Talk:Legal status of Hawaii/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Proposed sections

Jere:I think to get further into the discussion, we're going to need to break out into several sections. I'd like to propose the following:

• Past legal actions
  • courts
  • decisions

• legislation (apology resolution/akaka bill would go here)

• investigations (Blount/Morgan/NHSC/USCCR go here)

Any other ideas on how to organize the info? --JereKrischel 23:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Laualoha:Sounds great, but as a working mom, Iʻll have to try to find some help. AlohaLaualoha 00:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jere:Instead of fighting over footnotes, why don't we expand the detailed sections with specific references? We break out Blount already, and I made a separate section for photographs. It is not always clear what your citation refers to, and it probably helps to work out the details in more length in a lower section. --JereKrischel 04:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of article?

LarryQ: I thought we had a consenus to rewrite this article. There is no consenus for a merge which I still prefer but if the constant back-and-forth political dialogue which seems to constitute this page continues, maybe some views will change.

Here is what I proposed: "If this article is rewritten and kept, I suggest a short article. How about a brief summary that traces the history of Hawaii from the unification wars that resulted in the Hawaiian Kingdom, the overthrow, the republic, territory, and statehood. This would be followed with one or two paragraphs into why some believe that some of the actions in this sequence makes American ownership of Hawaii illegal with a link into the Hawaiian sovereignty movement article. It would end with a paragraph or two indicating that this is a minority view with a few explanations of why this is so. A See also section could link to similar groups in the USA and the external links section could have a few links to sites arguing for the different views presented."

This rewrite would conform with WP:UNDUE, eliminate charges of slander, and make the article less of an invitation to be a soapbox for one side or the other.

Shall I write something in a personal sandbox page and link to it here for discussion? LarryQ 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:I think the idea is good. The article definitely needs an overhaul. I think that a similar pattern would work well:

1) an opening sentence introducing the question of legality. I think the "who" (activists, scholars, etc.) should be removed entirely from this. Questions of legality are not "owned" by anyone, and it doesn't really matter who raises them. That can be raised later in a discussion of legal actions, etc.

2)Then mention that it is a subject of dispute. To mention an association with the Hawaiian S. Movement in the 1st paragraph is enough, and this should be a NPOV mention. Again, who "raises" the issue is debatable and not pertinent.

3) the major legal issues should be listed in a simple, NPOV manner WITHOUT arguing for or against them or insinuating silliness. Some of these would be:

- Legal backdrop (monarchy, treaties, sugar, etc.) - Questions regarding the Overthrow, including the role of the U.S.

  (to include Blount/Morgan reports)

- Questions regarding the continued legal existence of the Hawaiian Nation - Questions regarding non-Kanaka Maoli Hawaiian Nationals - Questions regarding Annexation and subsequent Resolutions & Acts - Questions regarding WWII - Questions regarding Genocide (e.g. compulsory English, forcible transfer of children, etc.), Disenfranchisement, etc. - Questions regarding Statehood - International Bodies: the U.N., World Court, etc. - Legal actions & remedies sought - Current Issues - Future Concerns - etc.

3) Each of these can then be discussed in a SMALL section of its own. I don't think an actual debate is needed; just an outline of the sub-issues. If there is enough to say, there can be a link to a separate page for this. This is in some ways similar to what was created by Jere & Islandgyrl, and some of their work should be imported. However, I think the format needs improvement. As it is, it's too academic and the font is too tiny to read easily.

4) Minority view or not? We need a fair discussion of this. Personally, I strongly disagree with the whole "undue weight" thing, and I think there is a lot of backing for this. The Sovereignty Movement is a LOT more than the people who show up at demonstrations, and the question of who has what viewpoint rests partly on the question of how many people are informed in the first place, and partly on how they are counted. Wikipedia acknowledges and promotes the countering of internal systemic bias, and I think this needs to be examined before anyone goes jumping to conclusions. Please be aware, too, that people who tout documents like the Morgan Report (which would be looked at with horror by almost any -- even conservative -- mainstream academic today, because of its blatant racism) are truly an extreme minority in Hawai'i, whereas the issue of Hawai'i's political legality has been repeatedly raised by such mainstream sources as public high school textbooks, the U.N. Indigenous Forum, and Pearl Jam.

5) Really good, organized, comprehensive links.

How does this sound? --Laualoha 03:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Jere:A couple of problems with some of your basic premises:

1) Questions of legality are in fact "owned" by those legal systems in place with jurisdiction at a given time and place. Questions of legality are not legitimate or inherently valid, unlike let's say, scientific experiments which can be independently repeated (in which case, it doesn't matter who did the experiment, so long as it is repeatable by others). For example, I could question the legality of your marriage, and your children's births, and your hair color - but without citing a law that I thought they broke, I would not have a legitimate question. Similarly, the "questions of legality" about the State of Hawaii are not inherently valid, and those who bring these questions must be identified as necessary context.

2) Who raises the issue is indeed pertinent, and if we cannot identify and cite the (notable) people with "questions of legality", then we shouldn't even have an article on it. We might as well have a "Legal status of Pearl City" article on the basis of one chinese man who claims to be emperor of Pearl City and its surrounding area. WP:UNDUE certainly applies here.

3) Asserting that there are "major legal issues" is way past WP:UNDUE. There are no major legal issues regarding the legal status of the State of Hawaii. There are activists who wish to raise legal issues, but they have no standing, no codified law, no jurisdiction, no judiciary, nor any legitimate efforts to pursue such a process. This context must be given.

4) Pearl Jam does not a legal opinion make. Questionable public high-school textbooks does not a legal opinion make. Questionable papers, books and articles by activists, scholarly or not, does not a legal opinion make. Participating in U.N. forums and meetings does not a legal opinion make.

5) I agree, we need good, notable links, well organized using the "ref" style.

Please be aware that people who have researched the history of Hawaii, and read the Morgan Report, Blount Report, and the Native Hawaiians Study Commission report, have more understanding and knowledge about the true history of the Hawaiian Revolution than those who have simply read the revisionist history of racial sovereignty activists. Whether or not racial-sovereignty activists would look at "with horror", those who have chosen to nana i ke kumu, and found the historical sources that have been censored and vilified for decades, does not make the study and understanding of this history racist in any way. Read up on Blount - he was a confederate soldier, just like Morgan, and he was a slave owning racist himself.

Whether or not well-educated people are the minority in Hawaii is a debatable question, but one can only hope that people are willing to brave the "horror" threatened upon them for learning the truth by reading the historical record. --JereKrischel 23:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Uh...sorry...but....no.

1)because jurisdiction itself is what is in question here, even if you were right about "ownership" (which I donʻt think you are in this case), that ownership would be international. Anyway, I was talking about the legal questions, which are NOT owned by anybody. You can raise a legal question if you see someone breaking into your neighborʻs house, right? Legal questions about Hawaiʻiʻs status are raised by many many sources in many many venues, and to try to place the focus on and limit it to a "small group" is basically photoshoping the whole thing to make it look smaller than it is.

2)Hah?

3)I believe that is the purpose of this page, is it not?

4)I never said that these were "legal opinions", I said that the issue of whether Hawaiʻiʻs current political status is legal or not has been raised in these venues. If you want to talk about legal opinions, I can cite lots of highly-qualified international lawyers (Francis Boyle, Ninia Parks, and many others) who have given these. Geez, Jere, try read more carefully BEFORE you start the bashing thing, ok?

5)great, letʻs do it.

As for the rest...I donʻt know what to say to something like that! Well, a couple of things do come to mind:

a)the word "projection"

b)braddah, if you really want to "nana i ke kumu", here are some suggestions:

• John Tyler Morgan. At some point youʻre gonna have to face up to the fact that you are actively promoting the work of one of historyʻs biggest racists ever. Almost all the historical evidence you give was compiled by a publically-known KKK Grand Dragon, Jere. I donʻt mean this as an ad hominem, I mean the manʻs life work was so extreme that there can be little doubt of severe racism and ulterior motives in the report, especially when he was actively, publically working on the possibility of sending the "inferior negroes" to Hawaiʻi. E nana i kela kumu! Also,

• Come home and talk to some kupunas, ok? And nor JUST Auntie Ruby, love and respect her as I do. Spend lots of time with kupunas. Our history is an oral tradition, and youʻll never get the whole picture from paper alone. It may not matter in terms of our arguments, but I think it could help lay a foundation of understanding, even if it doesnʻt change your mind.

Gotta go before my little one breaks this computer. If anything I say offends you please let me know, as this is not my intention. Aloha, --Laualoha 04:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jere:1) if ownership is international, you need to cite the governing body of international law in effect in 1893. Since the League of Nations and the U.N. are 20th century bodies, you're talking about an empty playing field there. Insofar as a "legal question" if you see someone breaking into your neighbor's house, you may sit and speculate in your own head about what is going on, but you do not own the decision, or the question, of whether or not it was "legal". You can call the cops, you can testify in court, but it is up to a judiciary, a codified body of law, and a judicial process to determine the question of legality, not a next-door neighbor.

2 & 3) No, the purpose of this page is not to give undue weight to fringe theories and activists without proper context.

4) The importance of Hawaii's current political status, and its legality, being raised in non-judicial settings, is purely academic (as surely you would agree Francis Boyle, et. al. are). It is violating WP:UNDUE to assert that because of a fringe academic opinion, forwarded by a group of dedicated activists, there is any serious or plausible question to the legal status of Hawaii. I have read very carefully, both to Boyle and others, and they've gotten the fundamental facts wrong. In the world of science, they're flat-earthers, convinced of their correctness, but starting from the wrong premises. But again, in any case, it's an armchair discussion - Francis Boyle hasn't filed suit in U.S. court, nor has anyone else, challenging the legality of the annexation of Hawaii, or the Organic Act, or statehood, or the legality of every contract, marriage, birth, citizenship, death, payment, or tax in Hawaii since 1893. If you'd like to start a lawsuit, in a real court (not a court of arbitration like Mr. Sai did), with a real adversarial process, real evidence, and real jurisdiction, this would be the perfect page for it. As far as I know, no such legal action has ever gotten past the imagination stage.

As for the rest, you're going to have to face up to the fact that the racial separatism preached by the sovereignty crowd is EXACTLY what John Tyler Morgan wanted for white people. Morgan was one man on a committee of 9, and if you're going to blame him for being in the confederate army, and the KKK, read a little about Blount too (p572 of the Blount Report, where Blount notes whites are "superior by nature"). Morgan certainly was an extremist in some of his views, but being a racist doesn't mean you can't be fair and impartial in an investigation with 8 other people, and testimony under oath.

And yes, I've spoken to more than just Auntie Ruby. My whole family is littered with kanaka maoli, but the kupuna of any racial background are important to listen to - and the story they tell is a very different one than the one being sold by activists for the past 30 years. Yes, there has been racism in Hawaii - the massie trial, asians not being able to vote, locals against haoles, filipinos against blacks - all kinds of bad stuff has happened in the past. The problem is, you gotta decide how you're going to take the future. Are you going to embrace the racial separatism of John Tyler Morgan, who wanted each race to return to wherever it was "indigenous" to, and keep out of the bloodlines of other races? Or are you going to embrace the "by the content of their character" motto of MLK, and insist not on redressing the past with further inequality, but with a true commitment to the idea that all humans are created equal, in worth, honor, sanctity and value.

And, no, Laualoha, nothing you've said offends me. You've spoken from the heart, and I believe you are passionate and concerned, as I am, with the future of Hawaii. We may have found differing visions because of our different paths, but in the end, I believe we want the same thing. Maybe the solution is to make every non-kanaka-maoli marry into a kanaka maoli family, so that the next generation is all Hawaiian. Starting with 400,000, we could probably turn the entire world into Hawaiians, in two or three generations. Maybe that's the only way it ends, when the racial distinction is no longer tenable...but I'm hoping we can have people treated equally sooner. Mahalo for your mana'o. --JereKrischel 05:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Mahalo... Jere, I gotta say, Iʻm not an "all-fingers" typist, and Iʻm not physically able to respond point-by-point to everything you raise. I have to say that I really am amazed that you are able to fit such a quantity of writing between job, kids and music, because Iʻm doing exactly that, and even trying hard I just canʻt keep up with you.

I think that if there were no legal problem whatsoever, there would not be much of a page here. People are not just making up "issues" out of thin air; there would be no sense in going to the U.N. (where weʻve been recognized in many venues) if there were no case. That would be kinda stupid, and the people in the movement whoʻve done UN work are lots of things, but stupid is not one of them. Just because our "case" has not made it to the "big" World Court, etc., doesnʻt mean itʻs not a case. Besides, there are so many laws broken that thereʻs plenty to discuss without going there. So why donʻt we have that discussion, and then mention our various viewpoints on the size of the movement somewhere? I still donʻt see whatʻs wrong with the organizational structure that was proposed. You gotta admit, as it is, the page is kinda a mess.

Exactly like Morgan? Holy crap, Jere, thatʻs scary. Morgan was a KKK leader & wanted legal lynching, forced deportation, removal of the 15th amendment, and dominance. Nobody here is saying that. What have you been watching? Iʻm not saying thereʻs zero violence, but compared to most of the U.S. itʻs pretty darn low. And where there is violence, itʻs desperate violence by people whoʻve basically "lost it" in their extremely harsh struggle to survive. Kanaka Maoli are at the bottom of every health and economic statistic there is. They are discriminated against throughout the system. Thatʻs really really different than a hood-wearing rich man with a mansion wanting to send Black people away on a boat. If you canʻt see the difference, I gotta say I think something is very wrong. --Laualoha 06:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC) 06:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jere:Aloha, Laualoha, no worries on the typing - this isn't a race, and I'm more than willing to hear what you have to say in due time. I started my career as a data entry clerk at Catholic Charities in Honolulu, worked there for a while as an administrative secretary, and got to typing around 120WPM. Probably the only reason why I manage to juggle the job, kids, and music is because I get insomnia :).

Insofar as your thought that without a legal problem, we wouldn't have much of a page here...I think that's the point for not having much of a page here. People are making this stuff up out of thin air, and the fact that they haven't petitioned the U.N. for a hearing under some article, or gotten to the World Court, or even tried a single case in a U.S. court, does mean it's not a case. I mean, let's talk turkey here - let's say you wanted to make a case that the Hawaiian Revolution in 1893 was illegal. First, the issue of standing - the Kingdom of Hawaii was disbanded and reformed into the Republic of Hawaii, Liliuokalani officially abdicated after the 1895 revolution, and from 1900 on, all the prior political parties of the Kingdom had transformed themselves into participants in the Territory, and later State of Hawaii. There was no Kingdom government in exile, nor even an attempt to maintain such a government by the previous leaders of the Kingdom. Kuhio went to the U.S. congress, for god's sake!

So let's say you do come up with a novel idea of standing, that says "anyone related to anyone who was a resident of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 has standing". Well, that's not good enough, since that includes a bunch of japanese, portuguese, haoles, and chinese. So you try to get standing for "anyone related to anyone who was a *subject* of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893 has standing". Now you've probably got a majority kanaka maoli, but still, you've got a bunch of haoles, portuguese, and a few token asians. Trying to get standing for "anyone related to people of a certain race who were subjects of the Kingdom of Hawaii"...now that's a real stretch.

So first step, you gotta get recognized by some court as having standing. Choices now are U.S. Courts (like the U.S. Court of Claims which adjudicated Liliuokalani's lawsuit trying to get reimbursed for the loss of the crown lands as her personal property), or some international court. So how many people have gotten standing in either of those judiciaries? How many people have even tried? Now, THAT kind of information would be interesting, details on exactly who has attempted to obtain standing in legal venues to contest the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, and what the court's response was. If you could educate me about any of that, I would appreciate it, but my guess is that the failures probably aren't talked about much, since it would demoralize the movement.

Even if you get standing, you need to have some statute of law that your complaint is about - even in civil cases, you need to be able to sue for *something* (although, I am not a lawyer, I've watched lots of TV shows with them :) ). So what law was broken in 1893? Well, gotta find some 1893 law books. And these law books have to be agreed to by both the United States and the Kingdom of Hawaii.

So pretend you find a dusty law book, with a statute that said, "Nobody is allowed to land military troops during periods of civil unrest in the other person's country." Next step, you gotta have a trial. That means evidence. That means a stack of lawyers on the other side trying to rip you to shreds. That means testimony. That means you can't just line up your witnesses in favor of you - you need to contest with witnesses damaging to your POV. Now, besides our enlightened discourse between each other here, when has that ever happened? How many courses are even taught at U.H. manoa, where people get to debate the issues?

Lastly, you need a judgment. That means either a jury convened by some judicial method (assuming that judicial method was also ratified in 1893 by both the U.S. and the Kingdom), or by a panel of judges, or maybe just by a series of judges (since you can have appeals).

So what's the real story? The real story is that this whole sovereignty movement is a cash cow. Get a bunch of people who are already hurting, convince them that it was someone else's fault, and that you're fighting on their side. Take their donations - even $5 to $10 a pop adds up - and continue producing just enough documentation, seminars, speeches, and press to keep them hooked. Maybe you even convince some of them to pay you good money for advice that leads to the loss of their houses for lack of tax payment (looking at Mr. Sai intently). The LAST thing that anyone milking this cow wants to do is actually get a judgment. First of all, the judgment is probably going to go against them (let's face it, the U.N. is simply a collection of self-interested nations that don't want to start setting precedents about turning back the clock to older governments in their history), but even if it went in their favor, they'd lose out on their scam. Come up with a judgment that the Hawaiian Kingdom should be restored, and the State of Hawaii should be dismantled, and the real power brokers come in, and start angling for their cut. Right now the sovereignty activists have a cornered, albeit niche market. If anything hit the big time, the big fish in the very small pond would start looking really tiny in the great deep ocean.

Now, regarding exactly like Morgan, you bet your okole it's scary. Morgan was a KKK leader, and wanted legal lynching. Kanaka maoli miscreants are beating haoles in parking lots half to death. Or kill haole day in school? Forced deportation - have you listened to Trask at all? Morgan wanted to remove the 15th amendment, and the Akaka Bill wants to bypass it. Dominance? How about a special school where only people of the proper race can go? Or special programs only available to people of the proper race? Or health care only available to people of the proper race? Nobody in the movement is saying that it's racism, but it damn well is.

Now look, kanaka maoli are NOT at the bottom of every health and economic statistic there is. You use the one-drop rule on any other race in Hawaii, and you can turn the tables on them. Kanaka maoli are NOT discriminated against throughout the system. We've got a kanaka maoli senator, lt. gov, a whole state agency dedicated to the race, and a school nobody can go to but them. What can't you do as a kanaka maoli? Has anyone told you, "Sorry, you're kanaka maoli, please step to the back of the bus"?

Now, granted, Morgan was a hood-wearing, racist bastard who wanted to ship off an entire race, separate it from his, and I thoroughly despise him for that. But if you can't see just how close that is to the red-shirt wearing, racist bastards who want to elevate an entire race above their neighbors, peers, colleagues and cousins, well, something is very wrong.

Seriously, though, besides the race-based programs in Hawaii, and the shit most haoles have to go through, Hawaii is a pretty mellow place when it comes to discrimination. There are some bad neighborhoods where white folk shouldn't tread, and other neighborhoods where people who don't look well off shouldn't tread, but you really don't have areas where if you're brown, you're going to be stopped by the police. Up on the mainland, there are still lots of places like that.

I think in the end, there are limits to the parallels we draw. Yes, kanaka maoli are not KKK. But kanaka maoli also aren't oppressed negroes. Yes, kanaka maoli aren't nazis. But kanaka maoli also aren't fighting for civil rights like MLK. We exaggerate on both sides to make a point, and it very well may be that we sometimes start believing our own press more than we should. But this I know for certain - the greatest triumph of the kanaka maoli was expressed in their first constitution of 1840, that all people are "of one blood". The high rate of assimilation, intermarriage, and acceptance of the 1800s and 1900s of the kanaka maoli should be a point of pride and a model for the world over. The current trend, towards separatism, factionalized identities, and unequal rights, is something worth fighting against.

Anyway, hope your kids are doing well, and hope you don't take any offense at my mana'o. I know you're a good person, and I hope that in your heart you know that I am as well, no matter how we may disagree on the issues. Mahalo again for reading. --JereKrischel 08:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Laualoha:Yes, I know youʻre a good person. But the only response I can think of to all this is YOUʻVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. Jere, what you say about the movement might make a great conspiracy novel, but itʻs just not reality. Hawaiians are not "beating up haoles in parking lots" on an everyday basis, and Haunani is practically married to a man who is about as white as you can get; theyʻve had a longer, more successful relationship than Iʻve ever had so I think the argument that she wants all haoles "deported" is just plain silly. I happen to know the background on every example you mentioned, and I have to say that you are making far too many assumptions based on what is reported in the paper. Having been misrepresented in the news many times myself, I can pretty firmly say that if you want truth about Hawaiians, the mainstream news is NOT the place to look. If you want blown-up, sensationalized rhetoric, however, well, thatʻs another story.

Wrong is wrong, Jere. I know that "wrong" and "illegal" are two different things, but I work with native law, and I believe that MOST of the time, when something is seriously wrong it is usually illegal too. In this case, I believe that the legal case is quite strong. If you disagree, fine -- but what you have consistently done has been to try to prevent that case from being presented at all. What are you afraid of? --Laualoha 01:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)----Laualoha 01:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jere:Whether or not my assessment of the situation is 100% or not, something does smell about the whole movement. Haoles aren't beaten up in parking lots on an everyday basis, but I'll bet it happens at least once a month, if you include assaults in public schools. Haunani was actually driven to her race-based activism by her white-bread husband, and wouldn't give the time of day to hawaiian boys when she was in school - talk about ironic! Some quotes from trask, if you haven't read them before:

In response to a caucasian student of hers: "Hawaiians would certainly benefit from one less haole in our land. In fact, United Airlines has dozens of flights to the U.S. continent every day, Mr. Carter. Why don't you take one?"

In a speech September 22, 2002: "And if people are upset, so what? So what? I'm so tired of people telling me I make them feel bad. Good! Ten flights a day. United Airlines. Beat it!"

From an article about Trask in 2003: "Professor Trask has composed poetry riddled with themes of hate and physical violence. For example, observe Trasks’ poem “Racist White Woman” (slashes indicate line breaks in the original): “Racist White Woman / I could kick / Your face, puncture / Both eyes. / You deserve this kind / Of violence. / No more vicious / Tongues, obscene / Lies. / Just a knife / Slitting your tight / Little heart. / For all my people / Under your feet / For all those years / Lived smug and wealthy / Off our land / Parasite arrogant / A fist / In your painted / Mouth, thick / With money / And piety.” "

To assert that Trask does not advocate for racial separatism, and the "haole go home" mentality, would require her repudiation of much of what she has already spoken and written. One can only hope that she has made this change in her heart.

And you're right about "wrong is wrong" - in my case, the wrong I worry about is racism, and race-based privileges and government. There just is no good form of race-based government or special privilege, anywhere or anytime in history. The KKK and the race-based sovereignty movement may be different in orders of magnitude, but it is the same evil - just as a child molester who molests 15 year olds may not be as sick as the one who molests 5 year olds, both are acting in an evil manner.

Regarding "native law", what do you mean by that? What is "native law" by your definition? Are you talking about U.S. law relating to native Americans? Or law within tribal reservations? I think the problem you have here is that you haven't made clear in which judicial forum you could possibly bring a case, nor under which body of law that case could be tried.

Insofar as what I've consistently done, I have in no way, shape or form tried to prevent any case from being presented - I have demanded, and I think rightfully so, details of any case to be presented, and in looking past the rhetoric, and going to the sources, I've come to the conclusion that what's going on is a shell game. I'll tell you what, if you want to bring a case against the United States for the annexation of Hawaii, I'm more than willing to help you pay for filing fees in a U.S. court. Let's go ahead, write up your case, figure out what statute or law you'll be citing in your case, and start Laualoha v. The State of Hawaii. Of course, you'll have to agree ahead of time that you'll abide by the judgment rendered (presumably appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court), or by any rejection of your standing, but frankly, I don't think that is part of the sovereignty mindset. My guess is that no matter how many lawsuits were found in your disfavor, or how many reports repudiated your assertions, you'd pretty much fall back on the position that the system is inherently biased against you, and that the system itself is illegitimate. My fear is that once this kind of realization permeates the sovereignty movement, the conclusion of the zealous members will be that the only possible resistance is a violent one. Maybe you could allay some of my fears by indicating what judicial system you would be willing to abide by a judgment from, so we can at least agree on a final arbiter of this issue. Would you abide by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling? A U.N. World Court ruling (or rejection on the basis of lack of standing)? What would you do, if we both presented our cases to these bodies, and they found against you? Would you give up the struggle? Would you begin an internal reconciliation process, and move on to dealing with health, wealth and education issues in Hawaii without regard to race? Or would it merely strengthen your resolve?

I suppose in many ways, this becomes like the abortion issue - if the supreme court doesn't do what you want one decade, you just try and work on replacing enough justices so that it rules in your favor in a later decade. Sometimes this works out (Plessy v. Ferguson), other times we have some backsliding (depending on your POV). I think that for me the bottom line is that everyone in Hawaii should have a right to participate as equals in the governance of Hawaii, regardless of race. Currently, a government such as that exists - the State of Hawaii. I've heard no rational explanation for why the self-determination of the people of Hawaii should be abrogated, and replaced with a two-tiered system of race-based governance. Now, if kanaka maoli were denied the vote, or paid less for the same jobs as other races (like the asians and filipinos were in the early plantation days), or if kanaka maoli were restricted, on the basis of race, from participating in government, I'd be wearing a red shirt, marching right beside you. But advocating for equal treatment is not the same thing as advocating for special privileges. I suppose if I were to be really honest, if we did take our cases to court, and the U.S. Supreme Court and U.N. World Court ordered that Hawaii be turned into a race-based nation, I would resist with civil unrest and I would be willing to lay down my life in the name of equality. Is the State of Hawaii so vile and evil in your eyes that you feel the same way? Is race-based privilege the only way of assuaging your concerns? If you could have a choice between 400 million dollars spent on improving education, home ownership, and health for all the poor people in Hawaii, regardless of race, and using 400 million dollars to give benefits to just one race, which one would you choose? Is it really that important to you that race be a factor?

Anyway, if you've ever experienced racism in your own life, and have been treated poorly because someone knew you were kanaka maoli, I'm certainly sorry you had to experience that. I know that I've experienced racism, both from the "haole" world and the "local" world from time to time (a common hapa experience, probably), but frankly, I lay more blame on the individual racists than on anything else, and have consciously chosen to respond with a re-dedication to the idea that all people are equal. What I'm afraid of, Laualoha, is the idea that we should be treated differently because of our bloodline. That scares me, maybe just a little more than others because I identify as human, not as a specific race, due to my "mixed" bloodline.

So I guess I'll leave it with this - if 1893, 1895, 1898, 1900, and 1959 were water under the bridge, and every last person in Hawaii got a blood transfusion from a kanaka maoli, and the question of race-based privilege and race-based government was off the table, what would you want out of the State of Hawaii and the United States? --JereKrischel 08:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

---

LarryQ:JereKrischel and Laualoha, my apologies. I have not had the opportunity to work on this like I thought. It may be a few more days before I can make a shot at a rewrite in my sandbox.

Looking above, much of what you two have written is not helpful. It is POV and much of it is personal. Maybe some of this could be communicated via e-mail?

Can you find what you agree upon and highlight it for me?

Also, I think both of you are POV on this.

Laualoha, the view that Hawaii is not legally American is clearly a minority view. I am not claiming it is not valid but to conform to Wikipedia guidelines this article has to show this. Any minority view can claim systematic bias as a reason why they are a minority view. (Talk to some of the Texan separatists which I have and they will give you an earful on what they see as systematic bias...) That does not change what the majority view is. Can you help to make the points you want concisely and in the context of WP:UNDUE?

JereKrischel, the majority of people believe that the USA was involved in the overthrow in 1893. That apology resolution by Congress is the last official American government position on this matter. Just like most of the world believes that Hawaii is part of the US, so does the majority world believe that the US was involved in deposing the Queen. You can point out why this might be wrong (including citing the Morgan Report) but to conform to WP:UNDUE, the majority view should be represented the strongest here.

Can the two of you help me with this rewrite? Or, do you feel so strongly about your viewpoint that anything I write will be rewritten into the same poor article we have now over time? Do others have some ideas on this too?

I will get back to this as soon as I can... LarryQ 02:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Legality has no "Undue Weight" & The Majority Are Not Informed

Laualoha:There's no way I can reply to ALL of your stuff, so I'll just say this:

The whole "Undue Weight" thing (if it were even applicable, which it's not) comes down to how you count the numbers. Of course "Those Who Think the Statehood of Hawai'i is Illegal" would be a tiny group if compared with "The General Public", which more or less translates to "The Population of the United States", according to Jere (above, last year). However, this is not an accurate correlation.

To be accurate, "Those who think Statehood is Illegal" must be a subset of "Those Who Know the Relevant Facts", IF your assessment of "weight" is population-based. And I believe it would probably be the majority subset (but THAT is just my opinion; it would be really hard to assess, which is another reason against labeling it "undue").

Most importantly, there is no "undue weight" issue, because the subject is legality, which is not in itself a POV question (at least in theory!).

The re-write is badly needed; there's no way around it. If this "Legal Status of Hawai'i" page is to exist, then the legal questions and concepts must be presented. Otherwise it's NOTHING but POV-pushing, which is exactly what the page was when I first got here.--Laualoha 00:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jere: One could also assert that the majority of people who advocate for hawaiian sovereignty are not informed. Those people who "know the relevant facts", including the gobs of testimony collected during the Morgan investigation, as well as the results of the Native Hawaiians Study Commission report of 1983, overwhelmingly realize that there is no reasonable question of legality.

There may be far-fetched, theoretical doubts about the legality of the State of Hawaii, but we must put those doubts and questions in the context of the ultra-small minority which would even entertain them. One might as well have a page regarding the "Legal status of the Kingdom of Hawaii", which attacks the question of whether or not Kamehameha's unification was legal, or a page regarding the "Legal status of Hawaii pre-1778", which attacks the question of whether or not the very first marquesan and tahitian settlers legally colonized Hawaii, even though it was uninhabited. --JereKrischel 19:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna:Oy vey. Arjuna 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW: Minority is ok if contextualized, "tiny minority" is not

Laualoha:By the way, I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that the illegality of the State of Hawai'i is not a minority view. However, it is not a tiny minority as defined in WP:UNDUE by any means, which would imply fringe status, and serve as an attempt to justify imbalance in representation. I do not have a problem identifying illegality as a minority view, as long as the contributing factors that make it a minority view -- such as immigration, real estate issues, economic and political power imbalances, and unavailability of good information -- are also identified (these are clearly evidenced) and the discussion is properly contextualized (geographically, politically, etc.).--Laualoha 01:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Jere:It certainly is a tiny minority, and it certainly is fringe status. Not a single court has challenged the legality of the State of Hawaii, nor has a single case been brought by any pro-sovereignty activists in any recognized court. No work of codified law, nor specific statute that was broken, has ever been put forth as a basis for challenging the legal status of the State of Hawaii. The question was put to bed over 100 years ago, and every court, nation, and international legal action has confirmed the legitimacy of the annexation of the Territory of Hawaii, and the admission of the State of Hawaii.

Only when you limit your population to fringe activists who have been spoon fed the Blount report and never introduced to the Morgan Report, Cleveland's response to that, the 5 years of the internationally recognized Republic of Hawaii, and the overwhelming 94% vote for statehood can you possibly get more than a tiny minority.

Of course, it is the reaction of fringe groups to assert that their position is the only tenable one because they are the ones with "good information", and everyone else is misinformed...but regardless of how each side would characterize its information, you have to admit that it is a vanishingly tiny minority that asserts that the State of Hawaii is illegal. Out of a population of 2 million in Hawaii, you couldn't possibly find more than a few thousand, and out of the population of the United States, much less the world, that minority shrinks considerably. --JereKrischel 19:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputes with recent edits

Jere:

• Seems important to note which academics and theoreticians are having discussions about the legal status of hawaii;
• Asserting that the troops "allow[ed] the armed takeover" is POV pushing;
• Calling the native-born Hawaiians who participated in the Hawaiian revolution "foreign usurpers" is POV pushing, and inaccurate;
• Cuba, guam and the phillipines don't seem relevant;
• Seems important to note that as a matter of all U.S. jurisprudence the peacekeepers were exonerated;
• Also seems important to note that every nation that ever had diplomatic ties with Hawaii recognized both the Republic of Hawaii and the annexation of Hawaii to the United States;
• Inline editorializing about "made good" is POV pushing, WP:UNDUE.

--JereKrischel 20:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

LarryQ:After watching the edits to this page and the talk page, I do not believe I should attempt a rewrite of this article. A rewrite is necessary but I do not believe I have the skills to bring together in this article the different viewpoints which seem to have for over a year been arguing the same exact points over and over again with no progress. Both sides are engaging in POV editing but each is also convinced they are right and any deviation from their view is POV. I am basically limited to weekends and holidays for major editing bouts and I can not maintain a balance in an edit war. I will focus on Congress and Africa for the time being. Good luck to all of you in getting this article rewritten. LarryQ 02:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:I'm sorry to see you go, but can understand, since I'm on limited time myself.

I will have to do a few fixes now; I will try to be fair, but my reasons are pretty clearly outlined already, I think. Any questions, just ask.--Laualoha 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:Yeah, I've got a real problem with nearly every single one of the edits you did. Can we take on your concerns one by one, instead of doing massive changes, leading to reverts? I guess what I'm suggesting is that we work out compromise language on the talk page before moving it into the article. Thoughts? --JereKrischel 04:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:It's okay for you to edit one-by-one, as I have. Mass reversion is not okay. I think we should start with a "less is more"approach, based on what we can both agree on, and follow some ground rules. There should still be plenty to say, and it would be a lot easier for the readers to follow. Aloha, --Laualoha 18:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere's Specific objections

I am usually against doing line-by-line discussion, but since you have made a list of concerns to be addressed, is it okay if I do so here? If not, let me know and I will change it.--Laualoha 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere Krischel's Objections:

1) it is important to note that the legal status of Hawaii is only a subject of discussion and dispute amongst a certain tiny sub-section of the population;

Laualoha:we disagree on this; it's been discussed pretty thoroughly. I don't mind a statement about the size of the movement (with the understanding that a definitive estimatee is difficult), but this should be a fair assessment and I think it would be ideal if someone else were to propose it. Also, the placement of this issue in the 1st paragraph is not really right as it is misleading and it is hard to make a definitive statement.

2) The "constitutional monarchy" was not taken by anti-Kalakaua people, but power was;

Laualoha:you are correct. I fixed it.

3) Important to note that as a matter of all U.S. jurisprudence, the annexation and subsequent statehood of Hawaii is considered legal;

Laualoha:You can say this, but it needs to be contextualized and made user-understandable.

What do you mean by that? --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:I mean that it sounds jargony, and can be simplified. The U.S. says the U.S. is not guilty. That's a lot easier to understand.

4) Nobody has ever made a claim that the U.S. peacekeepers didn't behave in a neutral manner - the claim made is that their mere presence was either intimidating or would have confounded attempts to confront the Provisional Government;

Laualoha:I've never heard anyone use the term "peacekeepers" outside of the anti-sovereignty groups. If they were "neutral", why did they not stop the armed invasion of the palace?

Jere:They didn't stop the armed invasion specifically because they were neutral - had they prevented it, they would have been taking sides. Insofar as "peace keepers", perhaps we could agree on some compromise? The term seems appropriate given the direct orders given to the men, but perhaps you would be okay with "troops"? --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:You gotta be kidding.

5) Putting peace keepers in quotes is in-line editorializing. If we need to find a compromise, fine, but simply trying to indicate your doubt as to the applicability of the term by quoting it is inappropriate;

Laualoha:Then don't use the term at all, it's POV.

I'll try using "troops" as a compromise, okay? --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Ok, I can accept that. But don't mass-revert and then do it, or it will get lost.

6) The civilians in the picture are being very casual, but if you have a preferred term for that, we can compromise on it;

Laualoha:Neither of us was there; their "stance" is pure speculation.

Jere:Their stance is self-evident, but moot, since we've removed the picture. --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:No, we haven't. Why do you not want the picture there? You can remove the others if space is a huge concern.

7) The photo of the soldiers in front of Aliiolani hale are actual P.G. troops - the original StarBulletin caption was incorrect;

Laualoha:Corrected.

8) The fact that drilling soldiers drew civilian crowds during the Kingdom period is very relevant - it illustrates why the civilians standing around are so casual about being in close proximity to military forces;

Laualoha:If what you say is true (personally I have issues with it), then the picture speaks for itself and does not need POV commentary.

Jere:Again, moot, we've removed it. --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:And again, no we haven't.

9) Talk about "good title" is uncited, and misspoken - there was no military action taken by the U.S. to either maintain the Republic of Hawaii, or effect annexation or statehood, and neither were any legislative measures a part of what Russ said about the Republic of Hawaii being fully legitimate, and therefore fully within its rights to fight for annexation;

Laualoha:The issue of title has been a major land question within the Hawaiian movement for decades, even amongst the conservative Hawaiians. And the involvement of U.S. troops is certainly military action. I don't understand the rest of your concern; please explain better.

Jere:U.S. troops, who didn't fire a shot, nor aim a weapon in anger, is hardly a military action. Similarly, Russ is clearly cited making his statement - if you want to make a rebuttal, you'll need to find a legitimate source, and quote them directly. Writing your own personal words here is definitely WP:OR. --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Good grief. Okay, I'll cite it. It's kinda irritating to have to run around after stupid obvious stuff though. I'm trying to be patient, but you're making it real hard.

10) Nobody at the time in the U.S. argued for the queen's reinstatement after the Morgan Report - if you can find a counter reference, I'd be more than happy to adjust the statement;

Laualoha:I think I could find a ref when I have time. However, the point is that it's not okay to mislead by implying that the actual "findings" in the report are what changed people's minds. That is seriously non sequitur, as we both know force was used by the segregationists. We can get into this, but I don't want to clutter the page, so it needs to be strategized.--Laualoha 20:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:I look forward to your ref. --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

11) The Republic of Hawaii, the Territory of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii are both de facto and de jure - only a very tiny fringe minority argues otherwise;

Laualoha:de facto, certainly. but de jure is the whole question of legality. Why else would this page exist? To have a whole page dedicated to saying that something doesn't really exist would be stupid, and we would be wasting our time here.

Jere:This gets to the heart of WP:UNDUE. --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:If that were true, what is the point of the existence of this page? For you to say that you think there are a tiny bunch of stupid people who won't let go of their dumb ideas of sovereignty? If that's the case, let's delete the page.

12) The political status of Hawaii is also very clear - we have Federal, State, City and County governments, existent and fully recognized.

Laualoha:I don't quite understand your point. Please explain relevance. As I see it, these are certainly in de facto existence, but whether they are de jure or not is the legal question.

Jere:Stating that there is a question about the political status of hawaii is misleading - only a very tiny fringe group believes there is a question about the political status of Hawaii. Every nation, city, state, county and international body does not contest the political status of Hawaii. The political status of Hawaii in the mainstream view is whether or not the governor is republican or democrat - not whether or not the State of Hawaii is legitimate or not. --JereKrischel 20:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:every nation, state, county, and international body does not contest the kid who stole my son's phone last year, either. That doesn't make legal, or any less of a theft.

Jere:I'm more than happy to discuss in further detail any of these objections, as we move forward to compromise. --JereKrischel 07:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Laualoha:That's fine -- would you like me to reply to each item (indented) below the line, or would you prefer that I start here? Either is ok with me, although I feel that some of these questions kind of miss the point(s), and I'll say so rather than answering them. Also, some have been answered quite thoroughly already. Even so, it will take me a while to get to all the rest, especially if you reply to my replies, etc. (which I am pretty sure you will), so maybe we should work out some ground rules in the meantime?

BTW,This is the first time I have reverted an edit. I don't like reverts and though they are tempting I almost never use them. However, you just keep mass-reverting everything I write, and I'm getting kind of tired of re-editing it all letter-by-letter to try to accommodate your concerns, when the same respect is not being shown conversely. Therefore I guess I am forced to play your way unless we can reach some consensus of behavior here.

C'mon, Jere, we're smart people; we can do it...aloha, --Laualoha 10:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Ground Rules

1. No mass reverts. It's not nice. And it could go on forever, which is stupid.

2. In cases where compromise wording is unlikely (like where sections need to be restructured), announce the change on the talk page before it's done.

3. Compromise or no, try to at least word an edited piece differently than it was edited.

4. Let's start with what we can agree on. For starters, if something is offensive on either side, let's take it out. After it's discussed, the subject can be brought in if needed, in the least offensive way possible.

5. Clarity and user-friendliness (including readability) should be priorities. The reader should leave, minimally, with a sense of what the legal issues are, rather than a sense that one or the other of us has tried to shove some dogma down hir throat.

What do you think? Aloha, --Laualoha 10:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Discussion

Laualoha:I have archived the sock puppetry discussion HERE, if anyone wants to see it, to save space on this already-crowded page. Basically, I accused Jere of sock puppetry (using a different login to make unidentified changes), after a bizzare series of reverts to my edits. I was wrong, and should have talked to him first. He's an honest guy, even if he drives me crazy.--Laualoha 20:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

Laualoha:Still, there is the problem of the reverts themselves. I worked very hard on those edits, and I think mass-reversion is wrong, and it makes me mad. I have never done this to you. However, I may now go back to the point that I was first reverted, with an attempt to include the mana'o of others since. I have re-done this by hand too many times already. I don't mind discussing your points of concern, but I do not have to convince you before editing, and I want to be very clear about this. Unless we can agree on some ground rules and principles, we need to cut the whole thing back to items not under dispute between us or this could go on way too long. Aloha, --Laualoha 19:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:Insofar as the reverts, I'm afraid that in fact, we do need to convince each other before editing - because both of us have effective veto power. Consensus is what we need, and unless we can come to that, we will simply change, revert, change, revert, change, revert. I'm more than happy to discuss your issues, and come up with compromises, but simply stating that consensus is not needed before proceeding is probably not a tenable ground rule. At the very least, when you're going to do an edit, you should have some significant text on the talk page explaining and justifying yourself. I'll try and do the same.

Anyway, I'd like to maybe start the discussion about the WP:UNDUE and WP:OR sections recently deleted (parallel overview and photographic evidence). It seems to me that the parallel overview section is arguably WP:OR, and more importantly, putting the annexationist v. nationalist POVs in equal weight, violates WP:UNDUE. I accept the assertion from the other editor that the photographic evidence section is WP:OR, and should be deleted. Thoughts, before we move further? --JereKrischel 20:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Unfortunately, although I love consensus and am willing to work toward it in any way that is actually possible, it is impossible for us to expect consensus beore any changes; I hate to say it, but when I got here I found the page to be extremely biased, and I feel that it is still pretty far from neutral. I doubt that I will be able to achieve consensus with you in any reasonable timeframe on that or most subsequent edits. To expect me to do this is to try to require me to have you "approve" changes you obviously disagree passionately with. That's a power trip, not consensus strategy.

One thing that I want to make clear, Jere, is that I am not saying that my edits are "better" than yours and therefore they should stay, while yours should be reverted, or anything like that. I'm saying that mass reverts are not a good standard at all. I only reverted back to the last hand edits (i.e. before you reverted me). I think you should edit by hand even if you disagree with me, which is what I have done up to the point of the current version of this page. Aloha, --Laualoha 05:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There should only be one, unduplicated photo at the top of the article

Aroundthewayboy:As it is now, there are three photos on top of each other, and two of them are duplicated below (in a pretty short article). I don't think this is very encyclopedic, or well designed. For the record, I just stumbled on this page and am not very invested in it, I just think all the articles should look their best.

So I suggest someone choose the one or maybe two photos they'd like at the top of the article, and remove its duplicate iteration below. I like the one with the soldiers at the palace, but it's weirdly designed to have it repeated right below.

Aroundthewayboy 22:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:as per your suggestion, I've removed the WP:OR photographic evidence section. I believe it was originally a response to a sovereignty advocate who insisted that there was photographic evidence that the U.S. peacekeepers did not remain neutral. --JereKrischel 23:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Aroundthewayboy:Great, I think it makes it a better article, and avoids the problem of Original Research. Although some of that could be reincorporated, such as that one photo's long caption. Aroundthewayboy 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

More specific objections

Jere's Objections:

1) POV pushing "Provisional Government" troops hold Iolani palace with cannons;

Laualoha:I disagree but I'm open to compromise wording.

Jere:Should probably be 'Provisional Government troops guarding Iolani palace' --JereKrischel 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

2) Still concerned with the lack of context as to how fringe this conversation is;

Laualoha:We need to figure out how to fairly assess this if it's an issue for you. I don't see why this page would exist if the whole question is so "fringe".

Jere:That's a good question, and I think forces us to consider whether or not this page should be deleted entirely, and content moved to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement page. --JereKrischel 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

3) "forcibly taken" redundant with "armed force".

Laualoha:ok, agreed.

Jere:I can understand moving things into a history section, so I'll move that back for you. --JereKrischel 20:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:??

Jere:I reverted a change you made to sectionalize things - I reinstated that change. --JereKrischel 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

4) Reference to http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/documentos/117.asp doesn't seem to apply to asserting that international recognition is common in coups worldwide. I think we need a reliable third party source, and a direct quote to that effect. --JereKrischel 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Ok, I admit it's not the best one; it was just what I could get quickly. But it does say this. And so do lots of other sources, though it's kind of hard to find one that's concise because this is so obvious.

Jere:Could you provide the exact quote from that page you believe says anything? I read the page, and did not get the impression that the author was saying that it is common in coups worldwide for there to be international recognition of the new government. --JereKrischel 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

5) "good title" objection uncited and unsupportable. --JereKrischel 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:I disagree.

gotta go. Peace. Aloha, --Laualoha 21:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:Please provide a cite, if you believe it is citable and supportable. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 03:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Some new sources that may help break the impasse

Tiamut:Hi everyone. Laualoha asked me to take a look at this article as I am a member of the Countering Systemic Bias Wikiproject. I have read over discussion here and taken a brief look at the article history. I have to say that despite the back and forth editing involving reverts, the article version as it is now, is quite good. It definitely needs more sources, expansion, and some clean-up, but there seems to be some progress being made.

In that vein, I would like to propose some sources that may help contextualize some of the discussion here and accommodate the differing viewpoints.

1) While it is true that the legal status of Hawai'i has been thought of as settled by many, scholarship on the subject provides a more nuanced view. For example:

Merry's study of Hawai'i is an important contribution on many levels. As Merry points out in the introduction, Hawai'i is often written about as something other than a case of colonialism, but its history must be understood in this context. She is entirely persuasive in arguing the centrality of law to the construction of colonial power, to the resistance of Hawaiian elites, and to the daily lives of immigrant workers. The book will no doubt be read by legal anthropologists interested in the cultural meanings of law, but it deserves a wide readership, too, among legal historians trying to understand patterns of colonial legal politics. Colonizing Hawaii marks an important step toward a much-needed history of U.S. law and empire.[1]

2) The sovereignty movement is not a fringe movement and its opinion on the legal status of Hawai'i is relevant to this article. Consider this source:

Unlike other native peoples in the United States, we have no separate legal status to control our land base. We are, by every measure, a colonized people. As a native nation, Hawaiians are no longer self-governing. Because of these deplorable conditions, and despite the fact that we are less than 20 per cent of the million-and-a-quarter residents of Hawai'i, native Hawaiians have begun to assert out status as a people. Like the Palestinians, the Northern Irish, and the Indians of the Americas, we have started on a path of decolonization. Beginning with the land struggles in the 1970s, and continuing with occupations, mass protests, and legislative and legal maneuvering in the 1980s and 1990s, Hawaiian resistance has matured into a full-blown nationalist struggle. The contours of this struggle are both simple and complex. We want to control our own land base, government, and economy. We want to establish a nation-to-nation relationship with the U.S. Government, and with other native nations. We want control over water and other resources on our land base, and we want our human and civil rights acknowledged and protected. In 1921, Congress set aside 200,000 acres of homesteading lands specifically for Hawaiians. We are fighting for control of these lands, as well as approximately 1.2 million acres of the Kingdom of Hawai'i illegally transferred by the white oligarchy to the United States in 1898. Called the "trust" lands because the Federal and state governments allegedly hold them in "trust" for the Hawaiian people, this land base is currently used for all manner of illegal activities, including airports, military reservations, public schools, parks, and county refuse sites, even private businesses and homes. Because of this long record of abuse, and because nationhood means self-determination and not wardship, Hawaiians are organizing and lobbying for return of the "trust" lands to the Hawaiian people. To this end, we have re-created our own political entity, Ka Lahui Hawai'i, a native initiative for self-government. At our first Constitutional Convention in 1987, we devised a democratic form of government, with a Kia'aina or governor, a legislature and judges, elders, and chief advisory councils. We have made treaties with other native nations, and we have diplomatic representatives in many places. We want recognition as a sovereign people. Sovereignty, as clearly defined by our citizens in 1987, is "the ability of a people who share a common culture, religion, language, value system, and land base to exercise control over their lands and lives, independent of other nations." We lay claim to the trust lands as the basis of our nation.[2]

3) There should be some discussion of the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act [3] which articulates Hawai'i's relationship to the US as a state therein, with the caveat that its native peoples enjoy indigenous status and recognition. There is also a critique of this legislation by Kehaulani J. Kauanui at [4] that explores the pitfalls of federal recognition.

This is just a sampling of the kind of scholarly sources that might be useful to this article. In general, based on my experience in editing in another contentious area (Israeli-Palestinian conflict), I recommend that editors make edits based on reliable sources only and make an effort to represent multiple viewpoints based on those sources. Charges that a viewpoint are fringe can be easily dispelled using scholarly sources. I hope that these comments are useful to you all. Thanks for asking for my input. Tiamut 11:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:One of the challenges here, Tiamut, is that the sources you reference are the product of a particularly virulent revisionist history movement. Certainly they are academic, and better references than the pro-sovereignty websites, but they are not particularly reliable insofar as a balanced view. This is not to say that they aren't useful as examples of the fringe element, but the generally recognized authorities on Hawaiian history, untainted by the post-1970's revisionism, are Daws, Kuykendall, Andrade, Russ, and I'll even go so far as to note Tate.

The concern I primarily have is that this article is being used as an echo chamber, to enhance, promote, and effect the legitimization of the fringe sovereignty movement. Placing questions of legality on the table, when nobody can establish standing, a codified body of law, or a judiciary to arbitrate, seems to violate WP:UNDUE. Although perhaps an interesting scholarly conversation, there is no argument in any judiciary, city, state, national, or international, about either the de facto or de jure status of the State of Hawaii. As a case example, the NHGRA proposes not to make an existing de jure government de facto, but proposes to create a completely new government out of thin air.

I understand that there are concerns about systemic bias here, but I believe they go in the opposite direction - the pro-sovereignty movement has been vocal and insidious about their propaganda, both inside academic circles, as well as out. I believe that we must be careful not to over-represent the existing systemic bias in academia today which has been directed by the race-based sovereignty movement. --JereKrischel 09:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:I understand your concerns JereKrischel, but without a reliable source claiming that these papers represent a fringe viewpoint, and in light of these four different sources above, I'm afraid that you must accept that this POV is not as "fringe" as you are making it out to be. These four sources are but the tip of the iceberg on this subject, and because they are published in scholarly journals and because there are many in such a vein, it sounds rather unfair to claim that they represent a tiny minority viewpoint. If it was so tiny, there would be very little scholarship on the issue, which is obviously not the case. I don't want to overstep any boundaries, but I get the impression that this is a somewhat sensitive issue for you since some of your comments have indicated that you feel personally offended by the native sovereignty movement which you feel discriminates against non-natives. There is nothing wrong with having that opinion or feeling that way, but I ask that you reflect a little on how it might be interfering with your ability to recognize the legitimacy of this POV. NPOV means giving space to all significant viewpoints on an issue. The viewpoints of Hawaii's native community are certainly relevant and significant to this article and there is plenty of reliably sourced information that can be used to represent these viewpoints, in all their diversity and complexity. Please forgive me if I've offended you with my comments, they are not intended to pass judgment, only to encourage self-reflection so that we may find a way out of this impasse. Tiamut 15:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:Of course you're correct - and indeed there are quite reliable sources that illustrate, if not claim directly that the movement is quite as "fringe" as I claim it to be. Whether or not 4, or 400 scholarly papers count as "fringe" or "tiny minority" within the circles of "indigenous law" and academia is perhaps one question - my assertion is that insofar as actual legal opinion, actual judicial history, actual international agreement, this movement is fringe. The two contexts are of course, very different.

I take your advice about making sure to be reflective about my own thoughts on the matter, and hope that it applies to the pro-sovereignty side as well - I believe that emotions on both sides can interfere, and in this case, being unable to acknowledge the legitimacy of the over 100 year history of Hawaii as a legal and integral part of the United States, seems to be a common thread of these various activists, academic or otherwise.

Insofar as the viewpoints of Hawaii's "native community", although there are some small and extremely vocal groups, I think everybody can agree that the sovereignty activists represent only a tiny minority of the 200,000 part-native Hawaiians in Hawaii, and the other 200,000 of them abroad. (Note, these are mostly part-native Hawaiians - as a rule, we're completely enmeshed with each other here, regardless of race.) Perhaps Laualoha may disagree.

I suppose I would be more than happy to make very clear that there is a wealth of theoretical, academic literature on the subject, which has fueled various tiny minority movements (of which some may be considered completely fringe, others may be considered more mainstream - the difference between gaining "federal recognition" and complete independence, for example). But I think that it is also incredibly important to note that in the context of actual codified law, of actual courts, of actual judicial precedent both national and international, the matter is settled. This is not like Palestine, with two separate peoples under two separate governments, nor is it like Taiwan, with de facto and de jure contested, nor is it like Liuthuania, which had a government in exile. This is, if we are to be very honest with each other, a movement started in the 1970s following the Native Alaskan Claims Settlement Act, looking for the same 40 million acres and 1 billion dollars in reparations. This is not a movement that has simmered in Hawaii since 1898, it is one that was invented in 1970.

Anyway, your comments are most welcome, and they encourage thoughtfulness, so thank you very much Tiamut. I know that I'm not always able to avoid injecting some POV tone into my edits, but I believe I'm quite diligent about making sure that I've got the facts and sources right. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 17:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:The New York Times doesn't seem to share your opinions on the sovereignty movement being a fringe opinion. It helped to shed a lot of light too on where there are entrenched positions being adopted here. This is a touchy issue because it's an ongoing one - the debate seems to be alive and well, as evidenced throughout this page. And the debate is certainly not fringe. I was going to restore Laualoha's edits myself, but see that she has already done that. I think that you should consider how the language in your edits completely downplays the role of the US, admitted without whitewashing or difficulty in the NY Times piece, in effecting the seizure of power from the native Hawaiian authorities. I agree that some of the wording in Laualoha's edit also suffers from a lack of NPOV, but you should be working together to address this one by one, not undoing masses of each other's work. Tiamut 20:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Jere, lots of aloha to you, but some of this feels like you are turning a grey area into black by shutting off the light. You cannot quantify the Hawaiian movement any better than I can, and without being able to do so it's rather difficult for you to assert exactly what "tiny" fraction of the 400,000 you mentioned are "in" it, not to mention the non-Kanaka Maoli who make up a big part of every action (scholarly, political, protest, artistic, etc.). Could we not agree that at least most of these people believe that the U.S.' past and current actions have been, at least to some degree, illegal? Also, the "movement" as we know it started on January 17, 1893 (if not before), and has never died. It's true that there were some underground "dark ages" when kids (like my Grandma) were beaten in school for speaking Hawaiian, and when the Japanese were getting interred and nobody else wanted to be next, but Hawaiians kept singing Mele 'Ai Pohaku (there are lots and lots of territorial recordings to back this up)and fighting in whatever way they could, even if that meant "selling out" in the system just to be able to hold on to their land. Please don't mix up the perception of legality with the fear of change. Aloha, --Laualoha 19:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Could we discuss why one version is preferable over the other?

Tiamut:I notice that Jere has reverted to the version he would like to use as a baseline. Arjuna and Laualoha have indicated they prefer the other version. Could Jere explain why this version should be used over the other (and Arjuna and Laualoha follow-up with their reasons as well)? Thanks. Tiamut 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:I have undone Jere's last reversion. I do not mean to say that my content or viewpoint should trump his. However, this version was the last one that was edited by hand, in good faith. I do not believe that we should mass-delete the work of others without very good reason. The primary reason that I did all the edit work (that is continually being reverted) is for the purpose of clarity. I want this to be a page that anyone unfamiliar with the issues and questions can understand. Ideally, I would like it to be very NPOV. However, I am finding it very difficult to remain neutral myself because I simply cannot keep up with the aggressive manner in which the anti-sovereignty POV is pushed. I believe that if we could get past the "Undue Weight" issue (which I do not feel is applicable), we could really create a good, neutral page that simply outlines the many issues needing to be addressed. I would even like to raise some of the issues/questions asked by the anti-sovereignty folks, because think these are important to cover fairly. However, we need a solid, clear forum in which to do this, the central agenda of which is education for education's sake, and not a messy sludge of battling agendas.--Laualoha 01:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:I'm not sure reverting back to your version (at this precise moment) was necessarily the best course of action, though I fully understand the frustration of having your own hard work summarily reverted. Jere, is there a specific reason that you find Laualoha's version to be wholly revertable? Is there no value in the edits she has made, nothing that can be retained? I myself found the chart to be useful in clarifying some of the issues to be covered. Is there any room for compromise here? Tiamut 01:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna:1. I agree the chart has value and should stay. 2. Given that there was strong consensus that the article needed a thorough makeover, I support L's version as the baseline to spark some re-thinking and creativity. 3. I think the entire "Modern Claims to the Kingdom" should go -- the opportunity to use it as a personal soapbox to hagiographize some leaders or slime others is too tempting for some not to abuse, if not now, then down the line. Arjuna 01:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:To answer specifically why I'm reverting back to the last compromise version:

1) POV picture caption, regarding "hold iolani palace with cannons";

2) No indication of the small scope of scholars and activists who bring up any question;

3) De facto v. de jure standing violates WP:UNDUE;

4) "forcibly taken" and "armed force" redundant;

5) "many others" uncited (really only some historians);

6) no citation for "scholars that feel that these actions were illegal", plus WP:UNDUE, with no concrete definition of "legal" (i.e., legal by what measure, under what court?);

7) parallel overview violates both WP:UNDUE, giving equal footing to fringe activists with mainstream and accepted international legal opinion and action, as well as being WP:OR, with personal interpretations and no citations.

I think we can work off of the compromise revision that Laualoha keeps reverting, but I would be happy to hear what her specific objections are to it, before she reverts it again. --JereKrischel 09:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:It seems that at least three editors here (myself included) feel that Laualoha's chart is worth including in the article. Jere has done an excellent job of outlining his specific problems with Laualoha's version of the article. Points one through six seem to minor fixes while seven seems to be the reason for his reversions to his version which does not include the chart. Considering that most other editors feel the chart is a good thing, I would ask that it be restored (for now, without the other edits) and that we work from there. Does this sound okay to everyone? Tiamut 15:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Just a note: the chart is not mine. It was created as a joint project by Jere and a previous editor, User:IslandGyrl. Maybe we should ask her thoughts on it? I agree it has value, but I would like to see some small formatting changes, to make it easier to read. Aloha,--Laualoha 19:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:Sorry about that. I missed who had originally added it to the article. I've asked IslanGyrl to drop by and review the discussion to get a broader base of feedback. Tiamut 20:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha: (I'm placing this question below, so as not to interrupt - I hope that discussion will continue on above)

Seeking Advice: Reversion Quagmire

Laualoha: It's me again. I just have to note that it's probably true that it probably wasn't the best time for a re-revert, given the question that was just proposed. Sorry. After all this time, while I'm getting the tech side of WP down better, the split-second decision-making ('Olelo Hawai'i="wiki") part of the Wikipedia culture is not my strong point, and I could really use some good advice in this area. To tell the truth I feel pretty pressured because if somebody contributes an edit after Jere reverts, there is a layer of complexity added that leaves me in an ethical quagmire. Therefore I feel like I have to re-revert quickly if I'm going to do it at all. I would love an alternative, but I'm not willing to be bulldozed. Any suggestions? --Laualoha 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Greetings. Laualoha, just wanted to mention that there's also the option to undo an edit, which may well relieve the perceived pressure to revert. Anyway, the preceding link also discusses the drawbacks of reverting rather than Talk, though you all are obviously discussing things calmly here. Ciao. HG | Talk 15:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mahalo; that's helpful.--Laualoha 23:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:Aloha Laualoha. Thanks for recognizing that. Like I said, I do understand and sympathize with the difficulties you describe, but it would be best (as you note) to step back sometimes to give time to build consensus or let other editors step in. I have learned this the hard way myself. :) Tiamut 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere:Laualoha, please, let me know specifically what you find objectionable about my version before reverting. I promise I will work towards compromise based on your suggestions and our common discussion. I think you're feeling pressured because it takes you a long time to contribute your edits, and don't want to lose that time - reverting makes you feel like you've saved your time again. I'm more than willing to do the leg work of re-doing sections according to compromises we make together, so please, don't feel that your time is being wasted just because it didn't end up a immediately usable compromise. Again, I'm not trying to bulldoze you, I'm trying to address your concerns, and hope you'll address mine - although it may be easier for you to explain specifically to me what your issues are, and put the onus on me to address them, rather than vice versa, since I get into very specific detail. --JereKrischel 09:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut:Aloha JereKrischel. I have to say that your good faith approach to the editing of this article in spite of the disagreements between you and Laualoha is really very refreshing and commendable. I'm hoping you will consider the suggestion I have made above as a way to move towards a compromise that might possibly alleviate the impasse. Mahalo. Tiamut 15:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:I absolutely do not mind compromising, addressing the issues, or better yet, working toward consensus. However, at this particular moment I am finding the need to re-revert AGAIN, because Jere has changed the article back once more and I'm not okay with leaving it that way. The version that is up at this moment represents the wiping out of many many good faith edits that I made to the article, and to me that is bulldozing. Just stepping back "in good faith" and letting him do it is not a solution. Our queen tried that, and that's part of the reason we're having this discussion today. If reversion is not good, let's start from the point at which it began. And I will do what I can to work it out with Jere. I do appreciate the thoughts, though, and will certainly work to put them into action when I'm not standing in front of a wrecking ball. Aloha,--Laualoha 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: Truce!

Laualoha:BTW, an update for everyone who has been patiently helping with this (mahalo!). I kept my promise to do what I could to work it out with Jere. Yesterday I sought him out in person, and I think we came to a workable solution, at least for now. We will contact each other and try to work out some compromise when there are major issues. Compromise may not always be possible on either side, but at least there is less likelihood of a hukihuki edit war that just keeps going. He has agreed to leave the page as-is for now, and out of respect I personally won't edit this page any more till he returns to editing (of course this does not apply to anyone but the 2 of us). Of course, the issues have not gone away, and assistance in the future will be greatly appreciated from any source. MAHALO NUI LOA to all of you who have helped!!! Lots of Aloha,--Laualoha 22:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Statehood Edit

Larry, sorry I had to take out your edit for now. It was good overall, but it was out of place (the part afterward becomes incorrect if it is placed there, and doesn't make sense), and there were some problems with the wording which I am unable to fix right now because the page is in a state of truce until Jere and I can work out some big-picture differences for this page (BTW you are invited -- anyone else too -- to participate in this if you want to, though you'll of course also have an opportunity to do fixes afterward). However, as soon as we do that I would be fine with your text being replaced (here's a bookmark: [5]) and worked on from that point forward. Again, sorry about that; your efforts are appreciated. Aloha, --Laualoha 15:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

"state of truce" I appreciate that you and Jere are in a truce. However, the two of you do not own this page. Instead of reverting good faith additions form others, perhaps you should edit it? If it is in the wrong place, move it. Obviously, the statehood vote and the UN response to it is relevent to this article and I used text and references you inserted to the Hawaii page to make sure my edit was balanced. Thanks. LarryQ 15:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry L, but I have to agree with LarryQ on this one. His seemed like a good and relevant edit, and it didn't read as a non sequitur to me (which seemed to be your concern?). Still the whole section needs to be fleshed out, for example the argument that the statehood vote in 1959 has been argued to have been in effect a plebescite that made the status legal (I'm not endorsing this view, just pointing out that it is another legal argument!). Aloha, Arjuna 03:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I don't want to come off like I think I "own" this page, I just want people to be aware that if I do something like a reversion (which I generally oppose on principle), rather than editing the text (like I would normally do), that's why I'm doing it. It's not others who are limited by our truce, it's me. I can't edit right now. But I can't let wrong stuff stand, either.

I agree that the edit had some good points, that's why I don't want to lose it. However, it has problems too, such as: 1)the part directly following it (which I believe was meant to follow the overthrow/annexation era) says, "At the time of the events in question, there were no independent international venues to arbitrate between the opposing sides", which is very weird following a statement about the UN's actions, doncha think? 2)the statement "which gave the vote some validity under international law" is editorializing. Readers should be able to make their own judgement about validity, especially since 3)the same sentence reads "the United Nations decolonization committee later removed Hawai‘i from the list...", which is misleading; Hawai'i was removed so quickly (and at the U.S.' request, with no discussion or opportunity for intervention) during the same year (1959) that it's kind of hard to call this action "fair", which this sentence as it currently reads strongly implies. Plus, major work is underway to get Hawai'i back on the list, and because of the way in which it was removed, there is a very strong chance of success (although it would probably be quite low on the list and there are lots of valid issues about what this would realistically mean). And 4)I just think the section could open up more clearly, with "statehood" in the beginning. There's other "fine point" editing that I would do, too, but that's the main stuff...

Actually what I would really like to see in a total re-vamp of the page is a very brief, NPOV timeline in the "history" section, and then an expanded version of each major point (overthrow, annexation, Statehood, etc), like a bigger, easier-to-read version of the current table, where the basic arguments (with some space limits) can be compared. This is why I suggest holding off on major edits till the revamp is done, and why I really want to invite everyone who cares about it to participate in the discussion if possible. Does this make sense? Aloha, --Laualoha 18:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I still feel you could have edited my contribution instead of reverting it. Here is how I would edit myself based on your comments:

"1)the part directly following it (which I believe was meant to follow the overthrow/annexation era) says, "At the time of the events in question, there were no independent international venues to arbitrate between the opposing sides", which is very weird following a statement about the UN's actions, doncha think?"

So let's add a section on statehood or put it at the end of that section.

"2)the statement "which gave the vote some validity under international law" is editorializing. Readers should be able to make their own judgement about validity,"

Rewrite to read "which some believe gives the vote validity under international law." To avoid a weasel word here, I would add citations to one or two law journals from proponents of this view. Many believe this vote settled the matter so it will be easy to get high quality citations for that view.

"3)the same sentence reads "the United Nations decolonization committee later removed Hawai‘i from the list...", which is misleading; Hawai'i was removed so quickly (and at the U.S.' request, with no discussion or opportunity for intervention) during the same year (1959) that it's kind of hard to call this action "fair", which this sentence as it currently reads strongly implies."

The sentence is saying exactly what happened. The UN did remove Hawaii from the list, fair or not. A sentence should be added (with citation) that some believe this was unfair to get what you are expressing.

"Plus, major work is underway to get Hawai'i back on the list, and because of the way in which it was removed, there is a very strong chance of success (although it would probably be quite low on the list and there are lots of valid issues about what this would realistically mean)."

No problem. When Hawaii gets readded to the list, we will put this in the article.

"And 4)I just think the section could open up more clearly, with "statehood" in the beginning."

OK. Back to my comments under #1...

I appreciate you and Jerry are rewriting this. In the meantime, others can make changes to this page. Hopefully, you can take the new additions and move them into your rewrite. Please, no more reverting me? I edit in many other places at Wikipedia and I will not be here every day or even every week. I can't imagine you can not work with my contributions. Thanks, LarryQ 19:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As an outside observer, I admire your efforts to collaborate and revamp. But I think it's unrealistic to expect people either to not edit or to only propose edits here, unless you've got a real short deadline. Instead, perhaps Laualoha could post an outline (detailed subheadings) of a potential revamp so as to elicit suggestions.

At the risk of sounding foolish (and/or biased), let me add: (a) It does seem to me that revamping could follow the key features of the historical accounts and the legal arguments of the opposing side. (b) One key question -- is this article really only about "theoretical" questions? I see that claimed in article and in Talk, but then I also see quite practical legal actions discussed as well. If it were theoretical, I would expect the key features to be given headings drawn from analytical jurisprudence or political theory. (c) Anyway, to be responsive to Jere's concerns about WP:UNDUE (which I'm afraid has substantial merit), the mainstream view (does it self-identify as annexationist?) could be given pride of place in each subsection, followed by the nationalist critique (etc). (d) You also might try broaching the question of relative POV weights at the outset. Concede and substantiate the strengths of the mainstream de jure view, then document the tenacity and continuing relevance of the nationalist view. This would also help set up the two (or more) rival camps/views, which don't seem to be introduced in the article currently. Please accept these as ideas as given in good faith. Thanks! HG | Talk 20:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Let the Undue thing rest!

Look, I'm just gonna tell everyone right now that I am not going to accept the "undue" thing, which I think everyone should have figured out by now. This has already been discussed quite thoroughly, with the input of other editors and extensive documentation. Many days' worth of work have been spent already, and I think it's enough. If needed, I will get all the legitimate backing necessary to kick whoever's editing butt I have to, but a big fight is just going to waste everybody's time, so let's not go there. Bulldozing indigenous peoples and then calling them "fringe" has just gotta stop. We can delete the page if it cannot be made fair to the people it concerns; that is an option we can discuss. Otherwise, equal side-by side comparison is not going to kill anyone (the facts will speak for themselves and should show the "undue weight" you're trying to push if it exists), and population size (along with the "weight" issue, if you insist, but I must point out to you that our small size, as Skippy Ioane's song goes, is "the evidence, not the crime", ok?) can be discussed by both sides along with everything else. I am making a very good-faith effort at being very civil and working well with difficult people, and I'm being pretty damn patient with this systemic-bias-confused-with-an-undue-weight-issue thing, but I'm tired of talking about it and I'm not budging on this, period, so don't even ask me. At this point, it's Fair & Equal or bust. Anything else would be pono'ole -- lacking in rightful integrity, to put it mildly. Sorry to have to put it bluntly, but there it is. That's the end of it. PAU. Don't make me say it again. Mahalo & Aloha, --Laualoha 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this response indicates we should stop discussing this here. The matter is not settled but there is no further point trying to resolve it on the Talk page. Time for outside arbitration? If that is too formal, are there other routes to get admins who have ruled on the undue issue to look at this and give this page an opinion? One view is not fringe but it is a minority view and there are rules for how that is treated in articles which are not being followed here. We can ignore the issue but it is going to keep coming back as others editors discover this page.

"We can delete the page if it cannot be made fair to the people it concerns; that is an option we can discuss." That may be the final fate of this page. I would hate to see that happen as the article I just started on the Legal status of Texas would probably be deleted shortly thereafter if this page goes. However, this article could be merged into the Hawaiian soveriegnty movement article easily and the Undue rule allows for more 50/50 coverage on pages about a minority movement.

Does anyone have any experience on how to get admins involved here without filing a formal arbitration request on how Undue should be applied here? I have 4500+ edits and have never made such a request before. However, this needs adressed and in a way other than L "kicking my butt." LarryQ 00:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I didn't quite expect Laualoha's response, so I'm still thinking about whether I have constructive feedback on it. Meanwhile, you might want to look at Resolving disputes. I've seen folks make good use of both Requests for comment and Third opinions.

Incidentally, I see no reason to delete either article, Larry, because notability looks solid and, while I have no crystal ball on how things might play out, the NPOV dispute looks like it could be ironed out by editing the article one way or another. I also see no reason to merge the HI & TX articles, though perhaps there is / could be a shared category for sovereignty disputes, or an umbrella article (provided there are sources on the overall phenomenon, not just WP:SYNTH). Thanks. HG | Talk 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks HG. This is good advice. I will look into this option. This issue is not going to go away and some fresh eyes on this from people who have not been recruited to comment by an editor involved here would be appreciated. Maybe several of us (or all of us) have got the Undue thing wrong. Wikipedia is a constant learning experience. BTW, I was not suggesting that the legal status of Texas and Hawaii articles be merged. Hawaii would go into the Hawaiian Sovergeinty article and the Texas article would probably be merged into the Texan Sovergeinty movement equivalent which is Republic of Texas (group). Thanks. LarryQ 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about misreading the merger idea. fyi, I wasn't recruited to look here but perhaps my eyes are stale. ;) Good luck to all. HG | Talk 03:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Revamp

As far as the potential revamp, I've already proposed it multiple times now with very little response, but here it is (with more detail, ok?) again:

FIRST, an opening paragraph similar to the one that currently exists, with 1 or 2 pertinent historical pictures.

NEXT, a BRIEF NPOV timeline. Pictures would be good as well. Yes, ideally with consensus on the captions, which should also be BRIEF.

(because there are so many legal/political terms involved, somewhere in here we might want to have either a small, very NPOV glossary of conceptual terms -- without any attempt to say how they apply to Hawai'i, or a "see below" kind of thing with the glossary at the bottom. If everyone has to click on words like "de jure" and "decolonization" to get what these things mean, it screws up the flow, and will probably lead to a lack of understanding).

THEN, I think we should go into an expanded timeline with 2 columns, side by side, giving the 2 sides of the argument -- BRIEFLY. This is somewhat similar to the table that currently exists, but I would like to see something larger, easier to read, easier to understand, and slightly more detailed (in terms of quantity of points, but not in terms of length of explanation of those points). Some obvious "rungs" on the timeline would be:

• the formation and structure of the Kingdom government

• Diplomatic History: Treaties, Membership in Family of Nations, etc.

• the Bayonet Constitution

• Lili'uokalani's Ascendancy and the 1893 Constitution

• The Overthrow

• The PG

• The Blount Report & Cleveland's actions

• The Morgan Report

• The Wilcox Rebellions & the Queen's imprisonment

• The Turpie Resolution & Cleveland's cessation of support

• The Republic

• Annexation & the Spanish-American War

• The Territorial Period & Government

• WWII

• Statehood

• Formation of the modern sovereignty movement & actions

• The Apology Law

• International legal actions

THEN, I think that the major issues that are not strictly time-dependent should be discussed. A short overview of the issues involved is needed first for each (this may require a bullet list or short section apiece), and then a side-by side comparison of the major viewpoints (for some of these, such as the Akaka Bill, there are more than 2). Some of these include:

• The current status of Kanaka Maoli (statistics, etc.)

• Relevant existing State & Federal laws

• International laws & their application

• The ethnic composition of Hawai'i and sovereignty-related legal/political questions regarding non-Kanaka Maoli

• Issues of emigration/immigration

• Issues of land use & ownership

• Indigenous issues (Legal/Political), history & alliances (such as the Dalai Lama's supportive role & Mililani Trask's position as the UN Western Indigenous Rep)

• Forms of sovereignty (Legal issues)

• Texas (ok, Larry?), Alaska, Cuba, Puerto Rico & other "regional" independence movements

• Pacific Decolonization (role of & effects on Hawai'i)

• The Akaka Bill

• The composition & role of the Hawai'i Advisory Council to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission

• etc.

OK, so what does everybody think? A response would be good this time -- only Jere has responded in the past. If you don't like it, why? And based on your reasoning for dislike, what do you propose? Put it out there and let everybody decide already. Mahalo! Aloha, --Laualoha 22:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. One thing though: discussion of the various events should 1. be short (in this article); 2. point to the main Wikiarticles on those subjects; and 3. those articles themselves need attention. The devil is going to be in the details, as a look at the matrix on the talk page of the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom article illustrates. Aloha, Arjuna 23:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Points taken.--Laualoha 23:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comments - Neutral point of view: Undue weight (Legal status of Hawaii)

Please note that members of selected projects have been invited to comment by another editor [6]] [[7]]] and that the comments below may not be representative of the Wikipedia community on the issues of UNDUE and WEIGHT. LarryQ 10:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The editors do not have consensus on the question itself.

"The original question posted was: Editors on this article disagree on how to apply WP:UNDUE to this article. The view that the USA does not legally own Hawaii would appear to be a minority view. However, there is also a view that giving the minority judgement on this issue equal coverage as the majority would not be misleading as to the shape of the dispute but is only fair. Outside views on this are appreciated so that we can apply this policy correctly.!! time=00:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)}}"

The current posted question reads: " Editors on this article disagree on how to apply WP:UNDUE to this article. Issues include: 1)whether the belief that the current status of Hawai'i may be to some degree illegal constitutes a "significant minority" or "fringe" viewpoint, and how this is measured, 2)what constitutes a "majority" (e.g. majority of the world population, or majority of those informed about the historical facts?), 3)what constitutes legality, and 4)Whether as an indigenous issue, different factors apply in the balancing of "weight"."

The reposted question does not ask the same question being asked in the original question. Issues such as the false assertation that one view may be fringe and the ad hominem belief that people who disagree with the minority view are ignorant did not appear in the orginal question. This may be a failed attempt at the FfC process as a result. LarryQ 15:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobody used the word "ignorant", Larry. Ignorance exists when information is before a person and yet it is ignored in the formulation of a viewpoint. In this case, the vast majority of those who assume that Hawai'i's status is 100% "legal" don't even have enough information access to be ignorant! Aloha,--Laualoha 18:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• Laualoha:I believe that the idea that equal coverage of this legal issue constitutes "undue weight" is systemically biased. There is no factual question that at least some of the U.S.' actions in Hawai'i were potentially illegal; the "undue weight" issue has therefore been a question of degree, perception, and the assumption/fear of potential remedies or outcomes. Some problems include:

• Legality of "ownership" is not the central question by any means, and the question of "weight" should not be tied to this concept, which contains inherent bias. Readers can make their own judgements on this based on the facts and descriptions of the basic arguments. Questions of "ownership" are conclusions, not facts, and exist upon a wide spectrum of issues.
• This page will not be harmed by equal coverage of the viewpoints involved. It is certainly okay to say (in fair language) that the view that Hawai'i's current status is illegal is generally a minority viewpoint, but it would be biased to give unequal coverage based on this, since the majority view is generally historically uninformed, and the question of exactly what is illegal (Policies? Statehood? Any U.S. presence? Dashboard hula dolls?) is an outcome-based matter that is not really ours to define here, outside of the description of various viewpoints.
• de jure legality is not defined by public perception (which can be exemplified but is almost impossible to quantify). Legal questions do not really need to be quantified; "Undue weight" does not really apply to a legal discussion.
• "Illegality" constitutes a very broad spectrum of possibilities, without any regard to what results these should entail. Parts of this spectrum overlap significantly with the mainstream view (for example, there is a broad perception throughout Hawai'i [reflected in standard history textbooks] that the actions of Minister Stevens and the Marines were in fact illegal; this was confirmed by the Apology Law [PL 105-150] signed by the U.S. President and Congress -- hardly "fringe" entities).
• The argument for "undue weight" is largely ad consequentiam. There is much confusion in this debate between the legality of the U.S.' actions and the question of what should be done about them; "what should be done" is purely speculative and should be treated as such, except for a fair, balanced documentation of the legal efforts toward specific remedies. Americans both inside and outside of Hawai'i have a strong emotional investment in its stability and cultural/political accessibility, not to mention in the belief that the U.S.' actions are ultimately just. This investment needs to be acknowledged and separated from the legal question.
• The legal argument is not quite the same as the argument for sovereignty. The assumed "fringe viewpoint" that is often referred to in the "undue weight" push is probably assumed to be that held by "those working toward the restoration of sovereignty", which is in fact neither fringe nor an accurate quantification of the legal viewpoint. Though related, they are separate arguments, and need to be treated as such.
• Systemic bias is a major factor here, and has not been addressed. Less-than-equal coverage implies less-than-equal validity, and this is not right. With no education otherwise, the mainstream assumption that Hawai'i's status is legal is obvious, and "feels better" than the alternative, which tends to raise questions of legality in other U.S. actions and screw up people's dreams of retiring in Kona. That doesn't make it right.
• There is confusion between a world view and a U.S. mainstream view. The statement "Every single nation on Earth has recognized the legal right of the USA to Hawaii" (below) is clearly incorrect. Few nations have taken any position at all, and none that I know of (well, except, um, Iraq and Libya, who both clearly researched and noted U.S. illegality in Hawai'i...but, well, I'm not bringing that up in the article...) have addressed the de jure question whatsoever; de facto recognition is common international practice for trade purposes regardless of legality; no assumption can be made about whether a country views another country's actions as legal or illegal based on this. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much world trade at all!
• This is an indigenous issue, and deserves fair representation as confirmed in the recently adopted U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The population of Kanaka Maoli (which has done much of the legal work on the questions) have suffered discrimination and abuse as an indigenous people, which has affected our ability to effectively achieve due legal recourse; this needs to be taken into consideration in this question, especially as the small population size of the "Statehood is illegal" viewpoint has been partly created through documented oppression.
• The bottom line is that in a legal discussion, The relevant facts should speak for themselves, and we should not be trying to assign "weight" to any of them.

Aloha, --Laualoha 15:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC) p.s. I would appreciate comments on the proposed "revamp", above. Mahalo! Also, FYI I may edit this comment later, as it's past 5 am. Aloha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)

Thanks for outlining your points, Laualoha. I think there are some points of agreement between us; for instance, I think we both sense that an article on "legal status" needs to distinguish public perception and de facto treatment of Hawaii, which does not determine the strength of the "annexationist" vs. "nationalist" arguments on matters of law. However, I am puzzled by what you say about de jure legality. It seems like you believe that Wikipedia is incapable of weighing viewpoints (you say: "not really need to be quantified" and "Undue weight does not really apply to a legal discussion.") and somehow the facts (you mean the legal arguments?) should speak for themselves. But facts don't speak for themselves. As we know from Wikipedia policy, we valorize the use of secondary sources to interpret facts and to weigh (or "quantify") views. Therefore, I don't think we can avoid our responsibility to give weight to contesting views. Below, I give my opinion that legal arguments are best gauged, as undue or not, by our use of verified adjudications of legal arguments. If you disagree, and are willing to respond to those of us who do not believe that the facts here speak for themselves, how do you think Wikipedians can tell which legal theory argument is the majority view? Thanks for your consideration. Respectfully, HG | Talk 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it's okay to say (in a respectful, unbiased manner) whether a view is a majority or minority view, but it's not "black and white", and some of the complexity needs to be explained (though briefly, for the readers' sake) in order to give an accurate picture. However, some things that are not okay are 1)giving greater coverage to one view versus the other or portraying one as more valid because it is held by more people, or 2)deliberately marginalizing a viewpoint by portraying it as smaller than it is. Does this make sense? Now as far as referencing the facts, I agree that good sources are needed in general, though sometimes the sources themselves may be points of debate. Aloha, --Laualoha 02:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• LarryQ:I believe that the view that Hawaii is illegally owned by the US is a valid one and worth writing about in Wikipedia. However, it has also been a minority view since 1898 when the USA annexed Hawaii. Every single nation on Earth has recognized the legal right of the USA to Hawaii ever since. Also, the majority view of the public in Hawaii, the USA, and international community is the same. As such, I feel the article should highlight the prevailing view while still discussing the merits of the arguments by those who disagree with it so that this article conforms to WP:UNDUE and does not mislead as to the shape of the dispute. LarryQ 01:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Additional points responding to comments raised above:

1. This page will not be harmed by equal coverage of the viewpoints involved. This could be said of any page at Wikipedia. Why not let those who believe that the world is flat or that the Holcaust never happened have equal coverage on a pages touching on these topics? (This is an example to illustrate the point of the importance of undue and am not comparing L's view to either group.) This is why we have the undue weight rule at Wikipedia. Those who are proponents of minority views often claim those who disagree with them are uninformed or ignorant. However, Wikipedia is not a bandwagon for them jump on and use to spread their version of what they feel is true.

2. de jure legality is not defined by public perception. No, this is determined by international recognition of sovereignty claims and court decisions. The acceptance of Hawaii being an American state is 100% by the world community. And there have been no court cases (in the United States or by international courts) that have ever ruled anything other than that this is so as well. The American claim is considered de jure. Those who disagree with this are a minority and the article should reflect this.

3. The argument for "undue weight" is largely ad consequentiam. I disagee. What may or may not happen based on the arguments being discussed has no bearing on what consitutes the prevailing public and legal view of the underlying legal issue.

4. The legal argument is not quite the same as the argument for sovereignty. Indeed thay are not. What may or may not happen based on the arguments being discussed on the issue of Hawaiian Sovereignty has no bearing on what consitutes the prevailing public and legal view of the underlying legal issue.

5. Systemic bias is a major factor here, and has not been addressed. Less-than-equal coverage implies less-than-equal validity, and this is not right. With no education otherwise, the mainstream assumption that Hawai'i's status is legal is obvious, and "feels better" than the alternative, which tends to raise questions of legality in other U.S. actions and screw up people's dreams of retiring in Kona. That doesn't make it right. There may indeed by bias in the international legal system. That does not change how international law works or has been applied previously. And again, it is common for holders of minority views to questions the education and intelligence of those who disagree with them as is done with this argument.

6. There is confusion between a world view and a U.S. mainstream view. The statement "Every single nation on Earth has recognized the legal right of the USA to Hawaii" is clearly incorrect. There is no confusion in views. The international community makes choices in who to recognize and who not to recognize. By failing to protest or refuse to acknowledge American annexation, the international community has recognized the action as legal since 1898. I suppose since no country has specifically addressed the annexation of North Dakota, we can not assume that the world accepts North Dakota as de jure American either? That makes no sense.

7. This is an indigenous issue. I was not aware that Wikipedia had a different set of rules for dealing with articles addressing indeginous issues.

8. The bottom line is that in a legal discussion, The relevant facts should speak for themselves, and we should not be trying to assign "weight" to any of them. Some legal arguments have more bearing than others. They are not all equal. Giving equal coverage to legal theories that have never been tested in an international court as though they were the same as the legal arguments which support the current majority de jure view is the heart of how this article has been violating the undue rule.

Thanks. LarryQ 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no claim in the original question or in my statements that that L's view are fringe. I am claiming that it is a minority view (which is valid of coverage) and that Wikipedia has rules for governing this in article coverage. Unfortunately, many of the comment solicited by L are misconstruing what the argument is about which is making this RfC not the neutral dispute resolution mechanism this process was meant for. (Why else are these comments referencing fringe when this is not part of the discussion?) The question is, how do Wikipedia rules on UNDUE and WEIGHT impact how this article should be written when there clearly is a minority view which is not fringe but is also clearly minority? Maybe the rules on UNDUE and WEIGHT should be changed but until then this is not what the discussion is about. LarryQ 13:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Larry -- if there is no problem, then why did you call for this discussion? I have said many times (and I guess I'll have to repeat it again, which I feel like I've been doing a lot lately)that it's good to give an ACCURATE context for the argument within the article, which should include a BALANCED,RESPECTFUL description of the relative sizes of the adherents, with enough CONTEXT that a general picture of this very complex picture can be formed. This should explain, amongst other things, why the sizes are disparate and rather difficult to quantify, without misleading anyone. This will give people a very fair picture of who the majority is, and, to a certain degree, why. If you don't think that's fair enough, then what do you want? This article is basically about an an argument. As such, marginalization of one side in any way is wrong. Inequality in coverage on this page is not justified by any policy. When an argument surrounding minority rights is presented, over-application of a concept such as "undue weight" in limiting the expression of that viewpoint is racism. When majority assumptions are based on established bias and lack of information, they should not necessarily hold more weight simply because they are larger. You may not be using the word "fringe", but in your actions there is a clear push toward imbalance. That is not right. Also, comparing the balanced representation of those who believe the US' actions were and/or are illegal to that of "flat earthers" and "holocaust-never-happened" advocates, as you very clearly did above, is offensive. Aloha, --Laualoha 18:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laualoha (talk • contribs)

Larry, your #5 is cogent. Wikipedia relies on mainstream/majority viewpoints, legal decisions, etc. To the extent that indigenous people see the mainstream law as unfair, then it they may see our articles as unfair. Rightly or wrongly, though, our policies do function to put more emphasis on majority views. Your #2 seems mostly fine to me. Maybe put more emphasis on de jure US law decisions, which have addressed the matter. But I wouldn't claim 100% (unless merely de facto) int'l support without references, esp in light of claims that the UN Declaration applies to Hawaii. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Arjuna:I endorse the comments by LarryQ, which accurately summarizes my position as well. Although I personally don't think the current status is "illegal", the issue is no doubt murky to say the least, and the article should elucidate these issues in a fair way. Note I have fought (and will continue to do so) for an accurate representation of the events of 1893 in Wikipedia's articles, and so my stance on this particular article is that it should make a distinction between "is" and "ought". Aloha, Arjuna 01:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna:::I think one should be very careful in appraising the value of WP:UNDUE, since that cuts both ways. Among other instances, I am referring to other Hawaii articles that give far too much weight to minority/fringe viewpoints that dismiss the validity of the "overthrow was illegal" POV. Do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Aside from that, this discussion is getting too nasty and personal. I do not like the facile implications of racism and supression that are now being invoked. This is offensive. No one has written anything here (at least what I have seen) that is even remotely so. What I have seen are rational arguments, even if one does not agree with them, and so no one is opressing anyone else here. I stand by my endorsement of LarryQ's comments dated 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC), and I can only assume that what he said has been misconstrued. Btw, it doesn't matter where he resides, his arguments are what matters and those editing from Hawaii have no greater validity than anyone else. So everyone chill out, stop trying to bully people by throwing scary words around, and bring back a little aloha into the discussion. It used to be a Hawaiian word. Arjuna 11:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Laualoha:Aloha! You make good points, Arjuna, though I do not agree with some of them. I do not think anyone is actually trying to bully anyone, though we probably all feel bullied, as many of us have become rather defensive in all of this...ya, we should all "chill out" for sure. As far as the word "racism", I did use it. I am not applying it to any person, but rather pointing out that marginalization of an oppressed minority does have a cumulative effect of systemic racism, and should be recognized as such. As for the Aloha thing, you're right Arjuna (the word is present tense). No debate there. As far as where Larry lives, no, it does not matter in terms of validity of his point, but what I heard Kaihoku point out was also valid: the movement is much bigger than it would probably appear from a far distance. The word "fringe" was not used by Larry as far as I recall; however, it has been brought up several times by another editor that we all know and love, and was used by outside editors responding to the original rfc question; I am concerned about this. As far as the double-edged problem, I agree that there is a correct place & time for WP:Undue to be cited, but I strongly believe that this is not it. If we stick to the reasonable, informed guidelines that Tiamut proposes, instances of true abuse would not slide through. You & I disagree on the legal advocate/venue thing. It's a long, complex process, but it's definitely documented and moving, with significant support, through several established legal venues. My proposal is to quit this debate, which is unlikely to do much but infinitely loop from here on, and to start working on the revamp of the page itself, which will certainly spark the same controversies -- but at least then they will be over actual wording rather than hypothetical unknowns, which I believe tend to generate fears. Less fear, more aloha. Plan? --Laualoha 15:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

JereKrischel: Wow, great discussion going on here! In general I think my concerns and issues have already been addressed by LarryQ and HG, but I'll reiterate a few points for emphasis.

• Every single nation - If we keep our focus to every single nation with representation at the United Nations, or every single nation which ever had diplomatic relations with the Kingdom of Hawaii, clearly the legality of the annexation of Hawaii, and its subsequent self-determination to statehood is unquestioned. Although there are groups that call themselves "nations" that may recognize various other groups as having de jure governance over the Hawaiian islands, these are not part of the universe of "nations" as used in the common sense.

• Clinton's apology - Tiamut wrote, "Clinton officially apologized for the overthrow the Hawaiian government in 1993 and acknowledged the illegality of this act and the subsequent annexation of Hawaii". If you read the text of the Apology Resolution, you'll specifically note that only the overthrow is ever called "illegal". The whereas clauses mention the following, without asserting that they are illegal:

• • Whereas, on July 4, 1894, the Provisional Government declared itself to be the Republic of Hawaii;
  • Whereas, on July 7, 1898, as a consequence of the Spanish-American War, President McKinley signed the Newlands Joint Resolution that provided for the annexation of Hawaii;
  • Whereas, through the Newlands Resolution, the self-declared Republic of Hawaii ceded sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands to the United States;
  • Whereas, the Congress, through the Newlands Resolution, ratified the cession, annexed Hawaii as part of the United States, and vested title to the lands in Hawaii in the United States;
  • Whereas, the Newlands Resolution also specified that treaties existing between Hawaii and foreign nations were to immediately cease and be replaced by United States treaties with such nations;
  • Whereas, on August 21, 1959, Hawaii became the 50th State of the United States;

I'm quite sure that the U.S. Congress would never have passed a bill that declared the annexation and subsequent statehood of Hawaii illegal - they clearly make a qualified difference between the illegality of any intervention by the U.S. during the overthrow, and the later annexation and statehood.

• Keanu Sai's complaint to the U.N. - Tiamut notes that "Hawaiian representatives have submitted a formal complaint to the United Nations Security Council", and links to an article printed in Honolulu Weekly, and quoted by a pro-sovereignty blog [8]. The real question is, Tiamut, did the UN Security Council respond? Anyone can submit a formal complaint to the UN - getting any sort of response is the hard part. I would argue that unless you can show that the UN actually did anything more than accept the 139 page letter Mr. Sai wrote, this is a textbook case of fringe. If I reported to you that I got a receipt via registered mail of a 150 page complaint I sent to the U.N., declaring myself Lord British of Venezuela, would I have just as much credibility as Mr. Sai?

In the end, I have no problem with cataloging, describing, and writing an excellent article on the very fringe pro-sovereignty groups claiming de jure supremacy over the Hawaiian Islands. They have an interesting history, and are worthy of critical attention. But we must make clear the context of their claims, and the fringe nature of them. Whether or not these fringe groups seem to make good theoretical arguments, or moral arguments, is not something I'm trying fight at all - but I do think it should be clear, regardless of how moral or well intentioned these people are, they are not anywhere in the mainstream, they have no accepted legal weight or any actual legal judgments in any accepted court of law, and act purely in the most theoretical and academic circles.

I understand that this take on the issue can be seen as demeaning and biased against those who hold these views - but that is certainly not my intent or purpose. My fear is that any given fringe group has as its basic purpose to get its view considered mainstream, and that this kind of article becomes a soapbox for them to stand on. Rather than countering systemic bias, I believe that it is a perpetuation of systemic bias - a systemic bias pushed by a fringe group desperate for legitimacy. Much like any article on a small but fervent religious group, I think we need to be respectful of their beliefs, but this does not require us to state their beliefs as factual or mainstream.

Anyway, that's my $0.02 for now, mahalo for everyone for the very useful discussion! --JereKrischel 20:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut: It's good that you understand that your take on this issue can be seen as demeaning and biased. Self-reflection is good.

While it is true that the law does not explicitly call the annexation illegal, international legal scholars (some of which are cited in the links I provided you above) do note that the illegality of the overthrow can be interpreted to render the whole sequence of events thereafter illegal as well. Indeed, that's almost implicit in the law itself, which after all, is a formal US apology to Hawaiians for usurping their land and sovereignty.

I don't think we should be afraid of mentioning that Mr. Sai went to the UN about this issue. It got significant media coverage (in other words if we follow Wiki policy regarding reliable sources and WP:NPOV we most certainly should mention it). Your personal view that Mr. Sai's visit is insigificant or ridiculous doesn't really hold any sway here, to be quite frank.

I think in sum that part of the problem here between you and Laualoha boils down to your deep investment in the issue as people coming from two opposite spectrums in the debate and for whom the outcome of this debate will have significnt ramifications. There is a kind of simmering lack of respect for the validity of the "other"'s viewpoint. I think we need to shelve those viewpoints, focus on identifying reliable sources and the issues they raise that need to be covered in the article. Perhaps it might even be best to write the introduction at the end after building a mean lean body to the article based only on sources and their faithful representation.

Mahalo for your thoughts JereKrischel. Tiamut 20:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "fringe" for legal arguments

HG: Hi. Don't know you Jere, but I'm inclined to second Tiamut here that you and Laualoha seem a bit too entrenched. Regardless of our POVs, we all need to be editing as if we are neutral. Anyway, let me press you on one key point:

• You keep using the term "fringe" in it's ordinary meaning, e.g. a marginal group. Besides being derogatory, it is confusing because "fringe" also has a technical meaning within the very WP policy (UNDUE) we are discussing. In WP, "fringe" refers to views that are so odd, extraordinary or non-credible that they don't even belong within the respectable discourse on a topic. For instance, medical journals don't bother to refute astrology, geologists don't refute flat earth, etc. Likewise, legal journals don't bother discussing outlandish legal arguments. However, peer-reviewed legal journals and courts have willingly opened their discourse to the nationalist arguments about Hawaii. So, the issue here isn't what WP call a "fringe theory" but rather a "significant minority" view. I urge you to describe your impression of the marginality of the sovereignty movemen without the word "fringe" and in a respectful way. Perhaps Tiamut can suggest less demeaning language for Jere's impression?

Anyway, those are my thoughts. Thanks. HG | Talk 21:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

JereKrischel: Yes, Laualoha and I have become entrenched quite a bit, but I believe we can still work together productively. I keep using the term "fringe" because I am asserting that the technical meaning as per WP:UNDUE holds here - I do believe that the view that somehow the State of Hawaii is not de jure is so odd, extraordinary, and non-credible as to not belonging in respectable discourse on the topic. I disagree with your assertion that "legal journals don't bother discussing outlandish legal arguments" - it is quite par for the course. On the other hand, courts don't bother discussing outlandish legal arguments, and save the very creative Keanu vs. Sai case, where two people sued each other, agreed to move to arbitration, paid the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague something like 30,000 to arbitrate between them, and then tried to find a third party culpable (which the PCA rejected), there is no court record, other than perhaps Liliuokalani's 1910 lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Claims which she lost.

That being said, just as we can have a respectful article on Astrology, without asserting that their claims have any medical merit, I think we can have a very respectful article on the Legal arguments of Hawaiian nationalists, or a sub-section in the Legal status of Hawaii which addresses them in proper context.

It could be that this is simply a matter of expressing context - in terms of courts, law, precedent and existing institutions, the pro-sovereignty view is fringe, in the WP:UNDUE sense of the word. However, in terms of scholarship, academic theory, and perhaps even social visibility, the pro-sovereignty view is a "significant minority". How can we make this article separate out those two contexts? How can we present the fact that Astrology is believed by many, acknowledged by untold millions, without making the assertion that it is a viable indicator of personality or fate? This, I believe, is the core problem - the one of context. Laualoha is correct that the people who hold these views should be portrayed respectfully, but I strongly disagree that these people should be portrayed as being legally viable in any court, jurisdiction or body of law.

Anyway, thank you for your comments, I hope mine have more clearly expressed what I mean by "fringe" - no disrespect is intended by the use of that word, I simply believe it is accurate in the context of international, federal, state and local law. --JereKrischel 23:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, one other thing, regarding Tiamut's comment, "Your personal view that Mr. Sai's visit is insigificant or ridiculous doesn't really hold any sway here, to be quite frank." You are correct Tiamut, whether or not Mr. Sai's visit is insignificant isn't my call - it is the UN's. And unless the UN response to his submission was anything other than, "thank you for dropping off your note", I think their opinion is clear. The fact that a press release was reported upon by a minor weekly magazine doesn't give Mr. Sai's actions any legal weight. I believe that as critical editors, either we should specifically note that, "No further information regarding the UN response to Mr. Sai was forthcoming," or otherwise make clear that his actions did not further or establish his legal standing in any jurisdiction. I'm sure given some small effort, we could get a press release into the Honolulu Weekly stating that Tiamut submitted a document to the U.N. Security Council declaring sovereignty over Cuba. I guess when it comes to reliable sources for legal opinion or information, I'd shy away from magazines that are mostly entertainment pieces (not to say they can't do decent journalism, but they certainly aren't very authoritative in any legal sense, and any journalist worth their salt would have followed up with what the UN said back). If you could find any information regarding the UN's response to Sai, I'd be very interested - it has been a numbe of years since 2001, and an update to the story would be interesting. --JereKrischel 23:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC) NB this para can be moved above this new subsection HG | Talk 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

JereK, thanks for clarifying your position. Here's where I think we disagree on the "fringe" WP policy. You concede that there is academic scholarship on the "nationalist" view and even (reading earlier in Talk) that it is a "significant minority" within academic legal discourse. However, you distinguish between legal scholarship and rulings/decisions of law, which you say (or note) consistently go against that view. Due to such legal decisions, the view is a "fringe" position for WP purposes. Am I hearing you right? Conversely, I would apply WP:Fringe differently to the same data, for 2 reasons:

• First, your understanding of fringe is based on the view's lack of success. You seem to think that a theory that fails is fringe. However, I disagree. WP:Fringe isn't merely about failing or being wrong. Fringe means that a notion is so discredited it isn't even discussed by reputable sources within a given discipline. Our guideline contrasts "fringe" with "mainstream" minority ideas which are "at least somewhat discussed as being plausible within major publications (large-circulation newspapers or magazines) or respected and peer-reviewed academic publications." (Similarly: "One important bellwether for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer reviewed research on the subject." my emphases) Fringe happens when an idea is so implausible or discredited it doesn't even get discussed by a discipline, when it doesn't get its day in court, so to speak. The Hawaiian nationalist arguments are discussed within the discipline, certainly in the peer-reviewed literature and even in some legislative and court discussions (besides that contrived PCA case), including the 1910 case as you acknowledge. (What about in Congressional level discourse?).
• Second, the distinction between legal scholarship and decisions that you draw (or imply) is a distinction that doesn't hold. There's a continuity between the discourses on many levels both in US law and elsewhere. Judges and legislators read law journals and see them as part of their discipline. (Whereas scientists don't see fringe theories like Flat Earth as within bounds.) Further, the Hawaiian nationalist arguments aren't even limited to what you might claim are themselves "fringe" law journals -- no, the arguments are given a hearing in a wide range of mainstream law journals. Your distinction implies that legal decision-makers consider legal journals as making room for "fringe" theories. But this splitting of the discipline is one of your own making. Is there any basis for it within Wikipedia articles on law? I don't see it. Plus, it runs contrary to the whole definition of "fringe" as an idea that can't make into peer-reviewed literature. Think of it this way. Science journals reject ideas that fall utterly outside the scientific method, but unsuccessful scientific ideas do get covered as plausibly mainstream. Law journals likewise determine which ideas are based on sound legal reasoning & legal data, hence they remain plausible and not fringe, even if such ideas fail time after time in court.

Thanks for hearing me out. I suspect that I haven't persuaded you. I'd be glad to know why. But have I at least helped capture our points of disagreement? If so, then we seem to disagree about how to apply Wikipedia policy to a shared understanding (i.e., mostly deferring to your knowledge) of the reliable sources. This kind of disagreement could be ripe for a narrow RfC or a request for third opinions from policy-minded Wikipedians. Let me know what you think. Thanks again. HG | Talk 05:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Following continuation is copied from User Talk. Outdent. HG | Talk 16:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere: Aloha HG, and thank you for your note. I suppose to elaborate on my point, legal journals, and lawyers for that matter, are in the business of coming up with arguments, regardless of how "fringe" they may be - the novelty of an argument does not make it unacceptable for publishing in a legal journal. So if a professor of "international law" makes a proclamation that the Thracians were illegally displaced from their homelands, and deserve international reparations, and builds an entire article dedicated to that premise, a legal journal will not out of hand dismiss it.

However, that same professor, submitting a plea to either the ICJ, a U.S. court, or some court in the Balkans, would be laughed at and dismissed with prejudice.

In many ways I think this represents the Homeopathy issue - there are fervent believers in Homeopathy, who insist that it is real science, and real medicine. [9] But it is not science, it is pseudo-science - there is no evidence that water can have a "memory" once it has been diluted to the point where none of the original molecules in the solution remain. Just as the pro-sovereignty movement is not law, it is pseudo-law.

That being said, I believe that covering this "pseudo-law" movement is important - but in the context of a social phenomena, not a legal one. Were this an actual legal movement, over the past 30 years, we would have seen actual court action. There has been none. The primary reason for this is that in an adversarial format, the premises and basis of the pro-sovereignty argument would be ripped to shreds - they can only maintain their rationale if they don't allow anyone to challenge it. As an example of the conclusions made when all sides are given time to argue and defend their points, see the Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report, particularly the section on Existing Law, Native Hawaiians, And Compensation.

The hallmark of this movement has definitely been an attempt to make their current claims legal ones - and to do that, they've resorted to legislation like the Apology Resolution and the Akaka Bill. But as I illustrated before, one cannot legislate facts, and the Apology Resolution, tested in court in Rice v. Cayetano, was cited but ignored. So are these people creative? Absolutely. Are they doing a good job of muddying the waters enough to convince the layperson of their legitimacy? Perhaps. But they have not dared step into the courtroom.

In conclusion, I believe that there is a place for an article on challenges to the legal status of Hawaii, but it must be done in a context of psudeo-law, rather than being given full weight as actual law. For example, the abortion debate in this country, or the gun control debate in this country, has a long judicial track record on both sides. We would consider "fringe" any other "legal" POV that does not actually engage the judiciary system, such as the Free Vermont movement. Or are we willing to create a Legal status of Vermont page? --JereKrischel 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

HG: Hey, I'm not opposed in principle to a Vermont page, except that I found no law journal articles on the topic. (There is a book review.) Conversely, simply searching for "Hawaiian sovereignty" turns up 119 articles on Nexis, many clearly on topic. Anyway, I like conversing with you and we both seem to be pretty civil and making intellectual arguments. (Do you feel the same way so far?) I think we're at an impasse but we've really narrowed down the reasons for our disagreement. Let me push you a bit no clarify the disagreement again. (1) You think peer-review law journals are publishing "fringe" views, as defined by WP:Fringe, whereas I argue that widespread peer-review publishing demonstrates that they are not "fringe" views. (2) You believe that failure or dismissal by courts today indicates "fringe", whereas I think lack of practical success is not sufficient evidence to make a legal argument fringe. Also, you downplay the relevance of the sovereignty view in at least one old court case (1910) and in such recent cases as Rice v. Cayetano (you concede that the view was cited but that's irrelevant because the court ignored it). (3) Based on what you say above, you further want to distinguish between legislative efforts and the courtroom. If the courts do not give much or any hearing to a legal argument, then you believe the argument is "fringe" even if the legislatures including Congress are open to discussing the legal arguments. Conversely, I believe that the legislatures, the courts and peer-reviewed law journals all comprise and determine the mainstream discourse of law, so plausible arguments published in any of these settings are "fringe" views. If you feel the above portrayal of our disagreement is a bit slanted, maybe you could suggest some edits. Then, given our impasse, maybe we can use this description to elicit other opinions. What do you think? Thanks very much for your thoughtful analysis and responsiveness. HG | Talk 16:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Jere: Aloha HG, a quick search yielded no law review articles on Vermont independence, but it did reveal the following for west virginia: "Is West Virginia Unconstitutional? Vasan Kesavan; Michael Stokes Paulsen California Law Review, Vol. 90, No. 2. (Mar., 2002), pp. 291-400. Stable URL: [10]" Certainly the pro-sovereignty folks have done a lot of work getting good academic coverage (certainly more than Vermont or West Virginia), but I still argue that coverage in peer-review law journals does not make the argument any less fringe.

Side note - I am greatly enjoying your commentary, and take no offense at your challenges to my viewpoint.

I think I would more likely argue the following: (1) peer-review law journal articles do not make for "mainstream" legality - for example, "Coalition-Building between Natives and Non-Natives by Haunani-Kay Trask" in the Stanford Law Review Vol. 43, No. 6 (Jul., 1991) hardly speaks to a mainstream point of view. I would imagine that a critical look at the articles that have appeared in these law journals would show more clearly how theoretical and polemic they are, but I'm willing to be corrected if you have a specific citation you'd like me to take into account.

(2) I wouldn't argue "failure or dismissal" necessarily - I'd more argue complete lack of attempt. I would be very interested in compiling a list of all the judicial attempts made and their rejections - in fact, such a list may repudiate my POV and cause me to reconsider. But AFAIK, there have been no attempts to even gain standing in any U.S. or international judiciary, barring again the Larsen v. Sai case which dismissed the case because there was no disagreement between the two parties to arbitrate on (they were disagreeing with an absent third-party). My skepticism regarding Sai comes both from his criminal record, as well as his sale of DVDs regarding the case - his motive seems to be self-serving and financial, but others may seem him in a different light.

(3) Regarding legislative efforts, I'm not sure that anyone is making legal arguments through legislation - perhaps I wasn't being as clear as I could be. The current legislative efforts have primarily been to protect existing race-based programs from legal attack. The Apology Resolution, and the Akaka Bill are both to that effect on their face, and have been asserted to be so by their sponsors. That being said, the "fringe" I speak of have taken this legislation and asserted that it bolsters their legality, and makes the State of Hawaii illegal. Certainly Congress in its deliberations or considerations have never even addressed that matter, or if they have, have specifically spoken against it.

So to complicate things I suppose, we have (a) existing race-based programs in Hawaii that are of importance to important politicians, (b) powerful Hawaii senators mostly able to pass legislation or get legislation considered, (c) fringe scholars, academics and activists who attempt to leverage symbolic legislation into legal precedent. Is the argument that native Hawaiians deserve race-based privileges fringe? I would say not - there are real cases arguing whether or not existing race-based programs are constitutional or not, some which almost made it to the supreme court before settlement, and others which outright repudiated the race-based nature of OHA trustee elections and qualifications. There is a real judicial record to be contended with. However, there is no real judicial record to be contended with on the question as to whether or not the State of Hawaii, or annexation in 1898, or the establishment of the Republic in 1894, was illegal.

Maybe a better word for me is "academic" rather than "fringe" - the discussion about the "legal status of Hawaii" is equivalent to a discussion about the "legal status of the Thracian Empire". Both may be of academic and theoretical interest, but they are not valid or current legal issues before any judiciary existing today.

I hope that better explains my position. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 18:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: In the 1910 court case that Liliuokalani lost, she didn't argue directly that the overthrow, declaration of the republic, or annexation was illegal - she argued that the crown lands that were seized by the Republic of Hawaii, made expressly public lands, and later transferred to the U.S. federal government in trust for the Territory of Hawaii, were her own personal property. The U.S. Court of Claims disagreed with her argument, holding that as per Kingdom law, the crown lands belonged to the office of the monarch, not the monarch themselves. With the office vacant, they were reasonably converted to public lands.

Just in case my earlier citation of that court case wasn't clear - I don't see it as supporting the view of sovereignty activists, nor arguing their case. It does, however, set the legal precedent in U.S. courts that the establishment of the Republic, and subsequent annexation of Hawaii, was legal. Sovereignty activists cite this case, but don't often read it. --JereKrischel 19:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, Jere. Let me first revise #2, "You believe that lack of attempt at litigation ...." Oh, you also clarify the rest of #2. Since I don't know the cases, I'll plead nolo contendere on the 1910 ruling. For #3, it sounds like I may be mistaken insofar as legislative efforts don't address the "nationalist" view. (I.e., the view that you deem "fringe".) Or perhaps some legislative efforts do lend plausibility to the "nationalist" view, as I think Laualoha contends in your Apology discussion below -- in which case, you'd retort (I gather) that any such aura of plausibility is insufficient to make it mainstream. The key point again being the lack of a judicial record. Well, I think that clarifies why we disagree over whether to apply "fringe" to the nationalist view.

Of course, then you conclude with an absolute teaser. You say you actually like "academic" better, because the view is of theoretical interest only. At first glance, this seems to concede entirely to my opinion, since I believe "fringe" views are on a different plane than academic and theoretically plausible views. But are you really suggesting a possible compromise here? Could you live with the article as long as it characterizes the nationalist view as something like: "an academic or theoretical view that lacks a contemporary judicial record." If so, then maybe you folks could agree to treat the view as a "significant minority" view, for the purposes of WP:Undue, but one to be qualified by the aforementioned chacterization. (sorry for my awkward, tired wording) I don't want to put words in your mouth, because you haven't said this at all, but I figured I could run it up the flagpole and see if it flies... (Well, if you do salute it, I can stop sounding like a lawyer and go back to my day job as a Wp editor.  :-) Take care. HG | Talk 19:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

HG, you've done me a great service in making me very careful and clear about what my thoughts on this matter are, thank you. Understanding that "fringe" and "academic" in this context are synonyms for me, and not synonyms for you, helps clarify our disagreement greatly. I agree wholeheartedly with your characterization of an appropriate compromise - in terms of academic and theoretical views, I accept that a "significant minority" holds a "nationalist" view (we still need better labels than "annexationist" and "nationalist" - but we can save that for another time). But that view must be qualified in terms of lacking any contemporary judicial record (or any supportive judicial record for that matter). I am happy to move forward with the article on those terms, and hope that they are respectful enough to Laualoha and her honestly and strongly held convictions. I cannot speak for her, and it may be that Laualoha and I will be unable to bridge the "academic" versus "judicial" gap - certainly there are many people in the sovereignty movement who believe very strongly that their arguments are more than theoretical. But having language to more accurately describe our differences is of great value to improve our understanding, on both sides.

Mahalo for your very constructive questions and help with this article. /salutes/ --JereKrischel 08:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I've also learned alot through this conversation. Ciao. HG | Talk 23:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements from editors previously involved in other Hawaii-related disputes

• Kaihoku: Aloha! Howzit, my friends? I'm back, and I'm actually NOT doing battle with the notorious "mass-revert Jere" ! Amazing! (Just kidding, Jere. Well, sorta. :) FYI, I am mostly Irish and German, with just a very little Cherokee and even less Hawaiian. Yes, I am considered "haole". So now you know where I'm coming from, race-wise. My Hawaiian spirit is more in my heart than in my blood.

I'm going to primarily tackle the question of significant minority viewpoint VS. fringe. By way of disclosure, Laualoha alerted me to this dispute.

I am baffled at those who consistently resist the challenges to the legality of Hawaii's takeover. It's as if they want to deny history and avoid any apologies or reparations. Systemic bias does come to mind in this dispute. Separately, it's possible that LarryQ, being that he is in Michigan, likely is not aware that the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement is as prominent in Hawaii as it is. It underscores much of Hawaiian politics; it's often mentioned--regularly--directly or indirectly, in the Hawaii newspapers and TV news (at least once a month if not more); and it ALL traces back to the legal status of Hawaii. Also, how can this be a fringe issue of undue weight when both the Akaka Bill and the Apology Resolution's efforts towards reconciliation are directly tied to the legal status?

In no way could it be compared with the Texas and Alaska movements, which are true fringe groups and hold, according to Jimbo Wales in WP:UNDUE, extremely small (or vastly limited) minority viewpoints. For example, the Alaskan Independence party has approx 13,500 members in a state of over 600K, and the Texas movement claims adherents of 40K in a state of over 23 million.

By contrast, there are not one but AT LEAST six organizations that support and promote Hawaiian sovereignty, and at least several groups against. It is admittedly hard to obtain an exact total count; however, let's say there is about 120K Native Hawaiians in the state (10%). Then let's assume only 1/3 support sovereignty, giving us 40K adherents in a state of 1.25 million, and that doesn't even take into account non-Hawaiian sympathizers. That's a far greater ratio than Texas or Alaska!

Additionally, tens of thousands have shown up at protests & commemorations, year after year, on January 17th and other important occasions; and there are many adherents to the sovereignty viewpoint who are prominent in the state of Hawaii, as noted in Hawaiian Sovereignty Movement. There is also a great number (not to mention diversity) of claimants to the throne of the lost Kingdom. As there is no comparable phenomena in the U.S., I say it all argues against undue weight/fringe.

Native Hawaiians make up about 10% of Hawaii's population. New Mexico has the same percentage, and Alaska has a whopping 16%. Yet do you hear about sovereignty protests in these states? Do they have ANY groups, let alone those with significant numbers, that annually commemorate the overthrow of their native land, as Hawaii does? Again, all this activity within Hawaii has it's roots in the dispute over Hawaii's legal status.

It is often said that history is written by the victor. Yes, the majority viewpoint is that the U.S. holds legal claim to Hawaii--I accept that. However, there is a significant minority viewpoint. Just look at all the information that has gone into this article AND the talk page--do you really see any "fluff" here? There's a lot of diverse, quality content here supporting this significant minority opinion (see Tiamut's work), which also argues against undue weight/fringe.

Sooo, to sum up my stance: Undue weight? Hardly. Fringe? Laughable. The legal status of Hawaii--the majority viewpoint--is not in imminent danger of change, so stop trying to quash this significant minority viewpoint.

Kaihoku 11:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna::Quick reply. Perhaps I have allowed myself to be misunderstood. First, LarryQ has said explicitly that he was not suggesting that this was a "fringe" POV, and I definitely have not and never would suggest that. So let's get that part out of the way. Second, I was not advocating, nor is my understanding of what LQ was saying, that the arguments for illegality should not be presented, or that they be given short shrift. They should, absolutely, and I'd fight any attempt to supress that. (And I don't think LQ was advocating that either.) My point is that: 1. No one should fool themselves into thinking that they can "prove" anything per se in this article. There is another editor here (who hasn't weighed in yet, but we all know who he is) who is certain to challenge any representation of history that acknowledges something illegal happened. Aside from short summaries (as I mentioned to Laualoha) in this article, the place to make that case are the individual articles (Overthrow, History, Liliuokalani, Thurston, Morgan Report, Blount, etc). And it need not be said that I've been right at the front lines there. 2. While the legal case for the illegality of the U.S. annexation should be prominent in the article, it should be presented within the context that these are legal arguments that currently have no major international advocate nor a recognized and empowered legal venue in which they can be addressed. This is the status under the dominant (indeed, only) legal structure. I am not saying I like that situation, only that Wikipedia policies do not allow an article to be a soapbox for either side. Does this make more sense at least insofar as what position I am suggesting? Aloha, Arjuna 03:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC) (moved by Arjuna 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC))

You are correct, LarryQ did clarify that he did not suggest it was a fringe or insignificant issue, which I do appreciate! Kaihoku 04:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna::Btw, I'm not a lawyer so much of this is out of my area. Has anyone looked at whether or not there is a possibly relevant comparison to be made with the U.S. seizure of the Black Hills from the Lakota Sioux? The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was indeed an illegal act in 1980 (the legal redress was monetary restitution, which the Sioux to this day have refused to accept). As I understand it, however, where the two cases diverge -- and my point is that this divergence might be illustrative -- is that what happened in the Black Hills was under territory already "granted" to the Lakota by the U.S., while what happened in Hawaii occurred when it was a sovereign state, so the U.S. cannot judge it as illegal except under the laws of a now-defunct government. No attacks please -- I'm trying to help the sovereignty POV, not question its validity, but the point is that this may be a way to illustrate how Hawaii has a definite "case" but no legal context in which to argue it. Arjuna 03:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

HG:I agree with Kaihoku that the nationalist's have a "significant minority viewpoint." However, I think we disagree about the relevance of Wikipedia policy. Here's what WP neutrality policy says about significant minority views:

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all. ... We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. " (emphasis added)

The first and last sentences hold that a "significant minority view" needs to be represented, but in proportion relative to the majority view, without undue emphasis on the significant minority. So both majority and minority views are covered, but proportionately, not equally. HG | Talk 05:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but how to determine what the proportion should be? And quite frankly, I would be glad to put in a sentence to the effect that it is a significant minority position in exchange for additional space in which to pertinent details of the minority. Kaihoku 04:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors not involved in this dispute

• I believe that the alleged illegality of the US claim on Hawaii is definitely borderline fringe. Borrowing from the WP:FRINGE guideline, a viewpoint is fringe if it is not possible to find reliable sources that name prominent adherents of said viewpoint. Since this article is titled Legal status of Hawaii, the claims that the US acted illegally and/or is still holding the islands illegally should stay, as long as they can be sourced. They should definitely be labeled minority views though to avoid WP:WEIGHT issues. The concepts of conquest and prescription by sheer passage of time and the impractical nature of any sort of reversion could be good arguments in favor of US sovereignty, IMO. Ngchen 03:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I commented briefly above[11] with my initial impression that the "nationalist" position should not be given undue weight.

• I'm fairly certain that it's what our policy calls a "minority" position. Nevertheless, looking at the article and now doing a quick Lexis search, I see that sufficent reliable sources establish the "nationalist" view as what WP policy calls a "significant-minority" (and not a "tiny-minority" or "fringe" view).
• Now, it's fair to ask, how can we tell which legal theory argument is the majority view? With academic theory in general, we would look for high quality literature reviews on the topic, though this can devolve into competing POVs among reviewers. With legal theory, though, the strength of competing legal arguments are actually judged by adjudicative bodies, e.g. the courts, the legislatures, etc. Let's leave aside majoritarian public opinion or "de facto" evidence that Hawaii is legally part of the US. Overall, time and again, adjudicative bodies are giving the so-called "annexationist" view far more weight and deciding against the "nationalist" legal argument. (As shown in the article, etc.)
• Perhaps the best case for giving the "nationalist" position more weight is the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I say this not because Wikipedia is somehow bound to respect indigenous rights. Rather, we should note that Article 26.3 does say "States shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources." However, for better or worse, this hasn't helped lend much weight to the "nationalist" legal argument (yet). Why? Well, (1) it's only a declaration, (2) the USA didn't sign it and US jurisdiction is key here, (3) it's not an actionable judgment, and (4) it arguably might not apply to Hawaii. For instance, in my Nexis reading, I see that Hawaiians are accorded (given recognition for) weaker indigenous rights than Native Alaskans or Puerto Ricans.
• In my preceding points, I implicitly agree that there is a difference between de jure and de facto standing. Clearly, there is much de facto support for US claims to Hawaii. Does de facto acceptance of US possession imply or not imply de jure recognition? So far, I haven't seen any high quality sources that shed much light on this question. However, it wouild be an unusual claim to say that random countries like Germany or Japan or Nigeria or Argentina (e.g., not Libya) are doing business with US in Hawaii yet harboring a de jure view that US possession is illegal.

In concluding, it's important to note that Wikipedia is not expressing an moral view, or it's own legal opinion, about the legal status of Hawaii. Instead, we would be relying on reliable sources, including adjudicatory bodies, were we to write about the so-called "annexationist" position as the majority legal argument. Thanks for hearing me out at length. Feedback most welcome, here or on my Talk. HG | Talk 17:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

HG, I moved your comment to the "editors previously involved in the dispute", as you were involved before this request was made. I hope you don't mind. I disagree with many of your points, but I don't blame you. There is very little mainstream information on this subject (although there is plenty of historical documentation, and lots of published discourse if you know where to look, so citation is rarely a problem on any side), and many people are shocked to learn how strong the legal argument is. This is why I insist that it must be presented in a balanced way, with no assignment of "weight". If this were the 1950's, would it be "undue weight" to consider the "minority" civil rights activists' arguments equally, even though they had not yet won certain legal and political battles? Aloha, --Laualoha 00:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Fine analogy. Yes, it may seem odd now, but in the early 1950's, the legal arguments of civil rights activists were what WP calls a "significant minority" view. The shift began in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education, hence the dates for African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968). Soon thereafter the scales of the Law shifted, so now it is the dominant view and anything pro-discrimination should not be give too much weight. Anyway, it seems that much of our disagreement concerns Wikipedia policy. Laualoha, you seem to be saying that the two viewpoints (i.e., annexationist, nationalist) deserve equal coverage as a matter of principle (i.e., a principle against systematic bias) and should not be weighted in the article's coverage. I'm saying that WP policy does require weighting to avoid undue attention, and that there are clear legal benchmarks (like Brown v. Board of Education) to guide our editorial decisions. While (nationalist) Hawaiians arguably have been treated unjustly in US and Int'l law, their legal position remains a "significant minority" view and should be treated as such in the article. (BTW, I don't mind your having moved my comment, but I have moved it back. I've come in as an outside observer. That's why I prefaced my RfC comment with a diff showing my self-identifying earlier comment, which partly led to the RfC. I see that Tiamut is serving a similar role, but I'll leave the placement of her comments up to her.) Please treat me with AGF and notice that I am distinguishing the justice of your cause (on which I have no position) and my analysis of WP policy. HG | Talk 04:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut: First, my involvement in this debate comes as a result of Laualoha asking me to mediate since I am a member of the Countering Systematic Bias project. I have no investment in these issues personally.

After reading the discussion here and doing some independent research, I have come to share in Laualoha's bafflement over the resistance towards representation of the views of those who challenge the legality of American sovereignty over Hawaii.

After President Clinton officially apologized for the overthrow the Hawaiian government in 1993 and acknowledged the illegality of this act and the subsequent annexation of Hawaii, a number of international legal cases and opinions have been offered that support the idea of Hawaiian sovereignty under international law [12]. One of these, by Dr. Matthew Craven of the School of Oriental and African Studies in London was part of a legal brief for the Acting Council of Regency [13]. Considering also that Hawaiian representatives have submitted a formal complaint to the United Nations Security Council protesting the continued occupation of Hawaii [14], this seems to be an issue that is not at all WP:FRINGE.

Faithful representation of the issues, using reliable sources, such as the sampling provided here, and others provided above, are relevant to this article. This is an active, ongoing debate, and to claim that the viewpoint of those on one side of the debate should not be represented too much because of WP:UNDUE is an example of systematic bias at work.

I think if people focused on identifying reliable sources that can be used to represent both sides of the debate, rather than trying to eliminate space for one side form the outset, we would make much better progress. Tiamut 10:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

HG -- Hi Tiamut. I'm curious, what type of "systematic bias" you sense at work here? Are you talking about the imbalance in coverage due to Wikipedian demographics? WP:CSB deals mainly with the omissions of notable material. For instance, we need articles on indigenous people's topics, even if they are underrepresented among Wikipedians. If so, I'd like to underscore that several of us are saying that the "nationalist" view should be included (i.e., not omitted), but in a manner proportionate to its weight as a "significant minority" view. So is this really a problem of Wikipedian bias? Perhaps you would consider this a case of systematic bias in the real world's reliable sources that gets reflected thru encyclopedia methods. For example, you and I talked about how Palestinian views may be under-represented in academia, so such views may have a disproportionate scarcity of reliable sources. Similarly, Hawaiian nationalists are under-represented among political-legal powers, so their legal arguments are being judged (so far) by reliable sources as less significant, less effective, than majority legal arguments/opinions. I don't doubt that there may be a bias against the "nationalist" position by US and Intl law authorities, but Wikipedia policy still expects us to give proportionate weight to existing, sourced, majority and minority views. Right? Even CSB doesn't ask us to counter-act the proportionate weights found in reliable sources. Thanks! HG | Talk 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. Given your mediator role, you may want to move your/our comments to the subsection below.

Hi HG. I'm going to keep my comments here for now since Laualoha and LarryQ among others seem to think that my involvement in the discussion as a mediator means that I am a party in the dispute, even if my role is mediation, rather than active participant in one of two opposing sides. I think the difference in our perspectives here regarding WP:UNDUE is that I prefer to identify the different reliable sources that speak to the legal status of Hawaii and proceed from there to weigh them against one another and determine how they should be represented in the article. I think the major problem here thus far has been the focus on constructing and putting forward the two opposing arguments and arguing over their validity vis a vis one another (as though they were somehow mutually exclusive - which I do not believe that they are. I think there is a lot of nuance and subtlety that gets glossed over by splitting the issue into one between two clearly defined camps.) I have provided a number of reliable sources above, from the New York Times to articles in legal journals that explain the complexity of Hawaii's legal status. It is not a cut-and-dry issue. Saying Hawaii is a US state while mentioning that some people don't think so would not be sufficient here. This is an article about the Legal Status of Hawaii and its a complex topic with a vibrant ongoing debate. As you pointed out, there are a number of factors to consider, such as the native Hawaiian's status as indigenous peoples, the applicability of international law (or it inapplicability due to US refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the ICJ), etc, etc. All of this needs mentioning. Not to prop up a significant minority viewpoint, but to faithfully represent the different issues surrounding Hawaii's legal status. If we fail to give nuanced coverage to this issue, we fail to enlighten our readers as to the source of the different controversies that have dominated these pages. Again, I think the best way to proceed is to outline the different reliable sources that express multiple viewpoints on the issues, the main issues raised by those sources, and then we can begin writing an article that is WP:NPOV and WP:V. We cannot determine what is WP:UNDUE without looking at the different sources all parties agree pass WP:RS, see what they say, and then move one from there. There are reliable legal and scholarly sources indicating that Hawaii, under international law, can be considered sovereign and the victim of a belligerent occupation. There are other reliable sources that say the annexation happened a long time ago and Hawaii is part of the United States, whether it likes it or not. Giving voice to these different perspectives and all the mid-ground in between is not WP:UNDUE to me. If this was the Hawaii page, perhaps. But it's a page devoted to discussion of Hawaii's legal status and fleshing out the different voices in that debate seems imminently appropriate here as long as we follow WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. I think that WP:UNDUE is marshalled inappropriately sometimes. It's a part of WP:NPOV which urges us to represent all significant viewpoints. Sometimes I feel though that it is used to marginalize minority viewpoints when these are unfamiliar to vast majority of Wikipedia readers. Unfamiliarity does not mean they are invalid. Indeed, these determinations of what constitutes WP:UNDUE are largely interpretative in the absence of collection and examination of reliable sources. That is why I am recommending we begin with identifying the RS's and proceed from there. Tiamut 10:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

HG: Thoughtful reply, thanks Tiamut. Let me say where I agree and how (I believe) you and I might help resolve this dispute.

• Agreed: First, in order to weigh viewpoints, editors need to focus on reliable sources. (You: "We cannot determine what is WP:UNDUE without looking at the different sources ...." etc. I agree.) Second, this is an article about law, not uninformed perceptions of law or legal arguments. (You: "Unfamiliarity {of viewpoints} does not mean they are invalid." I agree.) So, this article isn't about public opinion or folk wisdom or rumors. Uninformed people may happen to be right or wrong, but they aren't reliable measures of the strength and significance of legal arguments. Two implications -- First, people shouldn't cite public opinion to oppose or defend the "nationalist" view's significance for this article. Second, for the RfC, we aren't asking uninvolved Wikipedians to give their casual opinion, but to familiarize themselves enough with the sources, at least those discussed in the article, to reach an informed judgment about significance.
• Clarify this dispute. The parties seem to be wrangling over how to define the RfC. It's confusing because UNDUE policy deals with both "fringe" and "significant minority" views. Plus, previously there was a Talk dispute over fringe (w/Jere). However, so far, the involved parties agree that the "nationalist" legal argument is a "significant minority" view as far as UNDUE is concerned (we can cite diffs for Larry and Laualoha). LarryQ says the article should "highlight the prevailing view" whereas Laualoha says the article should give "equal coverage of the viewpoints." Hence the key question is how to apply UNDUE to a "significant minority" view that is a legal argument. Is that right, Tiamut? So it seems to me that you, I and other RfC comments should try to answer this question. (FYI I quoted the relevant UNDUE passage in the next subsection.)
• You spoke well about the need for nuance, context, recognition of complexity, to flesh out the voices. Now I urge you to be clear in answering the key WP-policy question, above.
• Let's focus on editing choices. So far, this RfC discussion is quite abstract. To be more concrete, let's look at specific choices in article tone, structure, and esp. the disputed edits betw LarryQ and Laualoha, as we consider whether (and how) to "give equal coverage" or "highlight the prevailing view" in the article.
• (Incidentally, if you don't mind my saying so, you seem to downplay the most important reliable sources at stake. It's true that in scholarly debates, such as the debates you and I are analyzing at Palestinian people, the opposing sides are not "mutually exclusive" and the outcome isn't "cut and dry," as you say. But legal debates are different -- they get adjudicated by courts and legislatures, whose decisions are the most authoritative sources and are the reason that the "nationalist" legal argument remains a minority viewpoint. We need to fairly and subtly represent this picture, but we can't obscure it either.)

Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 15:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Tiamut: See my comments below too. I don't think that its an issue of "downplaying" the fact that Hawaii is a US state according to US law. But that's not the totality of its legal status (indeed, in your two definitions of legal status below you explain that quite well). The issue of indigenous people and their rights means that there are certain autonomy arrangements that Hawaiians might benefit from to assert their full sovereignty and opinions of legal scholars support these claims as well. If we describe the process by which Hawaii became a US state using reliable sources, the reasons for the contention over its legal status become clear. Clearly, we also have to give voice to the significant minority viewpoint of many Hawaiians themselves that their sovereignty is inalienable and has never been relinquished and that the annexation of their land was illegal. We explain that they have tried to get this addressed at the international level and the reasons that the claim has not been addressed (e.g. US does not recognize ICJ, ICJ cannot take petitions from individuals not representing states, etc.) In short, we need to read more sources, sort them, and begin to understand how to put forward this complex issue. It's not undue to flesh out a debate and give space to different voices of which there are many. I think we can decide what is and is not undue after we put together the article using identified reliable sources. I hope that answers your question.Tiamut 20:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

HG: Let me rephrase into a Y/N question. Doesn't UNDUE call for proportionate rather than equal coverage of a "significant minority view" vis-a-vis the majority view? Since I'd answer Yes, pls explain if you're a No. Thanks. (Incidentally, I fully agree that "it's not undue to flesh out a debate..." etc. When I said "downplaying" I certainly didn't mean only the statehood process. I include the 2 Supreme Court cases w/De Lima and Mankichi, Liliuokalani in US court, the USCCR finding, the Akaka/Apology stuff, and int'l law items. Moreover, it's telling that they haven't found a useful int'l forum. Intl law may be emerging but it's still pretty inchoate, and in a sense speculative, because there's no stable sovereignty or enforcement for international fora except as granted by sovereign states.) Best wishes, HG | Talk 20:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me answer your question with a question. Does it matter who the significant minority view is held by? In other words, when discussing the issue of the Hawaii's legal status, don't the positions adopted by Hawaiian leadership deserve representation? Does the fact that Hawaii has a small population mean that the opinions and actions of Hawaiians should be represented proportionate to their numbers? Because the United States has a population of 300 million+ should its opinion be given more weight? While international law might be new and emerging, it certainly enjoys more recognition internationally than US domestic law does. I think we need to adopt a worldwide perspective when approaching issues of WP:UNDUE. I cannot answer your question with a yes or no because there is always a context in which the application of undue judgements are made. It's an interpretative process, not a science and we all have to be aware of what biases we have at work. I don't think the reader loses anything by getting exposed to as many viewpoints as possible when they are reliably sourced. Later, we can determine with the totality of information before us, what needs to be balanced, removed or otherwise tweaked to accord with WP:NPOV. I think with contentious issues, it's best to start by identifying reliable sources, representing them in WP:NPOV terms, and then looking an the aggregate and refining as required. Tiamut 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

HG: Hey, but you asked 4 questions! LOL. I know what you're driving at Tiamut, so I'll give your 4 some thought. However, and I trust you won't mind me being blunt, your "Maybe" answer could be less helpful than you expect. I sense that you're being overly protective of Laualoha: perhaps you believe a "Yes" on proportionate coverage would box her in, whereas "Maybe" leaves her some hope for equal coverage. I'll give it some thought, but it means trying to find loopholes or interpretive spins in an existing policy which is quite well-formulated. Anyway, does it make sense to encourage her to pursue an interpretive challenge to WP policy here? (Civil rights lawyers would ask whether this is right case for a precedent-setting appeal.) My guts tell me it's not the right "case" or "venue". But you could try something else. Just say to Laualoha: look, the policy does call for proportionate coverage, but you/we can still get an excellent and fair article because your viewpoint still deserves a fair hearing, adequate context, nuanced not flat representation of the sources, etc., and we can make more headway by showing what proportion is reasonable than trying to duke it out for "equal" representation. (NB equal could mean just a tiny bit of both.) Ok. I'll get back to you on your 4 qs. (Meanwhile, let me add that int'l law is millenia old, but it still lacks real clout or clarity in general. Sovereign states and their laws are still more important.) Take care. HG | Talk 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Still thinking. Relevant quotes: Neutrality policy in a nutshell: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." (emphasis added) From neutrality FAQ: "Please be clear on one thing: the Wikipedia neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we must 'give equal validity' to minority views." From NPOV blockquote below: ""NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." On levels of acceptance: "Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs." The systematic bias project"focuses on remedying omissions ... rather than on ... trying to remedy issues of how material is presented." HG | Talk 00:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• RFC response - my two cents: it is unquestionably a minority viewpoint that the US is illegally occupying Hawaii at the moment. Even adding it to the article at all is questionable, bordering on WP:FRINGE problems; giving it as much weight as the fact that 99.9% of the international community (including the Hawaiian government) recognizes Hawaii as a US state has some serious WP:SOAPBOX issues. I hope not to sound rude in this response. The Evil Spartan 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What am I talking about? I didn't see this page's title: Legal status of Hawaii. I was thinking this was Hawaii. Isn't this very article addressing this subject? Nevertheless, the article should be clear, even while giving both points of view equal time, that the great majority of the world sees Hawaii as a US state. The Evil Spartan 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• RFC response I think it would be worth mentioning in the article but no more then 1 or 2 lines should be spent and it should be explained that it is an opinion held by a very small minority. My reasoning is that I think the information is interesting and it's at least notable enough that it was covered briefly in one of my social studies classes in elementary school, so it was at least notable enough to be covered in public school. Like i said though, very little article space should be spent and it should be noted that it is a an opinion that is in the minority. Elhector 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction of a "legal status" article

Regardless of how the article covers the competing viewpoints, the lead paragraph probably needs some reworking. I'd like to raise a few points for you to consider:

• What does "legal status" mean in the title/article? It isn't the meaning of the legal status stub. I'm seeing two distinct meanings at work:

First meaning. On the one hand, based on the article content, "legal status" means something like "the de jure standing of a geographic area (e.g., the Hawaiian islands) under one or more legal systems or jurisdictions." Currently, the article deals with Hawaii's status under 3 legal systems: (1) the status of the islands within the legal system of their independent Kingdom, (2) the status after 1893 relative to U.S. law, and (3) its status under international law.

Second meaning. On the other hand, "legal status" apparently refers to the legality of annexation and statehood, which are discussed under Investigations and in the Table. If so, then the title is rather vague. It's not about the status of Hawaii, but more precisely the "Legality of U.S. Sovereignty over Hawaii."

Either way, the 2nd sentence is confusing because the term "political status" sound like it should be used as a synonym for legal status.

• Instead of launching right into the "dispute", I suggest we give the reader the bigger picture. Our guidelines recommend that we begin by "establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any."

For the first meaning, the intro might begin: "Since 1959, Hawaiian islands has had the legal status of a U.S. state. Previously, the islands had the status of an independent sovereign monarchy known as Kingdom of Hawaii and, between 1898 and 1959, Hawaii was a U.S. territory. While U.S. sovereignty over Hawaii has undiminished standing in U.S. and international law, and its de facto control is not doubted, the legal status of Hawaii has not gone unchallenged. Specifically, //insert recap of key challenges here//."

For the second meaning, the intro might begin: "Starting with events in the 1890s, the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown and the United States came to annex the Hawaiian islands and, in 1959, admit Hawaii as a state. However, did the U.S. act legally as it gained sovereignty over Hawaii? While U.S. actions have never been invalidated under U.S. or international law, the legal status of these actions are still disputed today. Specifically, //insert recap of key challenges here//."

Ok, I admit my exact wording might not satisfy the balance sought by various involved parties. Still, please understand the good faith spirit of my remarks. In sum, I think we need to define "legal status" better and then rewrite the intro accordingly. Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 05:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey HG. Nice effort above, but I think your wording downplays the situation just a little bit. Have you read United States Public Law 103-150 of the 103rd Congress Joint Resolution 19 made on 23 November, 1993? "Without the active support and intervention by the United States diplomatic and military representatives, the insurrection against the Government of Queen Liliuokalani would have failed for lack of popular support and insufficient arms" and "the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum". I think any intro to either article should give a clear summary of the broad outline of events beginning with the overthrow of the kingdom, the annexation, its status first as a protectorate and then after 1959 as a state, the continuity of indigenous claims of sovereignty and how this continues to be a point of contention between Hawaiian sovereigntists and the US government. Feedback from those even more familiar with the subject and the sources would be appreciated. As would more sources. Tiamut 20:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, thanks T! It sounds like you're talking about the 2nd 'legal status' meaning & 2nd intro. Do you think they should go with the 2nd? I would have guessed the 1st has more traction, but I'm open. HG | Talk 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I was kind of thinking of synthesizing them both actually. I sort of married the two together and threw in a little something of my own. The article could be split into two sections reflecting the two genres of legal debate you have identified. Tiamut 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

0k, while you're mixing and blending, would you mind pouring us a draft introductory paragraph? Or are we waiting to hear whether the "involved parties" favor the 1st or 2nd version straight up? See ya. HG | Talk 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Apology Resolution

subheading added for shift in topic, tx HG | Talk 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both, Tiamut and HG, I think you've added a great deal to the discussion, and have moved the ball forward quite a bit. One note for Tiamut though - the Apology Resolution only specifically claims that the overthrow was illegal - it does not assert that the declaration of the Republic, nor the annexation, nor statehood was illegal. It also ends with a significant disclaimer: Section 3. Disclaimer. Nothing in this Joint Resolution is intended to serve as a settlement of any claims against the United States. Relying on PL103-150 as a legal justification for argument is difficult to maintain, given the symbolic nature of the measure, the lack of any debate regarding its historical basis, and Akaka's specific assertion that he wanted to "neutralize the 1983 Native Hawaiians Study Commission’s Majority Report conclusion that the U.S. government was not liable for the loss of sovereignty or lands of the Hawaiian people in the 1893 overthrow." It has certainly been ground over and over again by academics, but it has been consistently relegated to the side by actual lawsuits - In an response to the State of Hawai'i Appeal of the Arakaki Decision, the plaintiffs offered this information regarding the usage of the Apology Resolution whereas clauses:

Legislative statements in a preamble may help a court interpret the operative clauses of a particular statute by clarifying the legislative intent, but they do not legislate facts or confer rights. Singer, Sutherland on Statutory Construction, §20.03 (5th ed. 1993). The Apology Resolution has no legally operative provisions. Indeed, it expressly settles no claims. 107 Stat. 1510 §3. The committee report says that the Resolution has no regulatory impact and does not change any law. S. Rep. 123-126. Its sponsor assured the Senate that it is only “a simple resolution of apology” and that it “has nothing to do” with “the status of Native Hawaiians.” 139 Congressional Record S14477, S14482 (October 27, 1993), SER 14. The Supreme Court in Rice demonstrated how to deal with the Apology Resolution: the Court cited it but decided the case based on the facts in the record.

Of course people may take moral pleasure in PL103-150, but I think the record shows quite clearly that whereas clauses do not have the force of law. In testimony before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 17, 2002, Professor of Law Mr. Michael Glennon makes clear the fact that whereas clauses can have "no binding legal effect":

Under traditional principles of statutory construction, these provisions have no binding legal effect. Only material that comes after the so-called “resolving clause”—“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled”—can have any operative effect. Material set out in a whereas clause is purely precatory. It may be relevant for the purpose of clarifying ambiguities in a statute’s legally operative terms, but in and of itself such a provision can confer no legal right or obligation.

Anyway, just thought that information may be helpful in deciding how much or little to rely on PL103-150. --JereKrischel 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

One more thing with the Apology Resolution - it says, "the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum". The Hawaiian Monarchy, and the Hawaiian Kingdom, was not limited to native Hawaiians - in fact, by 1893, native Hawaiians were a minority. The "national lands" of the Hawaiian Kingdom did not belong solely to people of a certain ethnicity. This, of course, is one of the more critical errors in PL103-150, and I think one that causes a certain degree of confusion. --JereKrischel 21:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi Jere! Missed ya!

Some comments:

1)The main point of the resolution is that it is an apology. The "whereas" section covers the overthrow, the Republic, and annexation; if the U.S. was not taking responsibility for these things, they would not have been mentioned as individual points.

2)It is true that a resolution does not generally carry the force of prescribed action that other legislation does, and it does not automatically change any laws. Its application is discretionary. However, it does carry weight as a formal acknowledgment of a body of historical actions, and is designed to serve as an ethical "guidelight" for the country's future actions.

3)The part about "settling no claims" was a necessary inclusion that as I recall did not appear in the initial draft. There was a lot of fear at that time that the law would itself be used against Hawaiian claims, as though the entire matter of legality were "resolved" through this apology.

4)You make a valid point about the Kingdom including more than just Kanaka Maoli. The government was taken from all of the subjects, not just those with native blood, and I think it's important to remember this. The Ceded Lands get tricky, though -- some aspects of the traditional concepts of land are part of the kingdom law, and these are kind of "shotgun married" to Euro/American concepts of land ownership, at several historical junctures. This is one reason why land cases that go back to old law are usually very messy. However, PL 105-150 makes an important point: one way or another, Hawaiians did not give up their lands or sovereignty at any time in history. Aloha! --Laualoha 08:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Aloha, Laualoha, good to be back in the swing of things - looks like everyone has been busy! A few responses:

1) See my citation regarding the utility of whereas clauses. They are not legally binding, nor can facts be legislated;

2) I do agree that it can be seen as an "ethical guidelight", although I believe that upon further inspection regarding its historical basis (or lack thereof), the "ethical guidelight" points in a different direction (unification rather than separation, IMHO);

3) I have not seen any initial draft - I had not realized there was an initial draft. Do you have a citation to it?

4) PL103-150 does not say that "Hawaiians did not give up their lands or sovereignty at any time in history", it says "the indigenous Hawaiian people never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum". Note the important word directly - there is no claim here that the did not indirectly relinquish their claims, nor is there any discussion about what "national lands" are being spoken of (assuming that the only "national lands" were the separate chiefdoms before the 1810 unification, which belonged solely to a single ethnic group, albeit not unified). The ceded lands are not tricky at all - they were public lands of the Kingdom, they became public lands of the Republic, they were held in trust by the U.S. federal government during the Territory, and now they are the public lands of the State. Now, DHHL and OHA make things particularly messy, since nobody seemed to be paying attention to the 14th or 15th amendment at the time, but the ceded lands discussion is fairly straightforward (though bitterly contested, I agree). Anyway, mahalo for your mana'o, and thanks for listening to mine. --JereKrischel 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)