Talk:Liliuokalani

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject Hawaii (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women writers (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Regent vs Regnant[edit]

At the beginning of the article it states that "Liliuokalani...was the last monarch and only queen regent of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi". Following the link indicates that a regent rules in place of the real ruler who for some reason can't rule. The article doesn't indicate that this is the case. Shouldn't it be "only queen regnant" meaning that she ruled in her own right?

Use of Hawaiian Words[edit]

Aloha kākou! One simple request I have is this....If you are going to use Hawaiian words, PLEASE, PLEASE use the correct words. One of the posters below used the words Kanaka Mahole. What he/she meant to use was maoli. Mahole means to bruise, or to skin or to scrape. Mahalo a nui! Dcbnmlt 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The article says "Although she was later to have a hanai daughter, Liliʻuokalani's named successor was her niece Victoria Kaʻiulani (1875–1899), although Kaʻiulani predeceased her." Could someone explain the word "hanai" in the article? I couldn't find it in the dictionary or on wiki. Coemgenus 15:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It makes no sense that the article says "Although she was later to have a hanai daughter, Liliʻuokalani's named successor was her niece Victoria Kaʻiulani (1875–1899), although Kaʻiulani predeceased her." It doesn't mentioned who the hanai daughter is or why it correspond with Kaiulani. Hanai daughter means an adopted daughter or foster daughter. I added in the names of her three noted hanai children. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

moving[edit]

Arrigo please do not remove renaming tags until there has been a solution reached. Also please stop moving articles without waiting for the end of a naming discussion first. You do not have the authority to "deny" or "approve" or even remove renaming tags. Please abide by Wikipedia rules and Wikiquette. if you have something to say, then please give your opinion but do not take unilateral action. GryffindorFlag of Austria (state).svg 14:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

as per Wiki convention for naming of a sovereign monarch Mowens35 22:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Strongly Oppose. There was a discussion long ago over what to title articles about Hawaiian monarchs, and the consensus was to title them simply with their reigning titles, as these are the titles that people best know the monarch by. It was also decided that including the title of "Queen" in the article was not necessary. Even articles about European royalty doesn't include the title of "Queen" or "King" in the names; using such titles implies that Lili‘uokalani was a consort rather than a reigning Queen. For example, we have Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, not Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, as the latter would suggest that the Queen is a consort. Likewise, it is Queen Sofia of Spain rather than Sofia of Spain, as the latter suggests that Sofia is a queen regnant. Lastly, the "of Hawaii" part is unnecessary and redundant. Please do not rename any articles on Hawaiian royalty as there is a set, agreed-upon format on how they should be named. Titling the article, "Lili‘uokalani" is NOT disrespectful. It is under that single name that everyone in Hawaii, and indeed, around the world, knows the Queen. 青い(Aoi) 10:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I assume the original author meant for the article renaming template to read "Lili'uokalani" rather than "Lili'oukalani," so I changed the templates.

It was requested that Liliuokalani be moved to either Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i, Lili'uokalani, Queen of Hawai'i, or Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i. I among others oppose such moves. As can be read above, the requests received opposition and the poll went stale. Requests denied. Arrigo 12:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Readers may be interested in to know that User:Antares911 above is the former username of User:Gryffindor (also above). 217.140.193.123 20:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Oppose. There already has been a consensus that Hawaiian monarchs will be under simple and short headings such as Liliuokalani, Lunalilo and Kamehameha I. See further Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style. I find the above request for move an improper one, as "of Hawaii" is unnecessary clutter and is not needed to anything, least of all to any useful disambiguation. Arrigo 09:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Instead of having to place opinions on multiple pages, we should follow the example of the users over at the Japan manual of style pages and move all related discussions to one place. Thus, I'm requesting that we move all discussions about the naming conventions of Hawaiian monarchs to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style. 青い(Aoi) 06:27, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 02:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

restoration[edit]


  • I am a caucasian American who has the deepest respect and admiration for Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i. I believe that the independence of the Kingdom of Hawai'i was boldly stolen by the United States of America on 17 January 1893. It is my opinion that Hawai'i should still be an independent and sovereign nation. Yet because of monetary considerations, that will never come to pass. I have heard some talk of allowing Hawai'i to become a kingdom once again, while remaining within the union of the United States of America. There are some U.S. states which are not "states" at all! For example, Pennsylvania and Kentucky are each deemed to be a "commonwealth". So there is no reason why one our states cannot become a kingdom, while remaining in the union.
    • That would take a constitutional amendment. The US Contitution requires each state to have a republican form of government. Alphaboi867 20:06, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I am in favour of such a move, which would continue to protect the security of our country, while respecting the wishes and aspirations of the Kanaka Mahole, the native Polynesian people of Hawai'i. For too long, they were discouraged from speaking their language or celebrating their culture. At the very least, I believe that the United States Postal Service should issue a postage stamp in honour of Her Majesty Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i. She was a remarkable lady, who championed the cause of her native Polynesian people. Many people are not aware that Her Majesty favoured the rights of women, in an era when such an idea was unheard of. She was elegant, cultured, and extremely well educated. One needs only to read her autobiography [ "Hawaii's Story, By Hawaii's Queen" ] in order to appreciate this facinating lady.
    • Disagree. Favoring women's rights was not unheard of during the life of Queen Liliu'okalani. In 1869, Wyoming granted suffrage rights to women, some 50 years before the nation would do the same. 69.29.71.59 (talk) 12:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The American Nation has trampled upon the rights of her native peoples for centuries. We have [in some small ways] tried to make amends to some of the Native American Indian Tribes. Yet we have done nothing to make such amends to the native people of Hawai'i. The entire history of the United States has been aimed toward pursuing a higher and loftier goal. It is time that we applied that pursuit to the better treatment to the indigenous people of our "Fiftieth State". We could begin by honouring Her Majesty Lili'uokalani Kamaka'eha, The last Queen of Hawai'i.
  • You might want to check out the article on the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I'd like to hear more about the specific objections people have to Hawaiian sovereignty — I'm not very familiar with the objections — so the article can be molded into something more balanced. --Farinas 15:31, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
    • I'd like to point out to the "constitutional amendment" that there has been no restriction of a commonwealth to a republican form of government; I'm not sure of the technical wording or classification of "state". Also, that there is obviously going to be some uncertainty as to what form of government any new kingdom of Hawai'i would take. A monarchy would be problematic, as the line has for all intents died out. Personally, I am Canadian with Hawai'ian heritage, and feel that Hawai'ian sovereignty needs to be at the least recognised if it is perhaps a little too late to reinstate. Hawai'ian monarchy practically curled up and died when Queen Lili'uokalani had a gun pointed at her head. - anonymous =)
    • Agree I strongly agree. At least we can restore the monarchy, but treat them sort of "governors" of the state "kingdom" of Hawaii. It would still go with the Constitution, and it makes sense. Petition, anybody?--Listen to your Princess, dear Wikipedians. (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Royal consorts and monarchs[edit]

hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [1] cheers Antares911 23:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actual Name[edit]

Her middle name was Kamaka'eha, but I am unsure where the glottal stops go. Chris 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • the single 'okina is in the right place, at least according to Kamehameha Schools (NB: 'okina = Hawai'ian glottal stop)
Added middle name info with glottal stop as demonstrated on http://www.rulers.org/indexl3.html. --JereKrischel 06:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

In reference to the title of the article and the use of the Queen's name alone we should at least include the 'okina in her name Lili'uokalani since it is a consonant and belongs there.Altringali 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC) --- Hello, I'm doing a research paper on her. Her name was originally Liliu Loloku Walania Wewehi Kamaka'eha. Lydia was her christian name, given by the missionaries. Paki was the name she took from her hanai parents. (kind of like adoption) She was at one time referred to as Liliulani in a song, giving her a royal suffix (lani). She was generally referred to while growing up as Liliu by the Hawai'ians, somewhere else on this page someone was complaining that the person who was reverting blahblahblah. Well, they are correct, but I actually have the documentation :)

Liliu'okalani was given to her by her brother David Kalakaua when he named her as heir to the throne, and has in itself significance of being a ruler by standards of the Hawai'ian language. (Which, there is a debate about that on here too)

My research paper is for school, and my teacher has a special documentation format, so I'm not sure of the format used here, but it's: Book: Helena G. Allen, The Betrayal of Liliuokalani, Last Queen of Hawaii, 36-40.

-Afisamule'al 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Article dispute[edit]

There's been a minor revert war on this article between myself, JereKrischel, and annonymous user 12.44.115.43. Revert wars are very unproductive and it would be in the best interests of this article to resolve this dispute keep the article stable.

First off, to the annonymous user: the main reason why I'm reverting your changes is because your edits aren't wikified, POV, and lack citations. Looking over your edits to the article, some of your proposed additions are very good and I would like to see many of your revisions merged into the article (for example, the information about the Liliuokalani Trust).

There are some things, however, that I don't believe are encyclopedic and don't belong in this article. For example, take this line: "She was later called Lydia K. Dominis by the American annexationists but never by the native people of Hawai'i." While the first part of this statement is technically true, the second part of the statement ("never by the native people of Hawai'i") sounds POV and by itself doesn't seem verifiable. Additionally, it is presented in a way that to me seems almost bitter towards the annexationists, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

I understand you have very strong issues with the neutrality of this article, and I share in your frustrations so this is why we need to work out this dispute. Simply engaging in a revert war will not help the quality of this article in any way.

(On a different note, I would like offer a friendly reminder to the annonymous user about the the three revert rule, which (s)he is on the verge of breaking.) 青い(Aoi) 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding her name, "Dominis" was the name she took when she married her husband, and she used it herself both in her 1910 lawsuit, as well as in her 1895 abdication document. in reference to the name Dominis in her abdication document in the book 'Hawai'i's Story by Hawai'i's Queen' she stated that the name Dominis was not her right name and it was inserted by the provisional government. Because of this she questioned the validity of the document of abdication.
On the other points (the positioning of the U.S. peacekeepers from the Boston, etc), I think it can be cited to her book ("Liliuokalani claimed..."), but it should also be noted that she was contradicted by the historical record ("In the Morgan Investigation, over twenty people, including neutral bystanders to the Hawaiian Revolution, testified...").
I'm sure together we can all work out a decent NPOV article, but we can't start off from the position that anything written by the ex-Queen is the incontrovertible truth. --JereKrischel 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Systematic bias[edit]

Contributors, please watch this page in light of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. To attempt to validate the actions of Dole and other wealthy white men, as well as the pro-annexation forces behind Morgan report, only perpetuates the historical bias that Congress recently abrogated in 1993.

On a more diplomatic note, if we accept that there are different points of view then we can't say one account was "contradicted" by another account. There is nothing that recommends privileging one first-person, 19th century testimony over the other except for one's own politics. Huangdi 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

A couple of notes on your recent changes:
Cleveland was not a lame-duck president - presidential term limits were not enacted until 1951.
Nothing was "covert" about anti-annexation and pro-monarchy support after 1900 - the kanaka maoli organizations Hui Kalai'aina and Aloha Aina both had disbanded and dedicated themselves to the Hawaii Independent Party, and worked vigorously towards statehood.
Other POV pushing edits have also been removed. Insofar as contradiction, it can be made clear that accounts differ - whether or not one is "true" or not is up to interpretation, of course, but in the case of Blount and Morgan, it certainly an important part of history to note that the follow up investigation of Morgan contradicted the original investigation of Blount.
I'm sorry you see the historical record as being "abrogated" by PL103-150 - it was clearly a work of partisan politics, with none of the due diligence of either the Morgan report or the Native Hawaiians Study Comission report. To consider PL103-150 as anything but a symbolic resolution, with whereas clauses that are clearly untrue, is quite a POV push in itself.
That all being said, I'm more than happy to see improvements made to the article, with appropriate citations and balance being presented. Aloha! --JereKrischel 02:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The 1993 Act of Congress is part of the historical record. Anything that involves your own investigations into the merits of Blount and Morgan reports, or Public Law 103-159, must be considered original research and we should not accept into
I have read a bit of your extra-wikipedia work that you have done, and acknowledge you have invested time and effort into making the broader public in Hawai'i and the US aware of your perspective on Hawai'i's history. But it seems premature and almost a blatant end-run around the norms of scholarship for Jere Krischel to insert one's own original research and personal views into an encyclopedia.
The description 'covert' and that whole paragraph was authored originally by someone else, which I will edit accordingly but that does not justify eliminating the whole passage. I will not edit it if you are simply going to obliterate the whole passage.
A lame-duck president is someone at the end of their term, usually the last year. A president who has not run for re-election, or has failed in that attempt, is a lame duck. Therefore, lame-duck status existed before the two-term limit.
Per my comments above, we cannot privilege Morgan over Blount - or vice versa, for that matter. We can note that Congress did just that, rightly or wrongly. Anything else is likely original research. Huangdi 02:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
PL103-150 may be part of the "historical record", but it is not, nor has it ever been reasonably claimed to be considered an accurate, unbiased view of history. See Hawaii Divided cannot stand.
I'm not doing any original research at all - I simply scanned and digitized the Morgan Report. Referencing it is a legitimate citation, and has nothing at all to do with me. It just so happens that now we can reference it directly instead of referencing it by page number and requiring someone to look it up in a reference library.
Cleveland was not a lame duck in 1894 - the election of 1896 hadn't happened yet. He referred the Hawaii matter to Congress on December 18,1893, and after the Morgan Report of February 26, 1894, he stopped all support of the Queen, and further recognized the Republic of Hawaii on July 4, 1894.
Whether or not you "privilege" Morgan over Blount, it is a simple NPOV fact that Blount was first, and Morgan was second, and that Morgan included both direct testimony from Blount, as well as his entire report. You may argue whether or not it came to the proper conclusion, but to assert anything but the fact that Morgan was a later investigation that included the information Blount provided is POV pushing, don't you agree? --JereKrischel 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Passage in question[edit]

The charge by Native Hawaiians that the overthrow was illegal persisted, covertly at first for years, but then openly during the so-called "Hawaiian Renaissance" in the late 1960s and into the 1970s, as advocates, backed by the historical record, lobbied politicians for a declaration of Hawaiian rights and reparations for property lost because of the overthrow. During the 1980s, the public outcries moved political wheels, particularly with U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, himself of native Hawaiian descent. Congress finally agreed. On Nov. 23, 1993 in the Oval Office of the White House on the centennial observation of the overthrow of the Queen, President Bill Clinton signed U.S. Public Law 103-150 before the Hawaii congressional delegation, U.S. Sen. Akaka, U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, and U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, officially apologizing for the illegal overthrow and pledging to begin working out arrangements for some form of native rights for Hawai'i.'

  • Need a reference to any covert assertions that the "overthrow was illegal" - all overthrows are "illegal" according to the overthrown, but I think what we're really looking for is a citation that states, "the overthrow was an illegal intervention by the U.S. as a matter of international law". AFAIK, there is no such reference, or even the possibility of one given the complete lack of international courts or codified laws in 1893 - the League of Nations and United Nations were later inventions.
  • "backed by the historical record" is clearly POV pushing. The historical record they were "backed by" was only due to the intentional ignorance of the Morgan Report and the support of the native Hawaiians for statehood both through Robert Wilcox, Prince Kuhio, and numerous others from 1900 on.
  • PL103-150 was hardly something due to a public outcry - it was in fact stealth legislation, with less than an hour of debate in the Senate, and no debate at all in the House. A more accurate statement would be that politicians, pandering to what they saw as a swing vote, began to step into line with a vocal ethnic nationalist minority.
  • No property was lost because of the overthrow - no titles changed hands due to the Provisional Government at all.

Just to start off with some direct criticisms of the paragraph. It doesn't seem to fit in this article at all, frankly. --JereKrischel 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


RE: reference that it was illegal: Cleveland stated so in his speech

The provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States... by an act of war, commited with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown.

page 134, aloha betrayed, Noenoe K. Silva.

-Afisamule'al 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is the word 'illegal' in that phrase? And since when does the President of the United States determine what is legal and what isn't? --JereKrischel 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
1+1=2. Simple logic. The President is the only person empowered to declare war on behalf of the United States. And since he referred to the militants as acting without authrority of Congress... and certainly not acting under command by the President... it is clearly an illegal act. Furthermore, the U.S. had treaties with the Kingdom of Hawaii. The SCOTUS has ruled that treaties, so enacted, are considered U.S. law. Therefore, since the Act of War by military leaders -- without the explicit approval of the Executive branch nor the explicit approval of the legislative branch -- identifies it as illegal. Simple deduction, Watson! 69.29.71.59 (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare war. The War Powers Resolution in 1973 essentially ceeded decision-making authority to the President (an act that many still consider either illegal, ill-advised, or both) to carry out essential military actions, but he still has to report back and get Congressional approval within 60 days. So JK is correct on this point, that the President doesn't determine legality in regards to war (editorial comment: thank God). Arjuna (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Of course, it is Congress who has the exclusive and sole power to declare war. The point that I had sought to make was that the rogue group of the U.S. Marines acted without orders from President Cleveland -- who was Commander-in-Chief at the time. This action, therefore, made it illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.71.59 (talk) 09:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

→Actually they were not a bunch of rogue Marines. They had received orders from their commander who received a request from the US Minister (Ambassador) to Hawai'i. If they did not comply with the request of the American diplomatic agent, they could have been reprimanded--though several senior officers knew what was really going on. The fault more so lies not with the marines but with the American Minister to Hawai'i--the representative of the United States president--who had conspired with a minority within Hawai'i to topple the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Islands. Also note how the other nations recognized the Provisional Government and the dates. They did not recognize the Provisional Government as being de jure. For example: “In response I have the honor to say that I comply with the above request and recognize the said Provisional Government as the de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands, so far as my authority as consul for Chile may permit me to act for and on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Chile in the premises. I have the honor to be, gentlemen, Your very obedient servant, F. A. Schaefer, Consul for Chile. ”

Later on in 1894, the consuls congratulate the Republic of Hawai'i but again they declare "same recognization" or "same status as the previous government". Some here argue that wording of diplomatic letters gives the impression that the Republic of Hawai'i was treated as de jure government, but it should be pointed out that: 1. that was the courtesy and peculiar diplomatic etiquette at the time (well some countries still use that format); 2. the United States and other countries wrote the same way to Latin American dictators that it did not accord as de jure but was in power of the police and military force ( read: de facto). Key example is the way America dealt with Mexico. Lincoln did not recognize Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico but when you read the correspondences, you wouldn't have noticed that Lincoln was helping Juarez regain Mexico City. I think that this article needs to be moderated more thoroughly. I have noticed that several historical terms are incorrect and in many cases non-existent (such as the Committee of Danger, Hawai'i Independent Party) and nicknames are used rather than formal names (i.e. Bobby Wilcox). In addition, I understand that some feel that the Morgan Report should be given some wieght as a reference--which personally is more like a gossip column than a government finding, however, the Blount report contradicts everything that Morgan later said. Therefore, it seems fair to me that if someone will cite the Morgan Report, a citation or a rebuttal from the Blount Report should be allowed in the interests of neutrality and they both were accept into the Congressional Record. In addition, since Public LAw 103-150 was passed by both Houses of Congress and is therefore a historical and legal resolution, it should be included but as a footnote and external link because it directly deals with the Queen. Certain people here are claiming that its partisan, but by excluding that resolution among other view points, that is also an act of partisanship. Also I do not see why Hawai'i's Story by Hawai'i's Queen is even debated. It is a historical document by a historical personage from a historical perspective. It does have its biases--as everyone does--but it was actually written by the subject of this article. To not to include Hawai'i's Story would be like to exclude Robert Louis Stevenson's personal letters as a reference. Also why not also use newspapers accounts as well? Especially from say the San Francisco Call and Hawaiian language papers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokulani78 (talkcontribs) 17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

"Intent of Death punishment"[edit]

She initially refused, and it was reported that she said she would have them beheaded - she denied that specific accusation, but admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death.

Your documentation for this is the Queen's own book, however, in the book, it does not say that, it says:

I told him that, as to granting amnesty, it was beyond my powers as a constitutional sovereign. That it was a matter for the privy council and for the cabinet. That our laws read that those who are guilty of treason should suffer the penalty of death.

He then wished to know if I would carry out that law. I said that I would be more inclined personally to punish them by banishment, and confiscation of their property to the government. He inquired again if such was my decision. I regarded the interview as an informal conversation between two persons as to the best thing for the future of my country, but I repeated to him my wish to consult my ministers before deciding on any definite action. This terminated the consultation, excepting that Mr. Willis specially requested me not to mention anything concerning the matter to any person whomsoever, and assured me he would write home to the government he represented.

It clearly says in this passage, in your own documentation, that she did not have the desire to punish them by death, and that she did not have the power to do anything, either way.

http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii-5.html#XL


-Afisamule'al 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

She clearly says that "those who are guilty of treason should suffer the penalty of death", and excuses it by claiming, falsely, that it was beyond her powers. Article 27 of the 1887 Constitution reads, "The King, by and with the advice of his Privy Council, and with the consent of the Cabinet, has the power to grant reprieves and pardons, after conviction, for all offenses, except in case of impeachment". Although the privy council is mentioned as advisory, and the cabinet would have to consent, reprieves and pardons are clearly within her power.
So from her own words, although she was "more inclined" towards banishment and confiscation of their property, she insisted that it was "beyond [her] powers", and that they should suffer the penalty of death. --JereKrischel 05:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
She states first that it is beyond her power to affect the decision without her cabinet's consent. She didn't not insist that they should be executed, and states she would grant them amnesty. She asked Mr. Willis to consult with her cabinet before making any further decisions or agreements. A second meeting occured with Mr. Willis, in which she had consulted her cabinet. She and her cabinet and agreed to grant the officials amnesty.
She did not intend for them anything, if anything she intended to consult with her cabinet; as you said, the Bayonet Constitution provides the King the ability to grant amnesty only with the consent of the cabinet.
You just stated "...and excuses it by claiming, falsely, that it was beyond her powers." However, I am going to point out right away that the word "falsely" causes your entire sentence to be false. It was beyond her Constitutional powers as Sovereign to grant amnesty without the consent of the cabinet
The Documentation is all the same stuff:
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii-5.html#XL
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1887_Constitution_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii#ARTICLE_27.
-Afisamule'al 02:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you've used too many double and triple negatives for me to keep up with. Not to mention, at the time of Willis' offer, she didn't have a cabinet - the last cabinet was Colburn, Peterson, Parker, and Cornwall. In her own words, the only person she consulted with was J.O. Carter:

At the interview held Saturday, Dec. 16, I did decline to promise executive clemency, and gave as my reason that, this being the second offence of these individuals, they were regarded as dangerous to the community. That their very residence would be a constant menace; that there never would be peace in my country, or harmony amongst the people of different nations residing with us, as long as such a disturbing element remained, especially after they had once been successful in seizing the reins of government. But on Monday, Dec. 18, Mr. Willis came to Washington Place; and again acting under the advice of Hon. J. O. Carter, I gave to him a document recognizing the high sense of justice which had prompted the action of Mr. Cleveland, and agreeing that, in view of his wishes, the individuals setting up or supporting the Provisional Government should have full amnesty in their persons and their property, if they would work together with me in trying to restore peace and prosperity to our beautiful and once happy islands.[2]

Also, if as you state, it was beyond her powers to grant amnesty, how is it that on December 18th, she changed her mind? --JereKrischel 04:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the given source (Liliuokalani's autobiography) that states in any clear way that she "admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death". I'm not sure I completely follow JereKrischel's argument, but it sounds like the kind of synthesis from a published source that is not allowed under WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." I think we should remove the claim that she admitted she wanted them killed, or cite a reliable source making that claim. --Allen (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the matter of executing those missionaries. They committed treason and in the Penal Code of the Hawaiiian Islands - CHAPTER VI it states Whoever shall commit the crime of treason, shall suffer the punishment of death; and all his property shall be confiscated to the government. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

She initially refused, and it was reported that she said she would have them beheaded - she denied that specific accusation, but admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

She would never introduce the practice of beheading into Hawaii and I don't think it was ever practice in the history of the Kingdom. Hawaii never practiced beheading except in ancient times, notable prove is an ancient execution stone on the grounds of the Hulihee Palace. Hanging was more preferred for example in the case of Kamanawa Opio II who was hanged for adultery and murder. Execution by hanging was still practiced in the late 19th century, even in the United States and Europe. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Dispute[edit]

POV tag[edit]

Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. As for the justification for the POV tag, I noticed post facto that Kanaka maoli i puuwai added a note on your talk page about this article, but the tag also refers to the controversy over the article's continuing reliance on the Blount Report as the definitive source of historical facts on the subject of the overthrow. In addition, the mention of bombs being found at her home is potentially misleading. Daws says, "The grounds of her home...were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- a regular ammunition dump...", Daws, p. 282-3) can quite easily be read (as perhaps the author intended?) to suggest that the material was planted there and so the searchers therefore knew exactly where to look. At the very least, the evidence is ambiguous and will probably always remain so. Cheers, Arjuna 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean the Morgan Report? I believe the article mentions both Blount and Morgan, which seems fair and neutral. The article says nothing about bombs (although we could cite Daws), but instead says "Liliʻuokalani was arrested on January 16, 1895 (several days after a failed rebellion by Robert Wilcox) when firearms were found in the gardens of her home, of which she denied any knowledge." How is this POV? Could you explain?
If you could be more specific about what sentence you find as POV pushing, and why, we can address this more specifically. As it stands, from where I sit, it looks like a fairly even handed and neutral presentation. YMMV. --JereKrischel 08:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: weapons. I mentioned this above in response to you first posing it on my talk page. As for whether or not it's a "stretch" to suggest this is a possible interpretation of Daw's meaning: Hmmm. I wonder why he would feel it necessary to add "found what they were looking for" unless he was suggesting an inkling of something. I know you know what literary irony is. As I said, it's suggestive and ambiguous but definitely not a stretch. Your answer that "To suggest that her staff were somehow in conspiracy with the Provisional Government is a real stretch" is a red herring; as though that were the only other possibility. Anyway, there's not anything more to say about this topic, since I'm not saying this interpretation is true, only that Daws was clearly suggesting its possibility. As I said previously, this is one of many events about which the truth is probably forever lost to time. As for whether it's POV, I'm agreeing with others who also feel it is not. The POV is pervasive in the use of connotative language and the selective presentation of facts. Arjuna 10:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I included the entire quote on your page from Daws, but it was quite clear they were hoping to implicate her. They immediately suspected she was involved, and found the proof they were looking for. To intimate that Daws somehow meant that they planted the weapons to frame her ignores both her own words on the matter, as well as the historical record. We could email Daws and ask him, though, I believe he's still alive.
Nonetheless, we should stick to plain interpretations of Daws, rather than seeking veiled implications - Daws would certainly not have felt compelled to hide any suspicions of Republic of Hawaii involvement in framing the queen. Had the historical evidence for that existed, I'm sure he would have presented it.
Now, regarding the facts of Liliuokalani's trial, conviction, and imprisonment, it hardly seems possible to give an accurate presentation without making a note of what led to her trial (the weapons cache, and her documents planning a new cabinet and government post-rebellion). Do you think it is possible to have an NPOV description of that without mentioning that weapons were found on the grounds of her home? Should we not even bother to mention that there was a rebellion at all, and just mention her imprisonment? I'm afraid I must insist that the reason (whether fabricated or not) of her trial and conviction is crucial to the context, and cannot simply be expunged. If you can find citations that state that their evidence was fabricated, I'm more than happy to see that included, but I don't think there has been any suggestion except by the most fringe groups that this is true. --JereKrischel 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hearsay?[edit]

My understanding is that the report of Willis to Cleveland was from a man supportive of the Queen's restoration, and can hardly be called an attempt to discredit her. Is there evidence that his direct report of that is somehow heresay, when he was in the conversation? Is there evidence that it was meant to discredit her, when he supported her aims? --JereKrischel 05:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Aloha Arjuna, please respond on the talk page if you're going to do a revert - your edit summary hardly explains your rationale. Again, the information about the queen is well reported by Willis himself, and can be found in Russ, The Hawaiian Revolution, p258. --JereKrischel 01:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It says nothing about "beheadings", though now does it? Furthermore, as far as I know, lots of sovereign states -- especially then -- allow a death penalty for treason and conspiracy to overthrow a government. Oh, sorry, I forgot -- you haven't yet accepted the fact that the Committee of Safety actually overthrew the monarchy, but rather effected a mere "change in leadership". And btw, it's "hearsay", not your misspelling. Arjuna 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the spelling correction, it is much appreciated! Willis himself used the phrase "behead" - "In his November 16 dispatch to Gresham, Willis claimed that Lili‘uokalani replied that the traitors, according to law, should be beheaded (S. Rept. 2088)" You can look at the Blount report, p1242, "She hesitated a moment and then slowly and calmly answered: "There are certain laws of my Government by which I shall abide. My decision would be, as the law directs, that such persons should be beheaded and their property confiscated to the Government." I then said, repeating very distinctly her words, "It is your feeling that these people should be beheaded and their property confiscated? She replied, "It is."
I'll change the reference directly to the Blount Report p1242, with the appropriate quote, if you'd like. --JereKrischel 21:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo, fixes coming[edit]

Mahalo to everyone who has edited recently to improve this article, and has brought to light the work that still needs doing. I want to help, but I'm having a hard time keeping track of who edited what and so I think an advisory role is out for me. So just to let you guys know I'm gonna just start from the top & do some general "finish carpentry" without looking at who contributed. If I mess up anybody's edits I'm sorry; I don't want to undo anyone's hard work, but I really think it's best that I don't even look at who edited what at this point, in order to get a more cohesive flow going. I'm not a trivia-meister by nature, so I'm just gonna stick to the basics. If anyone has a problem with this approach, please let me know as soon as you can. Aloha, --Laualoha 01:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't go there with the reverts[edit]

I really want hand-editing to be the standard. If anyone reverts me I will do the same. Aloha, --Laualoha 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha, give me a call, let's work on this one together - particularly when you say, "it has been noted", you need to cite who made that note. E kala mai for the revert - it's either that or throwing dubious tags everywhere. Mahalo. --JereKrischel 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

JK, you recently reverted a consensus edit with the tag "remove POV category - Liliuokalani not a political prisoner or victim as per Mandela". Instead of simply removing that political prisoner category, which might have been seen as fair enough, you reverted wholesale back to a version you know to be unsupported by the consensus, as well as extremely POV. Please explain to me why this should not be considered vandalism. Arjuna 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1) "limitation of their power" is a POV watering down of "elimination of their suffrage"
2) "perceived loss of suffrage" is POV, and inaccurate - the existing drafts of her proposed constitution she asserted were accurate did not simply "perceive" a loss of suffrage, they actually enacted it;
3) the "welcome side effect" of sugar bounties is properly stated in that context - as per weigle, it was not a sugar planter's revolution;
4) "in full view of the public and the Marines" is POV, and entirely unnecessary - of course the revolution was public, everyone knew about it;
5) "it has been noted" uncited;
6) "but large portions" uncited.
If you could please address those issues, it would be appreciated. Apologies for not being clearer about my concerns earlier with my edit, I had thought I had already enumerated these. --JereKrischel 13:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge the validity of some of these objections, and have re-added or made edits accordingly. The main objection "we" had is that you seemed to be using these relatively minor issues to attempt to justify a revert that included larger amounts of POV material. c/m/t Arjuna 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Abdication[edit]

Did she actually Abdicate? Coojah 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

She did sign an abdication presented to her by the ROH, but per the 1887 (Bayonet) Constitution, the last sentence of Article 44 states - No act of the King shall have any effect unless it be countersigned by a member of the Cabinet, who by that signature makes himself responsible. So in this case, it would be the Queen. It was never signed by her cabinet, especially since they set up the "Provisional Government" and then began calling themselves "The Republic of Hawaii". So where were her cabinet members to sign it? Therefore, that abdication is void. I mentioned the Bayonet Constitution since that is what they believed to be the valid constitution and initially charged her because she didn't uphold the Bayonet Constitution after taking the oath that she would. But then we have the issue of that constitution begin invalid anyway, which is another issue. Mamoahina (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

picture[edit]

It may just be my pickiness, but the image of Liliuokalani is not a very good resolution for the size it is blown up to. If we could get an image with a higher resolution, I think that would be ideal (especially for the main picture of the queen on this page). -Kanogul (talk) 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Could anyone find a better picture of Liliuokalani? I mean come on, she is ugly in this one and she looks kind of like an ape. No offense to her majesty but I have seen better picture of her like this one or this one. 63.3.21.2 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The greatest picture of Liliuokalani is probably this one. I believe it was taken when she was made Crown Princess.

Tags[edit]

I'm working on removing the copyediting tag. I would appreciate help with the neutrality problem. Viriditas (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Chieftess? Chiefess?[edit]

This article says "chieftess". Keohokālole says "chiefess". Which is correct? --jpgordon::==( o ) 00:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Its Chiefess that was the term used by all 19th century historians. I think the chieftess might came from priestess. It just Chief + ess, a woman chief. The proper term is High Chiefess which is a translation of the Hawaiian term for the nobility and royalty, Ali'i. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Crown Princess[edit]

references 2 and 3 are from a child's book Sharon , Linnea (1999) Princess Ka'Iulani: Hope of a Nation, Heart of a People Eerdmans Young Readers and make some strong claims. The whole following section of rather purple prose should probably be deleted unless someone comes up with a better citation. To start with, cite Victoria's journal. Also cite Hawaii's value to Britain during Victoria's reign. this should be quite easy.

" Britain had long been a valued ally of Hawaiʻi, and it was thought proper that Queen Kapiʻolani, along with Crown Princess Liliʻuokalani and her husband John Owen Dominis, attended the festivities celebrating Queen Victoria's fifty years on the throne.[2] It seemed to be a great success, with the Hawaiian royals accepted as equals of the reigning family of the civilized world. This was especially important because Kamehameha IV had met with much prejudice in America just after the Civil War because of his dark skin color. All of Liliʻuokalani's reports of the Jubilee were glowing as were the newspaper accounts of the honors bestowed upon the Hawaiians. Never had so many ruling monarchs and heads of government gathered in one place as descended upon London in 1887. However, Queen Victoria's journals, which were made public decades later, add a sobering footnote. She reported that both the King of the Belgians and the King of Saxony refused to accompany Princess Liliuokalani to the Jubilee Supper because she was "colored". This created a behind-the-scenes furor until Queen Victoria herself commanded her son Albert to accompany the Hawaiian princess.[3]" Hate to be anonymous, I don't have my nom de plume to hand as I do this sort of thing infrequently but I hope someone will tidy this up. Many thank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.17.92 (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Religion[edit]

Her attendance in the celebration had helped Buddhism and Shintoism gain acceptance into Hawaiʻi's society and prevented the possible banning of those two religions by the Territorial government. unreferenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.159.253 (talk) 05:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Funeral[edit]

How many people came to attend her funeral? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

improving[edit]

I wish there is someone who is really interested in Queen Liliuokalani and who like to improve this article furhter maybe even making it a feature article on Wikipedia. There is not of expanding need to be done about her early life, her marriage and other details about her life. Also her reign and what she did in her two years in power should be noted.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Name[edit]

I changed Kaolupoloni K. Dominis to Lydia K. Dominis. There is no source that says Kaolupoloni was her name.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I also removed the assertion that her birth name was Lydia Kamakaʻeha Kaola Maliʻi Liliʻuokalani when in actuality it was Lydia Liliʻu Loloku Walania Wewehi Kamakaʻeha. She wasn't born Liliuokalani but Liliu with no kalani at the end; her brother later made her add the kalani when she became Crown Princess. There is only a few sources of Liliuokalani being call Kaola Maliʻi (actually it's Kaolamaliʻi) but not as her birth name. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous assertion[edit]

"Liliʻuokalani (pictured) was proclaimed the last monarch and only queen regnant of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi."

Oh really ? So the grand vizier/court chamberlain (whatever) steps up to the podium and states "Oye Oye I hereby proclaim Lili'uokalani to be the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii"  ?

I am 100% certain that she was not "proclaimed" as the last monarch at the commencement of her reign.Eregli bob (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is that? You should change that to "would be".--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is on the Main Page under On this day... It is indeed very misleading. We should also not predict the future and say there will never be another, no matter how certain we are, given the various nationalism movements. W Nowicki (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of predicting the future NOW. It is a question of predicting the future when she was "proclaimed" to be Queen. Even if many may have thought at the time that the demise of Hawaiian independence was imminent, they would not have mentioned it in the proclamation of the new ruler.Eregli bob (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It's also misleading in that, before English came to the Islands, there was already a Kingdom of Hawaii (and in two senses; the main sense being the Kingdom of the Island of Hawaii). It had many Queens. I find the opening very odd, it panders to people who think that monarchies can only be established with modern Western governmental models in mind.LeValley 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

'Several things named in honor'[edit]

The article says that 'Several things have been named in honor of Liliuokalani' and then names one, an aeroplane. Surely more than one example should be given here if we are saying there are several.


File:Liliuokalani at Capitol.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Liliuokalani at Capitol.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Two signs of later acceptance of annexation[edit]

Should her two quotes of accepting annexation "The best thing for (Native Hawaiians) that could have happened was to belong to the United States" and "Tho' for a moment it (the overthrow) cost me a pang of pain for my people it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people." be included along with the fact that she raised the American flag at Washington Place in honor of five Hawaiian sailors who had perished in the sinking of USS Aztec by German submarines in 1917.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Restored MMfA citation in Liliuokalani: Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom[edit]

Specifically regarding this edit, could Peaceroy please reiterate what it is specifically about the MMfA link that is worthwhile for that specific section? I see it's controversial, so we should talk it out here. Thargor Orlando (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The citation for the Media Matters for America (MMfA) article should be kept because it speaks directly to the text that states "The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports have been questioned by partisans on both sides of the historical debate over the events of 1893." The MMfA article itself contains these reliable citations:
In short, the MMfA article itself is well documented, & thus has a reliable basis for the arguments that it makes that support the assertion of the text in the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom section.
Peaceray (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
So why not use those direct citations where appropriate, as opposed to a pretty blatantly partisan resource? Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Since the MMfA article is using factual citations to buttress the arguments in the article, & since the Rush Lumbaugh piece has no basis in fact or citations, I believe the MMfA article in fact to be the better source. I thus cannot subscribe to the opinion that it is a "pretty blatantly partisan resource". It is a valid citation for expressing criticism for the Rush Lumbaugh piece. Peaceray (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Except the article is not using it to cite criticism of Rush Limbaugh, but to cite criticism of the Blount and Morgan reports. Thus, the MMfA citation is not relevant to what's being claimed in the article at all. Meanwhile, we have four sources surrounding it that do demonstrate the claim in the article, and an MMfA piece that simply repeats what's there. Even better, the HawaiiReporter link (which I understand that you don't like, but is still reliable) is a direct transcript of the Limbaugh piece without any added partisanship or attacks on Limbaugh: while they may be a more conservative publication (and I'll defer to you on that), the transcript is without commentary, which is better than what MMfA is offering. MMfA is very clearly a liberal organization that, in its own words, looks to push back against "conservative misinformation." It means usage is going to be worthwhile in specific instances, which I'm not seeing this as one. Of the things you look at for those citations, we can (and should!) add those to the article where appropriate, but we don't need a partisan filter on either side of the discussion to get them there. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not accept that there is justification here for removing a "pretty blatantly partisan resource" that is liberal with a "pretty blatantly partisan resource" that is conservative. Rush Limbaugh's piece is at odds with the basic facts of the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, & the MMfA has called him on it with a lot to back it up. The MMfA is clearly the more accurate & documented source of the two, & as I have mentioned before, provides a link to the Rush Limbaugh piece. It is a perfect illustration of the statement "The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports have been questioned by partisans on both sides of the historical debate over the events of 1893." I see no reason to change it out except for censorship of MMfA. That is against the consensus expressed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 39#Reiterating the_consensus. Peaceray (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I haven't replaced anything with a conservative resource, first and foremost. I understand you're arguing that the Hawaii Reporter is conservative, but the link provides no commentary (in contrast to the MMfA piece) and a good compromise would be to simply cite the Limbaugh quote directly to his show. As there is no consensus in either direction for MMfA(as I have demonstrated here), although it wasn't about this article, I don't see any current justification for using it at this point, as necessary from WP:V. If it's the other links, let's find a way to use them. Otherwise, we should refrain from sites that exist solely to attack whenever possible. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that you are confusing valid criticism backed up by factual citations with unjustified attacks. Again, the MMfA does a better job of supporting the statement than the Rush Limbaugh piece by itself. Peaceray (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure how partisan attacks do a better job of citing what someone said when we can directly cite what someone said. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The point of the MMfA citation was that it supports the statement in this article. I reject your characterization as a "partisan attack" because the source itself is well cited with factual sources, unlike the the original Rush Limbaugh piece. I think that you will do well to read Politics and the English Language, whose text can be found here before you start miscategorizing well-written criticism of a radio piece in which the speaker is speaking out of ignorance. Peaceray (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
The statement in the article that it's sourcing is also supported by the direct transcript. If you want to change the statement that it's sourcing, that might make more sense, but the "well-cited" portion, again, can be added to the article without the partisan attack. I'm not miscategorizing what MMfA is: we can disagree about what its value is, but it is a partisan site that exists solely to attack one side of the argument, same as things like the Media Research Center on the right. Thargor Orlando (talk) 03:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Substitute "criticism" for "attack" & we might have common ground. Forget the transcript or audio link cited in MMfA; the criticism is well grounded in the six other citations in the MMfA source. Do not ignore those. Again, the MMfA well supports the statement "The accuracy and impartiality of both the Blount and Morgan reports have been questioned by partisans on both sides of the historical debate over the events of 1893." Peaceray (talk) 06:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you pint out exactly which citations you're talking about that support it? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
¿?¿?¿? I already provided links to those citations in the article at the beginning of this section. Please look them up yourself.
In reviewing the comments that you have posted in this section, I realize that you have continually attacked the source of the citation, rather than the content of the MMfA citation itself. It functions well as a survey piece, in that it uses a compact collection of reference to buttress its argument. It is much more succinct than using all the references that it itself cites, especially in as it well supports the statement in the article. I would say the same about any critical source from anywhere along the political spectrum, as long as it is thoughtful, logical, & well cited.
So what is your objection to the content of the source? I do not accept rejecting a citation merely because of the particular web site from which it came.
Peaceray (talk) 19:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
My issue with the content is that it's a heavily partisan source that isn't necessary to support the claims being made in the article. You're arguing that the source has extra information that's useful, I'm asking you to point out what information we're losing in the MMfA piece that cannot be supported with other citations where appropriate. That it may be "succinct" is not a really good reason to keep something if part of the succinctness is heavily biased editorializing along the way. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


"There you go again" -Ronald Reagan

"...it's a heavily partisan source..." Are you trying to reinforce the point I just made? The source is thoughtful, logical, & well cited. It is succinct & supports the article statement efficiently. All that you can keep writing is that "...it's a heavily partisan source...". Your arguments just do not hold any weight with me anymore. I am going to stop engaging with you here now. Do not remove the citation. As a member of WikiProject Hawaii who is against censorship, I will consider it vandalism. Peaceray (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that it's thoughtful or logical. If it's well-cited, let's use those citations in the article. It also doesn't support the article statement any more than what I replace it with. If you're not willing to discuss, that's a problem. If you can't answer questions, that's a problem. If you consider it vandalism, that's a problem. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to include the information: you have yet to give a good reason for it that cannot be dealt with in better ways. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether a Media Matters for America citation is valid or not. The discussion is over whether the particular web site makes it unworthy for citation, or whether the content & citations within the source can continue to be used to support a statement in the article. ):
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Liliuokalani and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

Reliable sources need not be neutral sources, and can be biased, that being said WP:NEU applies. For instance the Huffington Post is a reliable source, just as much as the Daily Caller is a reliable source (YMMV depending on what editors one asks). Content verified by the sources should be neutrally weighted and worded. In this instance it does not appear that the the MMfA source is used in given undue weight, or is the Hawaii Reporter source. May I suggest that the multiple sources be bundled as not to to appear to be a cite bombing target. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The bundling isn't really at issue as much as there doesn't seem to be much of a good explanation as to why we need the source. If we can choose between a neutral source and a biased/partisan one, I fail to see the value in having the latter. If I'm wrong in this instance, that's fine, but I'd at least like a logical explanation as to the "why" of the matter. Saying "it has useful information" without explaining what that information is or how we can use those citations in the article isn't helpful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The piece is well cited and its author has a degree in history, a far better and more comprehensive source than some random article from a local newspaper. I fail to see the problem with using this source. Gamaliel (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

What does it add to the article specifically that offsets the significant bias and how it attacks someone? Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Could you specifically identify, with quotes preferably, where in that article you detect "significant bias" and "attacks"? Other than accurately calling Limbaugh's claim false (and if that's an attack, then every Factcheck column would be out of bounds as well), I don't see what you might be referring to that might qualify as either of those. Gamaliel (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I have to ask if this is a serious comment. MMfA is de facto significantly biased, they admit to it in their own site. As for attacks, the implication that Rush is a liar for repeating a claim that was made that they believe to be false, not to mention whatever can be linked from there. This isn't an issue of MMfA making a cited claim in the article, but merely duplicating existing information. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I am completely serious. I don't see MMfA's bias as some sort of all pervasive force tainting everything they do, nor do I believe that the newspapers and other sources you have been replacing MMFA links with to be magically free of bias or a point of view. When MMFA, or anyone else, regardless of political orientation, does good, solid work, I recognize that. In this case, it appears they have, and you have said nothing to dispute that. In regards to the "implication", what they've said here is no different from anything said in a Politifact or Factcheck column. Unless you can substantiate your positions with evidence from the piece in question, I don't see any reason why we should continue to discuss this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any "good, solid work" that cannot be replicated without using a highly biased sourced is the point. If you have an option between biased and unbiased, why go with biased? I've pointed out how the piece is not really appropriate, both directly and via what else they have. I get you disagree, but you're falling into the same problem we had before: it seems less about using good sources and more about "I think this is good, so let's run with it." If we don't need it, why should we use it? This isn't the New York Times. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Name spelling[edit]

So I read the article, and I read the talk page, and I still don't know why her name is spelled "Liliʻuokalani" but the title of the article is "Liliuokalani" (no okina). Did I miss something? Can anyone explain? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Both are correct just one uses the ʻokina and one doesn't, same with Hawaii and Hawaiʻi.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)