Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement

Hawaiian Nationalism

A search for "Hawaiian Nationalism" brings me to the Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement's page. The difference between Hawaiian Nationalism and Hawaiian Sovereignty is likely the current dispute between OHA and other Hawaiian Sovereignty Groups. See Haole Nationalism, and OHA infighting,

Also it may be worth pointing out that the difference between these two political ideologies has roots in American diplomacy. For example this race-based distinction: a native Hawaiian (opposed to a non-native Hawaiian?) is any descendant of not less than one-half part of the blood of the races inhabiting the Hawaiian Islands previous to 1778." (1921?) . Quash-asia (talk) 09:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

I have mixed feelings on this proposal. In many ways, combining the articles would make things easier for all involved as they are so closely related.

However, these are separate issues as well. The Hawaiian sovereignty movement exists because of their feelings towards the Legal status of Hawaii. One is a legal issue while the other is a response to that legal issue.

Companion articles to the Legal status of Hawaii include the Legal status of Texas and the Legal status of Alaska. Using many of the same arguments, these articles also assert the controversial legality of American ownership of these states.

Would it be appropriate to merge the Legal status of Texas with the Republic of Texas (group)? This is probably comparable to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement for Texas. How about merging the Legal status of Alaska with the Alaskan Independence Party? That is probably comparable as an Alaskan sovereignty movement.

So I agree there is some wisdom in this proposal. However, I can see a valid argument that a sovereignty movement article is ultimately separate from a legal status article. LarryQ (talk) 02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

While there is certainly significant overlap (due to multiple editors, some of whom are unclear on the concept of summary style), legal status and sovereignty movement topics are separate but related. My limited understanding is that legal status of X articles are supposed to examine the arguments by Y sovereignty movement, so there is an entirely different approach. Legal status articles have more of an outside perspective, whereas the movement articles focus on the group or groups that are active in the dispute. Legal status articles are usually a historical overview of the dispute, with or without arguments. The major difference between the two is that the legal status articles are supposed to take a broad view while the sovereignty articles should take a narrow approach. At this point, Legal status of Hawaii needs a major cleanup, and should be used summary style in this article. I'll see what I can do to help out. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if they recognize Obama as the incoming President?

Since a President is required by the Constitution to be a natural born citizen, and since Bam was born in Honolulu, I wonder if the Hawaiian sovereigntists recognize the president-elect status of Obama. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 05:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

DNFT. Viriditas (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It would still fall under the American diplomatic land use laws. So no.Quash-asia (talk) 08:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would they? He's just born there, without any special connection to hawaiian politics or culture. And why would they feel impressed by that whole 'natural born citizen' rule in the first place? He's the USA-president, i don't see any reason why Hawaiian sovereignists would see him as _their_ president Selena1981 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

BJ Penn

could somebody post a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.178.214 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A fixation on ethnicity

I have been following this article and talk page for some time and while it has previously been my intention to remain silent, that is no longer a tenable position when there are certain elements to this article that are so impartial, so factually untrue, and so obviously propagandistic. In specific, the most apparent problem is the all too familiar, desperate fixation on ethnicity that seems to be the desired tool employed by US occupationists. As a disclaimer, I am fully aware that both the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and (of course) the Office of Hawaiian Affairs are explicitly ethnically-based.

My specific complaint re:ethnicity focuses on the following statement taken from the article:

"Among those who advocate for complete independence, proposals range from a reinstatement of a racial hereditary monarchy, to constitutional democracies with tiered citizenship based on race, to governments exclusively controlled only by members with the correct racial background."

The preceding statement describes three alternatives – all wildly inaccurate for a variety of reasons – though my chief complaint is the insistence that each "proposal" has at its core an ethnic quantum. To cursorily evaluate each of the three asserted "proposals":

". . . a reinstatement of a racial hereditary monarchy," I can only assume that this implies some sort of indignation that the sovereign of the Kingdom of Hawai'i would be a Hawaiian. If that is the case, then the author should be outraged that the UK or the Netherlands have a "European" racial hereditary monarchy, or that the emperors of Japan have been "racially" Japanese.

". . . to constitutional democracies with tiered citizenship based on race," It is difficult to argue with assertions conspicuously missing citations, but I would like to point out that the Kingdom of Hawai'i was recognized as a functioning constitutional democracy – with successive constitutions modeled on the contemporary constitution of the United Kingdom and not unlike the current constitutions of Canada or New Zealand - before the hostile occupation by the United States began.

On January 21, 1868, the Minister of the Interior for the Hawaiian Kingdom, His Excellency Ferdinand Hutchison, stated the criteria for Hawaiian nationality:

“In the judgment of His Majesty’s Government, no one acquires citizenship in this Kingdom unless he is born here, or born abroad of Hawaiian parents, (either native or naturalized) during their temporary absence from the kingdom, or unless having been the subject of another power, he becomes a subject of this kingdom by taking the oath of allegiance.”

The position of His Majesty’s Government was founded upon Hawaiian statute. Section III, Art. I, Chap. V of an Act to Organize the Executive Departments, 1845 and 1846, provided that:

“All persons born within the jurisdiction of this kingdom, whether of alien foreigners, of naturalized or of native parents, and all persons born abroad of a parent native of this kingdom, and afterwards coming to reside in this kingdom, shall be deemed to owe native allegiance to His Majesty. All such persons shall be amenable to the laws of this kingdom as native subjects. All persons born abroad of foreign parents, shall unless duly naturalized, as in this article pre-scribed, be deemed aliens, and treated as such, pursuant to the laws.”

There exists no mention of an ethnic quantum necessary for citizenship in the Kingdom of Hawai'i. While not monolithic, the mainstream movement advocating the recognition of Hawai'i as a sovereign state, wholly separate from the United States, generally recognizes the constitution of the Kingdom of Hawai'i as a valid document and as such would continue to use the same criteria for bestowing Hawaiian nationality.

". . . to governments exclusively controlled only by members with the correct racial background." Again, with no citation and nebulous language ("correct racial background"), one struggles to conclude the exact meaning of this statement, but I would assume that this is an admonition to readers who are not ethnically Hawaiian to be trepidatious at the idea of an apartheid government ruled only by ethnic Hawaiians. Despite continued best efforts at historical revisionism by Americans, we are the inheritors of a rich historical record which is easily accessible and is incontrovertible. Anyone even remotely familiar with the history of the Kingdom of Hawaii's government should be aware of the ethnic composition of the cabinet was diverse, and included many ethnic Europeans. Also, anyone who is today familiar with the sovereignty movement should know that it is in no way an "ethnic" issue; there are a diverse number of opinions supported by a diverse populace.

These unending assertions of a coming apartheid state or ethnic-warfare are patently outlandish, but they are the tool most often employed by American occupationists as part of a well-funded and organized public relations campaign because they are so effective at scaring the general population. These are the tactics of any tenth-rate attorney who realizes that they have a flimsy case; they know that they cannot argue the facts so they must resort to vilification and misrepresentation of the opposition. When one tries to engage in a civilized debate on the future of Hawai'i and even when one uses the historical record coming only from the United States government, a very clear picture emerges of a simple, hostile takeover of one nation by a much larger emerging superpower through armed aggression. The record from the US may speak for itself, but the debate nearly always goes in a similar direction; those in favor of the continued US occupation at some point realize that they aren't going to be able to convince through either refutation of the historical record or the contemporary law of the United States of International Law, so the must return to the tactics of misrepresentation in a desperate effort to distract and create fear.

For the sake of clarity, I will reiterate that both the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs imply an ethnic-quantum, and a great many within the sovereignty movement are vehemently opposed to both the Akaka Bill and OHA. The component of ethnic-quantum is justifiably worrisome, however, both the Akaka Bill and OHA are nothing more than subterfuge and a distraction from the correct course of action - the recognition of the continued sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hawaii.

With the foregoing having been said, this article is urgently in need of a drastic re-write to conform to Wikipedia's own rules of impartiality and, especially, verifiability. I will be the first to concede that fundamental questions about the future of Hawai'i remain unanswered and that important debates remain unresolved, but this article's sophistry and blatant use of propaganda do not help to create the environment for civilized debate, and ultimately do not engender much sympathy to the claims of the US' "virtuous" annexation of Hawai'i.

Moananui (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Moananui

Hi Moananui. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your comments. I am not very active here anymore and I just check in from time to time on articles I have an interest in. Somehow, long ago, I got involved in edit disputes around Hawaiian issues and these are some of the articles I still keep an eye on. Unfortunately, these articles are never liked by Hawaiian activists who see the articles as biased because they fail to acknowledge what they see is the obvious fact Hawaii is illegally occupied while pro-annexation people see this as a settled issue and get annoyed that the "fringe" position is being considered at all. This results in few liking the articles that develop by consensus. These are difficult articles to edit.

There may well be a fixation on race in this article. Some sovereignty groups are fixated on it of course. US law is also fixated on race. Like it or not, Hawaii is subject to US law and this is unlikely to change in either of our lifetimes. According to a 9-0 Supreme Court decision, decision of the U.S. Supreme Court of March 31, 2009, the Apology Resolution has no binding legal effect and the state of Hawaii has title to all ceded landed. This means the Supremes (liberal and conservative) have ruled that the US legally acquired Hawaii. Unless the International Court of Justice steps in, this now seems like a deadend legal issue. Hence, the fixation on race will be hard to end as things like the US Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2009 and the US Office of Hawaiian Affairs are explicitly ethnically-based as you noted.

I would suggest making good faith efforts to edit this article. Are there ways you can make the fixation on race less prominent while still acknowleding that it is an issue? You don't need permission to do this. Just edit. If you are too point of view, you will likely get reverted. How can you edit the article to make it better while keeping it from sounding like propaganda for one side or the other? One sided editing works sometimes in the short term but rarely works long term. The Hawaiian sovereignty related articles are littered with editors from differing views who finally gave up and left in digust. This does not have to be you. Assume good faith from those who disagree with you. They have good reasons for what they believe too. You can work with some of them.

Good luck. Feel free to leave me a note if you want to talk about something. As I noted, I am not very active so be patient if it takes me a few days to get back to you. LarryQ (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Those are fair points: it is rather unfair to paint the whole independent movement as 'racism'. As you point out: by that metric pretty much every indepence movement in the world is highly racist just for giving some power back to broadly-defined 'natives' at the expense of potential future arrivals. And connecting the mere existence of a royal family with 'promoting ethnic superiority' is indeed stupid fearmongering of people who will do anything to prevent a signal of national unity (a king, whom everyone can rally around) to gain power.Selena1981 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Supporters / Opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty list

Just having a list of names isn't very encyclopedic. I believe it should be removed since there is no context.Mc kevins (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well it makes sense to me if they have articles or citations. That is Wikipedia policy on notability. Ones that do not moved here:

Hawaiian sovereignty activists and advocates

• Keoni Agard
• Lynette Hiʻilani Cruz
• Scott Crawford [1]
• Mahealani Kahau, the chosen "Monarch" of the Hawaiian Kingdom Government.
• J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Ph.D.
• Poka Laenui, aka Hayden Burgess
• Rev. Charles Kauluwehi Maxwell Sr.
• Paul Christiaan Klieger (anthropologist, historian)
• Jon Osorio (scholar and musician)
• Rev. Kaleo Patterson
• B.J. Penn (fighter, not politician)
• Vicky Holt Takamine
• Dallas Keialiihooneiaina Mossman Vogeler

Opponents of Hawaiian sovereignty

• Earl Arakaki
• Robert M. Chapman
• Brian L. Clarke
• John Goemans (d. 2009)
• Patrick W Hanifin
• Richard O. Rowland
• Malia Zimmerman

W Nowicki (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Sovereignty opinions of Native Hawaiians?

Have there been any polls of Native Hawaiians (or of Hawaiian residents in general, with responses broken down by ethnic group) that show what percentage of Native Hawaiians favor independence, this or that version of sovereignty short of independence, and the status quo? This would be relevant information for the article. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If there was, what would determine who was a Native Hawaiian? I could see the carrying out of this task as disputable as its results. Quash-asia (talk) 07:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Please research Native Hawaiian Roll Commission, a state entity, who is uniting Hawaiians to form their on sovereign Government. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.116.71 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

To be quite honest I believe the United States of America has already tried and unfortunately has been successful in the determining of whether or not someone should be seen as Native Hawaiian or not. As stated by the insulting way that they've tried to give Native Hawaiians their land back or attempted to do so by enacting the Hawaiian Homestead Act. It states that the United States set aside approximately 200,000 acres for NATIVE HAWAIIANS as this was also a controversial definition in it's own. It states that a person of 50% or more Hawaiian blood is to be considered Native Hawaiian even though the Queen herself stated that the blood quantum should be no more than 1/32. The problem is the United States see's this as more of a solution with no answer when in fact it's just a solution the United States doesn't recognize as important. The fact that Native Hawaiians even have to prove their Hawaiian shows a problem with the system as no other race seems to have to define who they are. And yet people argue "Well you could have someone with no connection to Hawaii but have Hawaiian blood decide to want to own land, how does that problem become resolved"? What people don't realize is Native Hawaiians have a very rich and very deep culture and those families who have stayed true to this idea will be able to trace their roots back to times even before the overthrow. TokoUso6Tree (talk) 07:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Seriously?

Hard to take this article too seriously with the bogus map from some alternative history pasted down towards the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 21:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

US bias

The article is pro-US, and blatantly so. Most articles on independence movements are far less POV. The introduction is particularly baised, the statement that "the historical and legal basis for these claims is one of considerable dispute" is absurd. The US revolution and invasion was clearly illegal, and there can be no such thing as a retrospective legalisation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article is weird. Angry bee (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bishop Estate

The section on the Bishop Estate made it sound as though Charles Reed Bishop created Kamehameha Schools on his own. He was mandated as executor of Princess Pauahi's will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.108.192.10 (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Serious NPOV Issues

I take serious issue with statements like the following which can be found in the article:

"Legally, the land belonging to the Hawaiian Government in 1898 has passed to the U.S. Government and back to the State of Hawai'i. People alive now have a democratic right to decide by majority vote how government land should be used now. No one deserves more than equality"

This statement isn't a quotation from a legal ruling--it's clearly just a normative judgement reflecting someone's opinion. This article needs some cleaning up. CharlesMartel (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Hawaii the Independent Nation

Hawaii, like Alaska, should be an independent nation, and will be eventually. Since the U.S. is an illegitimate nation, founded on lies and stolen land, it has no legitimate claim to Hawaii or Alaska. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cetj98168 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hawaiian Kingdom: David Keanu Sai

This section contains statements such as "An legally ill or un informed jury [sic]", which, besides being ungrammatical, seem to have obvious point of view issues. In addition, this section has a number of external links to personal web pages at UH & to an site obviously invested in one side of the debate. While these may be important to a balanced discussion, there are no external links to opposing points of view nor are there links to neutral sources typically used for citations. For further explanation of why this is inappropriate to Wikipedia, please see Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. Please also refer to Wikipedia:External links. Peaceray (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You made an accusation of COI. The tag directs readers to this discussion, but...there is no demonstration of a conflict of interest with an editor who may have a close connection to the subject. For this reason I am removing the tag from the article and am requesting that Peaceray show some proof of a close connection if it is possible. After 3 years...they may not remember this though.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 20:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the {{COI}} template states that a "major contributor to this section appears (my emphasis) to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." In June 2012, I stated what led me to suspect a COI; I stand by those statements & I do not see the need to repeat them. Anyone who want to check the state of the section at that time can go to that version to see if my statements above from June 2012 were accurate or not at that time regarding the appearance of COI. I believe them to be self-evident.

However, in the 2½ years since I placed the COI notice , there have been changes to the section. Specifically, there are more citations, the grammar & misspellings have been corrected, & some, although not all, "words to watch" have been removed. While I do not object to removal of the COI notice with the section in its current state, I still think that there are point of view issues with the section. There are also statements without citations.

Mark Miller, the COI is not nearly as important to me as the NPOV. It is entirely possible, albeit difficult, for someone with a close connection to a subject to still be able to write neutrally. One of the best examples is the History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides. Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote remarkably neutrally about a war in which Athena was a major party. Write neutrally like Thucydides, resolve NPOV issues, & there will never be cause for allegations of COI.

Peaceray (talk) 06:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Look it wasn't against policy back then and it is still not against policy today. You only make accusations of this type when you have direct evidence against an individual...NOT when it is against the information in general (although, two years later it is also stale so...). I am not trying to drag this back out, but was asking for clarification as to an individual you suspected. Yes, the article had a lot of POV...on both sides and still does, not even close to being finished. This requires a great deal of reading and research. Opposition POV as well as supportive POV. You seem to have a great deal of interest and I hope you continue to edit the Hawaiian related pages. Please keep this page watch listed and feel free (of course) to edit as well if you feel there is something that can be verified.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And some of the content in the section we are discussing needs to be trimmed of entirely for undue weight.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way Peaceray I have no objection, whatsoever, to your deleting content that is not sourced at this point. Anything that can be verified would and will be re-added with the reliable source. I am trying to clean-up these articles to be encyclopedic. So, any help you are willing to contribute is much appreciated. I am going to be gone for the rest of the day until later this evening. Feel free to delete whatever is not sourced (even if you stub the article) and I will research out each section individually later tonight and over the weekend as time permits.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Brah, chillax! Howzit I do homework fo' you? Nah, that's hemmajang. I no like.

OK, just kidding, that was an attempt at levity. More seriously, I will concentrate on one editor in particular to illustrate my point. In the Revision as of 2005-07-01T14:31:43 by 216.235.61.132, this was changed from

Another leader who advocates for resistance against the State government is Keanu Sai. Trained as a U.S. military officer,Sai has claimed the title of "Regent" of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Sai has done extensive historical research, especially on the treaties between Hawai'i and other nations, and currently holds an associate professorship at the University of Hawai'i.

to:

Another leader who seeks to expose the prolonged occupation of Hawaii by the United States is [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/ Keanu Sai]. Trained as a U.S. military officer, Sai uses the title of Chairman of the Acting Council of Recency of the [http://hawaiiankingdom.org/ Hawaiian Kingdom]. Sai has done extensive historical research, especially on the treaties between Hawai'i and other nations, and [[military occupation]] and the laws of war. Sai currently holds an associate professorship at the University of Hawai'i, where he founded the [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/ Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics], which publishes the [http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/journal.html Hawaiian Journal of Law and Politics].

Besides the change from advocates for resistance against the State government to the contentious level of seeks to expose the prolonged occupation of Hawaii by the United States, the 216.235.61.132 editor added only links closely related to Kenau Sai. The 216.235.61.132 editor made 19 edits over a six month period in 2005. All edits involved Hawaii, e.g., involved Hawaii even in generally non-Hawaii articles, & 58% of the edits were about the U.S. possession of Hawaii.

whois.urih.com/record/216.235.61.132/ lists the owner of the IP range as Oceanic Cable, so any Road Runner customer could have been the editor, but definitely in Hawaii & probably on Oahu.

I can thus conclude that this editor focused exclusively on edits involving Hawaii, and most of the time made edits advocating the view that Hawaii was & is illegally occupied by the U.S. Government. My opinion is that this editor definitely did not adhere to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. Does this violate the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline? The guideline states:

A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers. When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.
— Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

I think that a reasonable reading of the guideline could lead one to conclude that there was a COI in this case. I certainly concluded that, although I also allow others may have other opinions. I certainly thought that there were other edits in the section that definitely violated NPOV, if not arising to COI. The totality of these edits together I believe rose to the "major contribution" to the section. At any rate, I will make a couple of additional edits to excise a couple of non-encyclopedic edits in the section. I think we can move on from this to concentrating on article edits, but I did want to respond to your questioning of my placement of the {{COI}} template.

Peaceray (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

First, thank you so much for taking the time to reply in the first place. This is what I was looking for and thought you could shed some light on. I will say that, at this point we can conclude that the editor was not neutral, but...we also have to take into account that many IP editors are unfamiliar with guidelines. At the time, it might well have looked odd but it was really only quaking a bit here and the article has many such non neutral issues that were far worse, such as the violation of BLP policy to use court documents only to source a huge chunk of legal issues that were not encyclopedic in nature and seemed a lot like character assassination. Can't say it was..but it was maintained in the articlealong with other things like links in the article directly to the websites and other promotional content as well as unfounded accusations etc. But...overall, much of the content was accurate. I kept a lot of the original text as all it needed was referencing. Look, members of the individual organizations can edit this article and the section on the group they belong to...within reason, as is true with any editor. A democrat can edit the Democratic articles as well as the Republican articles. A close association needs to be (I should say: "Should at least be.." something that can be confirmed by matching edits to accounts, usernames, long term abuse or disruption etc. I get what you are saying and you are not wrong. COI is a very odd area. I contribute to that guideline now and then and debate on the talk page but we have to always try to temper what we perceive with the knowledge that COI is not a guideline that can easily and plainly be violated all the time. we do allow editors who have close connections to edit the articles if they insist, but we do make sure they stick to policy, do not disrupt the article or talk page etc. I have caught several real COI editors who were editing political content they were directly involved in. We have a template we can place on the user talk page and one for the article talk page as well. I would not disapprove of adding the template, permanently to the talk page here.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Government in Exile

There is a difference between the Queen abdicating and being overthrown. And there is a difference between accepting the US military occupation, and maintaining a royal government - in exile or otherwise.

Currently the article confuses these four options : "Following her 1893 overthrow, Queen Liliʻuokalani did not formally abdicate the throne, so the Hawaiian Kingdom became a government in exile". This does not make sense. The Queen did not abdicate, so she remained the Queen de jure, if not de facto. As for the existence of the government in exile, that is another matter.... Incidentally the Queen is not the Kingdom, nor would a government in exile be the Kingdom!203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have temporarily removed the section in question. Much of the above is point of view and does not substantiate the claims with a source itself...so......--Mark Miller (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

More NPOV Commentary

I just want to pile on the criticism about this article. I have never lived in Hawaii, though I am an American, so I really don't feel I have an immediate personal stake in this, but the tone and attitude this article has is often blatantly against the various sovereignty movements. Especially the "People alive now have a democratic right to decide by majority vote how government land should be used now. No one deserves more than equality" statement. It's not a quote from anyone; It's just dropped in as a matter of fact.

I don't have the expertise or time to fix the writing and perspective, but it is really poorly done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.100.86 (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

The above is actually true. Much of the article has the appearance of an inexperienced editor attempting "balance", however, balance is not a matter of adding any criticism or unreferenced claim on either side. Yes, I have already removed a good deal of POV on both sides. Lets move forward with an accurate and encyclopedic summary of ONLY the reliable sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Article re-write/update

The article is badly in need of work. I am going to be expanding on the article to be more encyclopedic and may be creating the article List of Hawaiian sovereignty groups and moving some content there with an smaller summary on this page.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It is an important article which ought to be comprehensive, neutral and well-referenced, Mark Miller. I trust your expertise and ability to do the job right. If I can be of any assistance as an interested non-Hawaiian, please let me know. Thank you, and Happy New Year. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cullen and Happy New year to you as well!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Come to think of it...this article being a basic list already may be easier to just move the article and keep the attributions where they are and then start a new article on the basic subject of the sovereignty movement with sources (there are a lot).--Mark Miller (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources parking

• Honolulu Magazine--Mark Miller (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Chauvinism (NPOV)

As stated many times before in this article, it is a minefield of biased NPOV views in favor of the Anglo-Saxon pro-liberal/pro-democratic positions used to justify the US takeover of Hawaii and discredit indigenous sovereignty activists. It is actually quite a blatant display of bias that seems to have been tolerated by other wikipedia moderators in the past (see: the previous comments in this talk section), that it really reeks of biased anglo-saxon chauvinism towards indigenous or aboriginal groups.

For example, in the last section, it reads:

_{"The Hawaiian Kingdom Government lands in 1893 were controlled ultimately by the Legislature. Private individuals had no powers, rights or privileges to use government land without Government authorization or to decide how it was to be used. If Hawaiians had any rights or powers regarding Government land, they had only the political right and power to participate in controlling the Government. Most ethnic Hawaiians then had no power to lose; they were a minority in Hawaii and most of them could not even vote. As the term "sovereignty" suggests, what was at stake in 1893 was political power over the government and hence over the Government Lands and the Crown Lands (which had come under control of a government commission in 1865). Legally, the land belonging to the Hawaiian Government in 1898 has passed to the U.S. Government and back to the State of Hawaii.[39]"}

I don't know about anyone else, but this does not read like a neutral paragraph whatsoever. Surely, my allegations of chauvinism on part of some of the previous wikipedia editors might elicit claims that I have my own personal "bias" (although I am not of Hawaiian, indigenous, and/or aboriginal ancestry myself; nor do I subscribe to any explicit "leftist" political leanings, as more naive individuals might be inclined to believe), yet nearly all of the previous edits espousing this kind of implicit pro-US/pro-colonial worldview seems to have elicited no comment from wikipedia staff regarding any "NPOV", with some of the comments by authors/staff on this talk page arguing as if the "neutral perspective" on the issue of Hawaiian/indigenous sovereignty lies within a narrative of "liberal-democratic civic/human rights". Also, these same authors above seemingly only attached labels of NPOV to cases in which it appeared that pro-Hawaiian sovereignty activists were editing the article, thus ignoring the real issue of pro-liberal/pro-colonial slanted rhetoric that continues on in this article as of June 2015.

We need more neutral perspectives, rather than this weird parroting of US court rulings/opinions that the majority of this article tends to advocate (implicitly) in favor of.

Anyway, tl;dr, if anyone can fix it up and document this issue in a more neutral and evenhanded perspective (rather than basically taking "sides" against indigenous peoples by the authors in their implicit biases regarding the legitimacy of Hawaiian sovereignty movements), that would be nice. Transnational Capitalists (talk) 00:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

yeah, that whole section reads like the usual 'we are not oppressors, we are liberators' nonsense that conquerors use to excuse their conquering behavior now that they can't pin it on 'god' anymore. By misrepresenting the legal situation such that *any* type of outside intervention is a good idea and certainly a big helping of 'democracy-in-name-only' will make the poor and downtrodden happy.Selena1981 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Uhhh.... Hi people!--Sandstorm120 (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Calling it "Anglo-Saxon" bias is about as racist a comment as there is and speaks to the racial bias of the person who created this talk section. Not all "white people" are Anglo-Saxons---- not even in Europe.