would consider revisionist). I think that if we are to simply to insert a POV tag when we believe that the presentation of the facts rubs us the wrong way, we're using the tag inappropriately. Could you please remove the tag until you have more specific citations to bolster your claims? Mahalo! --JereKrischel 04:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK, please see my comments on your talk page. Cheers. Arjuna 09:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, please see the comments at Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian monarchy#POV tag. Although I appreciate your concerns, it is not productive to throw pov tags around without either sufficient or specific cause. Please provide appropriate citations to illustrate your concerns, rather than simply making claims of your own opinion. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 09:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

JK, thanks for your amusing comments. As you are smart enough to know, but failing other ammunition than to request repeated re-interation of facts already expressed and demonstrated, there is already ample sufficient and specific cause, and that the views therein are not simply "my opinion". The POV tags will stay. Aloha, Arjuna 09:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As per your suggestion, I have also asked Viriditas to weigh in. I look forward to more specific citations from you, even if as you claim, they have already been provided - I have looked through your contributions, and have not found any such citations, but you may have a better idea of what edits to look at. Maybe for future work, we can create a page Talk:JereKrischel/Arjuna's citations so we can keep them handy. I assume your intent is not to leave a permanent POV tag here, but to improve the article so that neither you nor I feel it is necessary. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 10:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Aloha, it seems that criticism of the findings of the Morgan Report should be cited - AFAIK, people have criticized Morgan for his racism, but the findings, especially those supported by the notably non-racist Republicans (remember, back in the day, Democrats were the leaders of the KKK), do not seem like they have ever been criticized on the matter of racism.

Although it is true that in more modern times, some activists have tried to ad hominem attack Morgan, and thereby discredit his report, we should cite them specifically, and be very careful about considering them reliable sources. --JereKrischel 20:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, the Turpie Resolution did not demand non-interference simply of the president, or simply for the Provisional Government of Hawaii. As per Osbourne (Annexation Hawaii), the Turpie Resolution demanded - "first, that no attempt should be made to under the Hawaiian Revolution; and second, that no foreign government should be allowed to intervene in the islands." --JereKrischel 20:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed it. Let me know if this does it for you. You can add the quote above too, if you like, I think it's informative. Aloha, --Laualoha 00:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, the "Footholds in the Pacific" doesn't seem like a reliable source at all. It states, "Hawaiians who were loyal to their queen tried to come to her defense and stop the revolution. When they arrived in Honolulu, however, American troops confronted them." This is an outright lie. American troops did not confront *anyone* during their stay, and neither did any group attempt a counter-revolution until 1895. Seems like a meaningless link that should be deleted. --JereKrischel 20:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that part sounds funky. However, I think if we start deleting links just because they contain misleading or incorrect material, honestly, we may not have much left.--Laualoha 06:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess the way I see it, Laualoha, is that it's better to have a critical eye on external links. Can we both agree that the "Footholds in the Pacific" link doesn't add much to the discussion? I'm sure we can find more reliable sources elsewhere. --JereKrischel 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Geez, Jere, feels kinda real nitpicky to me. But if you want to delete that one, go ahead, and I'll get a better one, ok? However, I just looked at the change you made to Twigg-Smith's book link description, and I think that while we're on the subject of fixing incorrect material, this simply cannot be placed here without some kind of a warning as to its extremist nature. Aloha, --Laualoha 22:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jumping back in without knowing exactly what's going on here, but... My sense is that while it is true "people have criticized Morgan for his racism" (and mentioning it is an entirely valid thing to do; it is, to say the least, evidence as to his disposition towards such matters), the main point that I think his critics intend to make is not so much his racism as the fact that he had a pre-determined agenda to exonerate Stevens et al., and that he represented those powerful elements of the American political elite who were orchestrating to make sure that "the fix was in". As for the Footholds book, I don't know that one, and while I agree that that material you quote is BS, since we haven't seen it we can't tell if that is presented in context or not, or if the rest of the book is similarly biased and fallacious. In any case, L's right that one bad bit doesn't necessarily spoil the whole thing but it does suggest that it would be smart to approach the material therein with caution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arjuna808 (talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, good to have you back. I've got no problem citing scholarly works which criticize the Morgan report because of Morgan's racism, but we've got to find the citation, rather than just state the accusation as if it were fact. I've seen criticism of Morgan on the basis of him being an imperialist, and criticism on the basis of him trying to support his president (and thereby exonerating Blount), but I haven't seen any scholarly or reliable source state that every bit of testimony and evidence given during the Morgan hearings were false because Morgan was a racist. Hell, nearly every white man was a racist at that time, and they wouldn't have even tried to hide it - if Morgan wanted to say, "The Queen should not be reinstated because she is a lower life form than the good white upstanding people of Hawaii", he would've flat out said it, and the general American public would've rallied to his words. Certainly Blount believed in the superiority of whites as well, but neither he nor Morgan used that as a reason for their conclusions.

Anyway, bottom line, if we want to cite criticism of Morgan, we need to cite specific criticism linking his racism to his actions or statements on Hawaii - we cannot cite his desire to export blacks overseas, then cite the Morgan report, and make that connection ourselves. That's WP:OR. --JereKrischel 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the exact wording you have a problem with, Jere? Aloha, --Laualoha 22:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I think I got what the issue was (sorry, shoulda just looked at the page again). You know, the Morgan report has received lots of criticism for its own racism, not just that of its author. BTW, I don't think that a statement about a person's background qualifies as an ad hominem if that background shows a clear intent toward certain actions, which are the subject of discussion. Also, the "shipping the Negroes to Hawaii" thing is not just speculation. It is a historically documented fact that he wanted to do this (I ref'd it on the John Tyler Morgan page). I can bring that ref here if you like, but if you do, give me some time, ok? I don't actually think it's needed here, because it has a more direct relationship there than it does here.

Let me know if there are other problems, though, because I want to address them if they are reasonable, and if I can. Aloha,--Laualoha 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

TTS' book is vanity publication

Aside from being non-scholarly, Thurston Twigg-Smith's book "Do the facts matter" is an unacceptable source for Wikipedia. Fortunately someone else has already pointed this out (thus saving me some time), but unfortunately for JK he already has heard this (since I found it archived on his talk page). It's most unfortunate that this has been ignored, and I trust that further attempts to restore said citations will cease. I quote from Captainktainer on 23 July 2006:

...neither of the sources provided are...reliable sources under Wikipedia guidelines. For instance, the "Do the Facts Matter" book (which I assume you were linking to in the first citation) seems to be published by a vanity press, or at best is self-published. There's an additional level of caution that we need to apply to those sources, because each one is clearly pushing a certain POV (in the book's case, one that is out of step from mainstream scholarship, as far as I can tell). I'll add a different notice now that there are a few sources, but as it is the information is still poorly sourced by Wikipedia standards.

and a follow-up that confirms that TTS's book is a vanity publication:

Goodale Publishing is the author's own press, which qualifies as a vanity press [1]. I first saw the accusation in the Amazon reviews and confirmed it with this link. There are a few other books published by Goodale Publishing, but mostly light art books and the like. For that matter, questions have arisen concerning the accuracy of his representation of the historical record; some founded, some not. The first problem is enough to disqualify it as a reliable source; the second shows why Wikipedia tends to disqualify such books.

Pitzer, while not a scholarly source, at least has the virtue of being a "real" publication, and is thus ok to cite. Arjuna 19:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Note also the implication: the fact that there are no (or very few) published sources for the POV that JK represents demonstrates that it is "fringe" by Wikipedia standards. It is likely to be asserted that Kuykendall, Daws, Russ, et al. support it, but I have all those books and they do not say what JK thinks they do. At all. Cheers, Arjuna 05:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh c'mon, TTS cannot be considered "vanity publication" just because he happens to be a REAL publisher who setup a REAL publishing company. "mostly light art books and the like" has nothing to do with whether or not something has been vanity published by a "self-publishing" house, like let's say Conklin's Hawaiian Apartheid. You're totally stretching to try to blacklist TTS.

TTS had Hawaii Matters published by a real publishing house, which publishes real books, and just because he's a real publisher himself does not make his work "vanity". By that argument, any publisher who had their book published by a company they had interest in would be eliminated from consideration. I know you have a real problem with TTS, even though you haven't really read him, but this kind of hypocrisy (trying to include a puff-piece magazine article, but ignoring a well cited and researched book) is just not realistic. --JereKrischel 13:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

JK: DO NOT remove my comments. I will be generous and assume this was an error on your part.

As for the substance, yes of course TTS is a vanity publication. Quod erat demonstrandum. I do appreciate however that this fact is rather unfortunate from your perspective. Arjuna 23:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

E kala mai - I didn't intend to remove any of your comments. Mahalo for your understanding.

As for the substances, TTS's work is demonstrably not a vanity press.

• "Shaping Hawai'i: The Voices of Women," by Joyce Chapman Lebra (Goodale Publishing)
• Potluck: Stories That Taste Like Hawaii (Paperback) (Goodale Publishing)
• The Persis Collection of Contemporary Art, Goodale Publishing
• The Honolulu Symphony: A Century of Music by Dale E. Hall (Goodale Publishing)

Goodale publishing is a real company, which publishes real books, and the fact that Twigg-Smith happens to be, as a professional, a publisher, does not make his real book a vanity press item.

I'd also note he was the publisher of the Honolulu Advertiser for a while - shall we eliminate that source as well as "vanity press" for TTS?

You're on ridiculously thin ground here. You can't find a single example of something objectionable in TTS's book, you've spent the past two weeks trying desperately to blackball him, and "vanity press" is what you've got now? Now look, I respect you and all, but seriously, you're way off base on this. TTS is legit, and you've got to deal. Go ahead and cite Helena G. Allen or some other pro-sovereignty zealot if you want to add cites, but please, back off on the attacking the messenger to try to squash a message you disagree with. It's not cricket. --JereKrischel 06:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is some additional info on the book. A Google Books search on "Hawaiian Sovereignty: Do the Facts Matter" reveals 16 citations in other books including citations in four US Senate Committee Hearing Reports, three Frommer travel guides, and several scholarly books including Kinzer's Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq book. A search of OCLC's Worldcat database reveals that 27 libraries worldwide own this book including the Library of Congress, the University of Hawaii at Hilo and at Manoa, and the National Library of New Zealand. It is rare for a vanity book to get cited widely in credible sources and for libraries to buy it. 141.209.33.145 12:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Further noted, six law reviews cite the book according to Lexis:

• Kratovil Conference Article: how do You Solve a Problem Like in Kelo?, The John Marshall Law Review, 2007

• Seeking Better Balance: A Proposal for Reconsideration of the 2006 ABA Resolution on the Akaka Bill, Hawaii Bar Journal, 2006

• Balancing Authority and Responsibility: The Forbes Cave Collection, NAGPRA, Hawai'I, University of Hawai'i Law Review, 2006

• BEYOND RICE V. CAYETANO: ITS IMPACTS AND PROGENY: "Recognizing" the Fifth Leg: n1 The "Akaka Bill" Proposal to Create a Native Hawaiian Government in the Wake of Rice v. Cayetano, Asian-Pacific Law & Policy Journal, 2002

• Irreconcilable Rights and the Question of Hawaiian Statehood, Georgetown Law Journal, 2001

• EVERY MAN HAS A RIGHT TO DECIDE HIS OWN DESTINY: n1 THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATIVE HAWAIIAN SELF-DETERMINATION COMPARED TO SELF-DETERMINATION OF NATIVE ALASKANS AND THE PEOPLE OF PUERTO RICO, The John Marshall Law Review, 2000

Vanity or not, this book is being taken seriously by legal scholars. 141.209.29.220 17:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Which legal scholars? I guess because I don't know how the book is being cited, I'm not sure that a reference alone constitutes being taken seriously. It certainly works as a representation of the anti-sovereignty point of view, which certainly warrants mention in the picture of what's going on here in Hawai'i, but that doesn't necessarily make it legitimate. Could you be more specific? Aloha,--Laualoha 22:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to whomever looked this up. I find this moderately compelling that TTS' book, while still quite clearly a vanity publication, nonetheless has significance as a source. It probably should be pointed out that it is likely to have been cited in many cases as the apex (or nadir, depending on one's perspective) illustration of a certain minority POV (i.e. it was cited negatively -- certainly this is the case in its use in Kinzer), but still: significant is significant. I recognize the validity of it as a source, but it is no doubt inferior to truly scholarly works. TTS is demonstrably not a work of scholarship, but rather a polemic. Cheers, Arjuna 09:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Previous reply to Captainktainer

Arjuna, you quoted Captainktainer's concerns on the talk page, I thought I'd copy in the replies to his comments that were on his User talk:Captainktainer#Sanford_B._Dole page:

Hi! Thanks for the message! Regarding "Hawaiian Sovereignty:Do The Facts Matter?", it is published by Goodale Publishing, and sold on amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966294513/sr=8-1/qid=1153689952/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-5918650-6101734?ie=UTF8) so I'm pretty sure it isn't a vanity press book.

Regarding the Morgan Report wiki, it is a project which took the Senate Report 227 of the 53rd Congress, second session, dated February 26, 1894. It is linked to by the University of Hawaii at their Annexation Documents site. It includes both the original scanned images from the Morgan Report, as well as transcription, fully searchable. As a primary source, I think it also rates as reliable. --JereKrischel 21:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Although Thurston Twigg-Smith is the owner of publishing interests, I still think it is inaccurate to call his book vanity publishing. An unfounded accusation about bias in an amazon review, or posts on a discussion board hardly disqualifies his book as a reliable source. Since it is available online for free, I encourage you to skim over it yourself, and examine it for yourself - it is well referenced, and based on sources you can validate. IMHO, as a free online downloadable PDF, it is a particularly valuable resource - Kuykendall, Daws and Andrade (which Twigg-Smith heavily relies upon) would be wonderful to cite directly, but I know of no online versions of their books.

That all being said, is there a particular concern you have with the Sanford Dole article? Particular points you'd like to see specific citations for? Points you've seen contradicted elsewhere? If I better understood your concerns, I could direct my citations more efficiently.

Thanks again for your attention to the article! The addition of references will help it out considerably, and any help you can give regarding which points you're most interested in would be valuable. --JereKrischel 23:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

After my comments to him, Captainktainer had no further issues that I am aware of. We could ask him to elaborate his current position now if you think that would help, Arjuna. --JereKrischel 07:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No sir, I'm afraid you have the situation reversed. TTS is vanity publication, QED and thus not a reliable source under Wikipedia guidelines. It's rather laughable to suggest that simply because something is on Amazon that it's not a vanity publication. Conkin is on Amazon and that is literally self-published (some "E-book publishing" or something). TTS bought a publishing company and published his own book since it was presumably deemed unworthy of publication elsewhere. Please pardon my frankness, but it is not a good reflection upon you that you consider TTS "scholarly", and try to deny the credibility of someone such as Noenoe Silva. (Even though I am likely to disagree with her on some issues, I recognize that she has done original and highly relevant research and is by definition a scholar and eminently citable source.) I have no idea what Captaintainer said, nor is it in the least relevant. TTS is inferior as a source, as is Conklin. I realize how unfortunate this is from your perspective, since it leaves you with little else upon which to rely upon. But this is only my opinion for now, and I will ask others to weigh in. Cheers, Arjuna 09:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...to be honest, I have to do a little more research & weigh the whole situation better as to whether the book technically qualifies as vanity press. It certainly has the same overall feel of a VP publication (it's very similar to vanity items like Ken Conklin's "Hawaiian Apartheid"), but whether it can be definitively labeled with that particular tag, I'm not sure. However, I do not think it is a reliable source, and it is certainly not a scholarly work. It exists for the sole purpose of pushing an agenda, and so I think it can be fairly cited in representing the views of the overthrow-was-a-good-thing platform & related views, but certainly should not be used as a historical source of information. I have not yet found the exact usage you were arguing about; I'll have to look at it more to give an opinion on whether it's appropriate or not. Aloha,--Laualoha 17:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Reply by Viriditas

I don't know what the status of this debate is, whether it has been solved or is ongoing, but due to my current wikibreak, I will only comment briefly. Regardless of the sources used, every effort should be made to use inline references. Please stop edit warring over references that aren't being used in the article. It is only when we can see those statements cited in the article that we can make the determination to keep or remove them. When controversial cases arise, please compromise by choosing a more reliable, neutral source. Particular instances can occur where quoting a disputed, but notable source may be necessary, such as in a discussion about a notable author or the author's position. TTS has been discussed in the Hawaii-media, but arguments could be made either way for inclusion or exclusion based on the material that is cited. Our baseline should start with inline citations so we can see exactly what the sources are being used to support or refute in the article, rather than just adding links to the references section. —Viriditas | Talk 09:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Summarise that quote

The quote from Liliʻuokalani is too long and not Wiki. Can someone present the main points and significance in a paragraph or two? Earthlyreason (talk) 06:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality banner

Folks, the neutrality banner seems to have been sitting on this article for a VERY long time. There appears to be no recent discussion nor are any specific sentences in the article currently tagged for their POV.

In the spirit of not leaving banners sitting around Wikipedia for extended periods without discussion I'm removing the banner. If there is still a genuine concern please register on this talk page (i.e. re-register it if it is an old concern that was never corrected).

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Republic isn't syonymous with democracy

I changed the sentence

Although termed a republic, the new state was a single-party oligarchy.

to

The new state was a single-party oligarchy.

It seems to me that the original author assumed that the term 'repubic' was exclusive of the possibility that the state was not a democracy.

Montalban (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

About the source "The Americans"

Actually there are better sources, since because of the textbook adoption system of some U.S. states, high school US history textbooks can not present truth (cf. Language Police), The Americans, a popular high school US history textbook should not be used as a source in most cases. I bet that there are many other sources that are no doubt more reliable.--RekishiEJ (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)