Talk:Arakaki v. State of Hawai'i

Need to cite sources

1. OHA election: 4th in a field of 20 sounds good, single-digit percentage might not sound so good. To be NPOV, present both angles. Source for exact vote totals?

I'll look up vote totals and make the change. --JereKrischel 17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Vote totals: http://www.hawaii.gov/elections/results/2000/general/00swgen4.htm --JereKrischel 18:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

2. "Aloha 4 All": Dr Conklin seems to identify himself as one of the original instigators here, so what supports the change saying that Mssrs Burgess and Twigg-Smith started it alone?

Ken Conklin specifically denied in an email being a founding member on any legal articles of incorporation, although he certainly is a major intellecutal contributor to the organization. I suppose we're dancing around what it means to be a "founding member" - do you think that the original wording is more appropriate? How about "Conklin helped start Aloha for All, a 501(C)(3) non-profit corporation founded by Burgess, Twigg-Smith"? --17:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture is very good. -- IslandGyrl 13:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Mahalo, JereKrischel, for the prompt response. That takes care of both points as far as I'm concerned.

Note that when we do fact-checking by contacting persons directly—and I have done / will be doing the same thing; e.g. in an e-mail to me, Prof Davianna McGregor denied having written the Apology Resolution, and I'll eventually get around to working on that article again—we are technically in violation of the verifiability policy. I think we're on safe ground because we're documenting things openly on the Talk page, the points are not that critical, and we might otherwise be unable to illuminate them at all. So I'm not objecting, but at some point someone else might: "How can I tell if you two really got those e-mails from Dr Conklin / Prof McGregor? And if you folks are that close to your respective subjects, can I trust either of you?" etc. In the meantime, though, "hele on"! -- IslandGyrl 10:23, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting point...I guess some of the things we do border on original research, but I think we're doing the right thing here. I can understand some of the impetus for the policy, but I think it could use some amendment...I'll have to ponder this for a while - I don't want to violate policy here, but I'm afraid that it's a bit easily gamed by people with access to "reputable publishers", and if anything wikipedia is a valuable alternative to the mainstream media. For example, The Hawai'i Reporter will probably publish just about anything Conklin submits, so if he wanted to assert something without proof (i.e., McGregor being the author of the apology resolution), he could do so in that forum. And then McGregor could get the Advertiser (awfully pro-sovereignty usually) to publish her denial. And back, and forth. In a world where anyone can publish anything on a website, it's hard to discern what "reputable" means I suppose. I not only enjoy the fact checking we've done, but I think it serves a very useful purpose. I guess at the end it's all about trust, and although I can imagine you being skeptical of Conklin's claims of foundership of Aloha For All, and actually looking up the 503(c)(3) articles of incorporation to verify his denial, I think that process is a legitimate one.

Anyway, thanks for the pointer to that policy. I'll ponder it a bit more and try to adhere to the policy better. Maybe there is some light for us in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check? --JereKrischel 20:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Older items

Welcome, 67.49.166.229! I edited, but then decided to remove the following passage you added:

In 2004, Conklin after much pressure by the local press shared his views of Hawaiians and Hawai‘i. Conklin told a reporter, "Hawaiians although a friendly people could not govern themselves out of a paper bag." He then went on to say that Hawai‘i is "truly paradise, except for the racism towards the white man or haole, which the locals here commonly refer to me [as] with such disgust in their tone."

Conklin's views are very controversial in the state of Hawai‘i. One reason for this is that Conklin actually lives on the island of O‘ahu while he crusades for his cause.

The quotations in the first paragraph are going to need a verifiable citation of a source (newspaper article, etc.) if they are to be retained. And I admit I don't understand the point of the second paragraph; if I did I would have tried to find a more neutral phrasing than "crusades for his cause." It is a fact that Dr Conklin is controversial, but what does that have to do with his living on O‘ahu? In whose opinion does this connection exist? Is it relevant to the encyclopedia reader? -- IslandGyrl 18:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems like 67.49.166.229 has decided to vandalize this page with anti-gay homophobic rhetoric. 67.49.166.229, regardless of what your opinions on Conklin's positions, ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. Please contribute according to The Five Pillars of Wikipedia. -- JereKrischel 17:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Eye On Conklin Site Suspect

The Eye on Conklin website purports to be part of "The Hawaiian Foundation, Inc.", which was "Officially becoming a non-profit organization in January 2005..." according to the site. A check of httpx://guidestar.org, listing non-profits yields nothing, a red flag for a sock puppet site. The only people behind it seem to be Lana Robbins and Frank Agostinelli, seen on this archive page: httpx://web.archive.org/web/20040518003141/httpx://www.eurasiancommunity.com/, who are linked to realhapas.com, which also claimed to be part of "The Hawaiian Foundation, Inc.". (the site dedicated to the proposition that hapa is only a term that should be used for part hawaiian people, not asian/caucasian mixes) A whois search reveals that all of these sites are actually registered by DomainsByProxy.com, further obscuring the source behind these works.

I would suggest that the suspect nature of the site kenconklin.com disqualifies it from being worth linking to. From the 5 pillars: "It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." --JereKrischel 03:58, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

You'll notice I originally removed that whole set of anon edits including the link. Later I had second thoughts because of another WP guideline about trying to salvage useful content even from bad or blatantly-POV edits. No question the blog is dodgy and murky about its origins, though. So I concur, let's dump it. Whoever posted the link originally should find a balancing resource critical of Dr Conklin that is worthy of being taken seriously.

P.S. It would be nice to have (copyright-safe) pictures of Dr Conklin and Mr Burgess though. -- IslandGyrl 22:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why there is a battle of adding and deleting Eye on Conklin. Perhaps you are right though, that Eye on Conklin should not be in there. I personally never saw a problem with it, nothing more than the author behind Eye on Conklin wanting to show a different perspective of Kenneth Conklin. Also I don't know who Frank Agostinelli is but I suspect he has nothing to do with Eye on Conklin. 66.215.18.34 00:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)