Talk:Morgan Report

Information

Any help appreciated. Started so as not to reference a certain inherently biased website.M.ana 01:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Great idea! I've migrated some information over, limiting the contribution to NPOV material. Please feel free to copy whatever you wish from http://morganreport.org --JereKrischel 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Selective Witnesses

The same way you would like to assert Morgan's Neutrality, so too we should be uniform with Blount. Blount was not a royalist. Blount was an agent of the US. Jere, Please read Information Suppression. Your view is hardly a majority view, please stop pushing it as such. M.ana 20:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Blount specifically claimed his support for the queen during his testimony and his earlier report, and can be considered just as much of a royalist as Cleveland was. In response to the question from Senator Dolph, "Who were the people representing the Queen's cause—her side of the controversy?", Blount replied, "Do you mean before me?". And I am not asserting Morgan's neutrality, I assert that you correctly state, some sovereignty activists dismiss the Morgan Report solely because of his connection to the history of racism and bigotry in this country. --JereKrischel 00:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Insofar as "majority view", I think you are mistaken, but welcome any evidence you have to back up your claim. Although in certain circles, the view that the State of Hawaii is illegal, Blount is unimpeachable, Morgan is dismissable, and the U.S. directly overthrew the queen is taken as fact (and such folk have also managed to get symbolic legislation passed like 103-150, without any debate on the merits), the overwhelming majority of the world accepted the overthrow, the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii as legitimate, and the findings of the Morgan Report as accurate. Certainly over the past 100 years the majority of people have lived in accordance with those views, including nearly 50 years of Statehood. --JereKrischel 00:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Majority view, may be debatable in definition, but not debatable in general concensus. For source, look at the Apology Resolution, had the Morgan Report been popular enough or authoritative enough, it would have been referenced. I would also challenge your view of "although in certain circles" as one that should characterize the Morgan Report. The Morgan Report's unpopularity can also be seen by the fact that it has only recently be made available on the internet, by you none the less. It is apparent to me that you have an inherent bias to play up the Morgan Report as you are the engineer behind it's internet access. Please maintain appropriate NPOV. M.ana 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I would assert that had the whereas clauses in the Apology Resolution been compelling enough, U.S. policy would have been altered long ago, and the international community would recognize claims of reinstated Kingdom governments. The Morgan Report's alleged "unpopularity" was not the reason asserted by the University of Hawaii curators for their failure to get it digitized - a flood destroyed many of their computers in 2002, and apparently set their program back. Certainly the Blount Report was never so popular as to be digitized by volunteers to bring its information to the public. I understand the the transition from sovereignty comment boards to Wikipedia can be a difficult one, and I hope you are able to clearly differentiate between the rhetoric appropriate on one, and the collegial spirit required on the other. --JereKrischel 02:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Terribly one sided

Just to let the other contributor know, I am not ignoring this report. Right now, the apologist rhetoric is really prevalent. I am swamped with work and will probably be able to do some editing this weekend. I forsee alot of petty bickering on inclusions, exclusions, and subtle nuances in terminology; most of which have already started with you entirely revising my writing. Once I am done pruning what you wrote, I would like to prevent that in the future by discussing anything that is to be included and/or excluded before making changes. M.ana 19:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, please feel free to discuss your suggested prunings beforehand, and we can work it out on the talk page first. --JereKrischel 00:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it prudent to edit your POV before we begin discussion; either by me or another person with an adverse view to yours. The alternative would be to wipe it clean and start with a clean slate. You pick, I'm not particular. M.ana 01:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Specific issues with original text

The Morgan Report sought to exonerate The United States and US Minister John L. Stevens from their involvment in the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy.

Assertion of nefarious intent POV pushing - better to state the reasons for the commissioning of the Morgan Report (Cleveland's referral after Liliuokalani's refusal for clemency, and the simultaneous refusal of President Dole to accede to such demands), and then talk about the various opinions regarding its intent

The Morgan Report was conducted by Senator John Tyler Morgan of Jim Crow political fame.

Subtle character assassination pushing POV, as well as factually inaccurate - Morgan was only the chairman, and voted against his fellow Jim Crow Democrats in the final majority report.

Senator Morgan's inquest was done in Washington, far from the scene of the crime.

Again, assertion that there was a "crime" POV pushing - best to state that hearings were held in Washington D.C., Blount's primarily royalist report was admitted into evidence, along with PG/annexationist affadavits, and live in person testimony.

Whereas the Blount Report was conducted for several months in Hawaii and questioned both sides of the issue.

Factually incorrect POV pushing - Blount in his testimony in front of the Morgan Committee clearly indicates his failure to interview critical PG members, even those who offered themselves as witnesses.

Most notable about the Morgan Report is the absence of Royalist testimony from Senator Morgan's inquisition.

Factually incorrect POV pushing - Blount's report was submitted as evidence, and several anti-annexationist witnesses were brought by Senator Gray. Also POV pushing to assert that that factor was "most notable".

The legitamacy of the Morgan Report has been and continues to be refuted by Hawaiian Sovereignty activists.

Factually correct, and the specific critiques all deserve their own treatment - i.e., it's bad because Morgan was racist, it's bad because the Queen didn't testify, etc, etc. In order to maintain NPOV, we should make it clear that there is dispute here, and characterize both sides' best arguments.

--JereKrischel 00:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

These are all legitimate concerns, however erasing my edits and imposing yours without first discussing them is hardly conducive of a collaborative environment. You are also neglecting the fact that your current version infers your POV. Without citing specific areas in the current text (because of time constraints), your version hardly constitutes NPOV. Perhaps you can keep this in mind for future collaboration: what we should strive to do is to relay the facts of the matter and not try to impose our conclusions on others; taking into consideration relevancy and topical information. I think the point of NPOV is to have others draw their own conclusions. Your current revision suggests a persuasive style, it should be re-written to resemble impartial reporting. Suggesting Cleveland accepting the report "explicitly" does not confer a certain neutrality that I believe wikipedia would like to exemplify. Your article is riddled with like statements that resembles an extension of your morganreport.org website. Please be mindful that this is not an extension of your site.

If you don't agree with wiping the slate clean, when I post my edits I will give you detailed reasons why the edits were necessary. M.ana 01:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully my post-mortem discussion is sufficent for you to understand the edits I did. If there are specific POV pushing issues you'd like to raise, I'd love to hear them - although you claim the current version infers my POV, I'm not quite sure what specifically you object to - perhaps you could edit one portion of it as an example? Insofar as "wiping the slate clean", I think it's better for us to continue on with what we have - at least we have gotten a general format and layout going. Even if every word changes, we can work incrementally. I'll see what I can do regarding "persuasive style". --JereKrischel 09:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For starters, the section I started "what's wrong with the report" has turned into a "why its alright, in spite of..." and would probably fit into a "argument for" type category. I think it may be best to have an outline of the report, and then have two sections below with "Aruments for", and "Arguments against" or something to that effect. Like I mentioned before, I probably won't get to it till this weekend. I don't want to do minor edits, so I'll withhold editing entirely until I have time to ingest the text as a whole. M.ana 22:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried changing the wording so that each specific critique was mentioned, with its common refutation, giving neutral mention of both. I'm not sure if it breaks out into "argument for/against" types of statements, but if you can come up with something like that to split up, that's cool too. Insofar as an outline of the report, I suppose I can grab and edit some of conklin's summaries of the report itself, as well as the testimonies...not sure if that's what you're thinking of though. I'll put something up and you can play around with it when you have a chance. --JereKrischel 23:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

detailed explanations

(1)Clevelands letter. Relevancy issue. What does Cleveland accepting the report have to do with the Morgan report? Also, selective quoting is in very bad taste. It may be all right if you include it under a section entitled “Arguments for”; as to your “[Emphasis added]” stunt…. are you trying to be facetious?

Cleveland's reversal on his position is the seminal point of the Morgan Report. Whether or not you agree that Cleveland should have accepted it can be discussed, but that important fact should factor prominently. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(2)(3)Summary of Cleveland’s letter. Relevancy issue. Apart from your blatant POV pushing (I hardly think it came as a surprise given Morgan’s character and track record), is there any reason why this is included in the description of the report? Again, these fit into an “argument for” category and even then, only with citation.

I think your characterization of "arguments for" and "arguments against" don't work very well...the Morgan Report itself is the "argument for", and there may be "arguments against" and "responses to arguments against"...I've put it under a "disputes" topic heading...maybe that will help...any other editors have opinons? --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Observation on the general description of the report. The first two paragraphs of the introduction to the report are very detailed and resemble no bias. It exudes basic facts about the report, which I think are very well articulated from a non-biased perspective. However, following those two paragraphs the article runs very narrow as to the actual material covered in the report. The reason for the report, people deposed, and findings are all pertinent and all absent. Instead the readers are confronted with why they should accept the report, even though they have no idea who or what is in the report.

(4) “Because he was a friend of Lili'uokalani and was opposed to U.S. expansionism,” Just as you would like to assert this, I could assert that he was suspicious of the events. This only demonizes Cleveland in an attempt to discredit his judgment.

His friendship with the queen is no more demonizing than Morgan's Jim Crow ideology. I've tried to tone it more neutral, but that information should be there. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(5) “The newly installed President Cleveland, without seeking confirmation from the Senate (which was in session at the time), appointed Blount to be a special envoy to Hawai'i with "paramount" powers and secret instructions” You’re gonna need to cite this in order to include it, either in footnotes or directly in the text. Please cite a reputable source. If you cite a source of ill repute, I’ll easily find one that thoroughly refutes this. Perhaps if the source is the Morgan Report, you can easily overcome this by simply adding something to the effect of “According to the Morgan Report…”

The citation is the Morgan Report itself - if you read the section where the minority republicans criticize Blount, you'll see it. It is a fact he appointed him without seeking senate confirmation, and a fact that the senate was in session at the time. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(6) “He invited primarily royalists…(entire paragraph)” Again, same reason as number (5). Please cite sources specifically. A general “it was in the newspapers” or “it was in so and so book”, without specifically mentioning where in the book leads me to believe you drew inferences from the book and perhaps took it out of context.

Again, the specific testimony in the Morgan Report by Blount indicates this. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(7) “Conclusions of the Committee (entire bulleted section)” Can you please cite specifically where in the report these conclusions were rendered. You may not have to include it in the text, I want to verify your summary with the report.

Added. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(8) “…but still exonerated Blount.” Uniformity issue. You included “…but still exonerated stevens…” yet failed to include that for Blount. Parenthetically, this brings up an issue I’ve been toying around with lately. If the Morgan Report exonerated Blount, how does the Morgan Report Supercede Blount’s report? Did it ever? Perhaps this question can be better debated outside of this medium.

The Morgan Report exonerated Blount's controversial appointment without confirmation, and his right to engage in his investigation. It did not "exonerate" any of his conclusions. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(9) “Cleveland's final position (entire paragraph)” From what I can tell, this was a cut and paste job from your website. I’ve found sources, from Cleveland, which suggests he was weary of the Provisional Government. I’ve included the reference with my revision. I haven’t ventured to read your entire site, however, I wouldn’t be surprised if your entire report came directly from your site. Please be mindful of citations, which I will be policing vigilantly now that I’ve uncovered your cut and paste job.

Although Cleveland may have been weary, he maintained diplomatic relations with both the PG and RoH. --JereKrischel 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(10) “Common Critiques(entire section)” I think I’ve already expressed my views on this. It is entirely sympathetic to the Morgan Report and would serve better under an “argument for” type category. Now, I noticed you don’t have any citations under the section as well. I would compromise and say that as long as you don’t cite sources in the “argument for” section than I’ll oblige by not citing sources on the “argument against” section, however, I think this would be a great disservice to Wikipedia, not to mention we probably shouldn’t treat this as a forum to express our personal views. I’ll also be removing the “Morgan was a racist” text. This was my work, which you conveniently adopted and butchered to resemble a sympathetic tone. I will be using it in the “Argument against” section. The decision was largely to prevent redundancy, though. Feel free to start a new one with different wording.

I’ve taken the liberty of arranging the above concerns, leaving most of your edits intact pending your citations.M.ana 00:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Format

I actually like your format better. However, I still don't think Clevelands letter should come before the description of the report. Perhaps after the conclusion. I haven't reviewed all your revisions yet, mostly because you don't like to discuss them before or even after you change them. I'll reserve comment till then. M.ana 02:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Jere asked me for a comment re organization. My opinion (which may be wrong) is that it makes for a more readable article if you take one controversy at a time and summarize all the viewpoints and the references for them. Then proceed to another controversy. IMHO, this is better than having just one PRO section and one ANTI section. After all, you may not have exactly the same people on the same sides for every controversy. Also, it's easier to grasp the arguments if they're right next to each other.

Oh yes, and it helps to have an introductory section summarizing the info that all sides accept. That helps orient the reader, before you plunge into the controversies. It takes careful writing to achieve a neutral summary section, but it can be done -- if only by sticking to names and dates! So if the current editorial lineup is Jere vs. Mana, both Jere and Mana have to approve the summary section before you can go on to the controversies. Then all you have to do is make sure that the arguments presented for each side are such as would be accepted by that side. No fair summarizing the OTHER side in a way that the other side feels is inaccurate. (In rhetoric, this is called setting up a straw man.)

Sometimes there are arguments about who gets to go first, or who has the last word. If this is a sticking point, you can alternate from section to section.

Hope this is helpful. Zora 03:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your suggestions are of great value. The question I have is whether or not Cleveland's letter should come before the rest of the Morgan Report. The report led to Clevelands reversal, but I don't see how showing that before the description is anything but POV pushing. Perhaps you can shed some light as to why it is "imperative" to present the letter before the actual report is done being described. M.ana 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to make the narrative chronological, if you can. Hard to say without getting into the nitty gritty, and I just don't have time. I'm over-extended on all fronts. Zora 04:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Zora, good to get some third party input. A couple of minor notes M.ana:

1) I think we need to be a bit careful about our citations...that is to say, we should be citing direct quotes where possible, not editorial opinions. For example, I've cited Cleveland's letter with a link to the source, as well as a quoted excerpt. When you cite Kuykendall, I think it would be more appropriate to quote him directly, and then cite, rather than editorialize his opinion, and cite him as the inspiration for that editorial;

No qualms here. This is actually what I've been trying to get you to do. I will be checking on your sources like a hawk and welcome you to do the same. M.ana 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

2) You've fallen victim to some of the same "persuasive" writing format in some of your additions - as you can see, it's awfully easy to make that mistake. When we describe various points of view, I think we both need to refrain from, "however," or "it is important to note"...I've used phrases like, "others note", and tried to make sure the phrasing is one that simply presents both points of view without indicating a particular opinion on the opinions.

I'm not so sure. Most of my quotes were word for word. All of my Kuykendall references(which you deleted) were word for word. Case in point, did I take anything out of context when I quoted you and Conklin? I kinda figured you'd want to censure yourself and was expecting you to edit that inasfar as you did, however, the other revisions you did made absolutely no sense and I found it pretty rude for you to butcher my stuff in order to make them sound more accomodating. You'll notice I left all your crap alone, pending your references. I'll take care to immediately exclude all your edits that don't immediately hold citations. M.ana 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You didn't indicate your quotes from Kuykendall at all. For example, you wrote:

Other factors pose a cause for concern, most notably the lack of any Royalist deposition. There have been attempts to characterize James Blount as a “royalist”. Blount’s capacity in Hawaii was an agent of the US; acting Minister to Hawaii in place of John Stevens

and then followed with a footnote. Where is the quote there?

If you checked the source, you would find that "Blount presented his credentials to Dole on May 23 as the American minister in place of Stevens, and one of his first official acts was to protest the treatment accorded Nordhoff and apologized to the men he had named, but Blount charged the provisional government with 'crushing out all opposing opinions by forceful methods.'" Why is this even being refuted? The reference was specifically for you. It's not like you're going to find a document saying Blount "renounced his American citizenship and declared allegiance to the Queen." If you aren't able to check the sources yourself, perhaps you shouldn't be editing anything in the first. M.ana 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your writing regarding "The engineers behind the Morgan Report’s Internet access", that was clearly POV pushing. Although your citation is appropriate, and that response to the critque of the Morgan Report should be put forward, your derogatory phrasing isn't necessary. --JereKrischel 04:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Recall that the section was titled "arguments against" and while I didn't expect you to keep it there, I wanted you to realize how ridiculous you sound trying to defend what you earlier admitted to. I don't think it is derogatory nor POV pushing. How is relaying only the facts of the article POV pushing? And how would you characterize somebody that did what the above people did? I'm sorry you feel so ashamed of your accomplishments. M.ana 04:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I especially like Zora's idea of alternating "last word" on sections. Although my inclination is always to have the last word, since my responses are typically to initial critiques, I can see how it may be possible to work that more evenly. --JereKrischel 03:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Edits

M.ana, I've tried to keep my edits fairly incremental, and have added summaries to each of them to make it clear what I'm changing and why. Please consider those summaries as points of discussion - typically editors only get into more detailed issues on talk pages. --JereKrischel 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, another thing, it might help, M.ana, if you tried to help write the best arguments possible for the defense of Morgan, while I tried to write the best arguments possible in critique of Morgan - switching sides is often a good way to get NPOV. --JereKrischel 04:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've read through half of it and have to say that your sudden shift from POV to NPOV is astounding. I didn't know you had it in you. I have some concerns in regards to your citations, however. I don't have time to go over them at this time, but will take up the issue tommorrow. M.ana 05:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks M.ana! Sometimes all it takes is a second critical look. Othertimes it can be very hard to see, which is when it's good to call in other editors for a fresh view. BTW, very cool work on the citation template - I've never used that before, and I think it helps a great deal. I'll look closer at the template to see if we're using it correctly (putting author in the date field might not be the best way to use it). --JereKrischel 14:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuykendall

Hey M.ana, could you help out and put footnotes for the Kuykendall stuff indicating what book/volume/page its found on? I like what you did for the other footnotes, and think that that should have the same kind of treatment --JereKrischel 00:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, what did you have in mind? M.ana 07:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Selective witness list/inherent political bias of senators

I'm not liking how this section reads...it seems to try to cover too many bases at once. Perhaps we can break this up into several subsections, or separate sections? --JereKrischel 00:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? M.ana 07:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and do an edit as an example, but I'm still struggling with how to structure it overall...one argument seems to lead to another, to another, but then has nothing to do with the original argument. --JereKrischel 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious as to who Senator Gray brought as witnesses that were "critical of the Provisional Government." Care to divulge that information? M.ana 19:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Contradicted the Apology bill

I think if we leave it the way it is, I won't be compelled to explain how the Morgan Report only got past a special commitee. M.ana 07:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "only got past a special committee"? Was it ever put up for another vote, and rejected? I put in the verbage regarding it's "special committee" status - "critics of the Morgan Report see it as more substantive than the findings of a special committee", hopefully that flows well. --JereKrischel 16:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The way you're making the Apology bill out to be trivial, yet the Morgan Report didn't get passed in either the house or the senate. It only got passed by a nine member special committee. M.ana 18:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Point noted and added in. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I also have issues with you quoting yourself. Perhaps if there are others that corroberate what you're saying you can reference them. Reference 11. M.ana 18:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could just place my critique in there word for word (since it quotes others, this is not a critique based on my authority, only references I gather)...but I thought that would be POV pushing. Part of what I'm also trying to do is keep the length of point/counter-point somewhat similar. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I couldn't find where Bruce Fein says anything remotely like "According to critics of the Apology Resolution, the one-sided and symbolic nature of the legislation, written by sovereignty activists, does not materially effect the legitimacy of the Morgan Report." Again, inferences are to be drawn by the readers, not suggested to them. Although, I'm not saying I couldn't have overlooked it, but with ctrl-f nothing pops up. Maybe you'd like to be more specific on the reference? M.ana 19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've move the reference around so it more closely links to Fein's critique. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Not clearly cited. Referenced yea, clearly cited, NO. So are we able to write whatever we want now and just attribute it to somebody that vaguely coincides? M.ana 20:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation is making it clear who is saying something. It is clearly stated that the reference is one made by critics of the Apology Resolution. --JereKrischel 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

The page looks kind of bland. Do you have any non-copyrighted pictures of Morgan?--M.ana 07:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there is already one for John Tyler Morgan...I don't think any pictures that old can be copyrighted still. There are also others for the entire committee from the U.S. gov...I put some of them here: Members of the Committee. --JereKrischel 16:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on "Contradicted the Apology Bill"

M.ana and I seem to have an intractable difference of opinion regarding a section under "Contradicted the Apology bill". Specifically, he objects to the fact that one of the references cites my own work. Could a third party please take a look at our dispute, and offer some constructive guidance? Thanks! --JereKrischel 20:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hows that mediation coming along? --M.ana 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have been assigned to mediate this case. --Tbeatty 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-09 Morgan Report I expect there will be some sort of response in 2-10 days. --JereKrischel 00:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Characterization of Davianna McGregor

http://starbulletin.com/2002/05/28/news/story2.html

Davianna McGregor, a member of the activist group Protect Kahoolawe Ohana,

Perhaps it should be "native hawaiian activist", rather than "sovereignty activist"? Would that help M.ana? --JereKrischel 23:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, she is hardly a sovereignty activist. Kahoolawe Ohana, as far as the impressions that I got, was more of an envrionmentalist group. How about you go with her credentials? University of Hawaii Professor Davianna McGregor. Your quick to labeling someone is duly noted. Maybe I should go through all of Conklins links and add anti-Hawaiian next to his name.--M.ana 23:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a fair case can be made that she is a sovereignty activist just on the credentials. The University of Hawaii Hawaiian Studies program prohibits any dissenting point of view contrary to that of sovereignty activists. I thought rather than present all the evidence for that assertion here, we should go with the neutral "native Hawaiian activist" label. We can add her credentials if you'd like. --JereKrischel 23:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not neutral. Her credentials would be neutral. I know what you're trying to do and it's not going to fly. --M.ana 23:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request mediation surrounding your insistence on deleting the entire section, instead of fixing the problem you're identifying. If you'd like to change her description, please do so. Deleting the entire section is disruptive. --JereKrischel 00:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request mediation concerning your ability to edit Hawaiian issues as your bias clearly renders you incapable of NPOV. --M.ana 00:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone can be NPOV, it just takes hard work :). If we limited editing to only people with no opinions, there wouldn't be any wikipedians at all! Nice work removing the "anti-Hawaiian" POV pushing descriptions, I think it reads much cleaner now. --JereKrischel 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

History surrounding the morgan report

I don't think you can attribute that he "primarily interviewed royalists" no more than I can attribute "gross bias" on the part of the Morgan Report. I've also read (finally) Blounts testimony in the Morgan Report. Alot of your demonizing assertions of Blount are actually explained in his testimony--

If I were to go into the matter of the examination of the witness, say of the royalist side, and his statement was made known to the public immediately, you would find an outcry perhaps in the press about treasonable purposes, about opposing the Government, --we see why it was imperative for him to maintain a sense of secrecy.

I had no authority to administer an oath. It was a very delicate thing for an American to call upon those people to take an oath, especially members of the Provisional Government-- here is the reason for not having an oath. Judging by his testimony, it was mostly because people of the PG refused to take an oath.

M.ana 21:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Certainly Blount primarily interviewed royalists - you can count the number of royalist witnesses compared to PG witnesses and see that from his report. Insofar as oaths are concerned, he did not even interview PG people, much less give them the opportunity to testify under oath (and he specifically said he had no authority to administer them - you have no evidence anyone would have refused). As shown by their willingness to testify under oath during the Morgan hearings, you can hardly assert that they would have refused to do so with Blount. I believe Kuykendall and Andrade also have references to the primarily royalist POV Blount interviewed....would you be mollified if they had some attribution there? (Although I still think the original document shows it more clearly than any 2nd hand commentary...) --JereKrischel 22:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm arguing the Morgan Report and Blount Report, not the characterization of authors. It seems to me that Morgan had a grand total of one anti-annexation sentiment on his panel. Blount on the other hand interviewed alot more than one annexationist. Blount, in fact, interviewed organs of the PG. Kuykendall only makes reference to Blount not interviewing people of the Committee of Safety. For me to read the Blount report and ingest everybodies sentiment would take alot of my time, free time. I was hoping perhaps you would be more forthcoming in regards to information. However, that is rather naive of me. I will venture to count the number of annexationists to royalists that Blount bothered to Interview. I surmise the number will not be remotely close to 8-1. M.ana 23:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we can count them together. I'm sure there would be some argument between us as to who characterized a "royalist" and who an "annexationist"...http://morganreport.org has an Outline of Topics, which will give you a list of all the witnesses, and a short summary of what they said. Of course, Ken Conklin wrote most of the summaries, so I'm sure you'll want to look at the testimony directly to make your own conclusion. Maybe after you've done that, we can come up with a score-sheet on how many royalists/annexationists were interviewed in both Blount and Morgan. --JereKrischel 23:15, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I already know how many people were annexationist and anti-annexationists thanks to the work you've done on the Morgan Report. A grand total of one panelist and perhaps one, maybe two witnesses. I was wondering what the ratio was on Blount's Report. M.ana 06:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I counted two panelists, and at least 4 witnesses, but again YMMV. Insofar as Blount is concerned, I believe the total annexationist witnesses were two, Damon for sure, and one other I can't quite recall the name of. If you put together a count, that would be great. --JereKrischel 07:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Who are the four witnesses from the Morgan Report? Also, just because the other Democrat didn't sign the Minority report approving of annexation, doesn't automatically make him anti-annexation. --M.ana 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe Ken lists at least four witness names here, although the difference between an "annexationist" (which many people avowed to be), and a witness detrimental to the viewpoint of the PG may be debateable. Insofar as the opinion of the other democrat, besides George Gray, regarding annexation, his conspicuous lack of assertion that he was pro-annexation, given that the other two democracts specifically said they were in favor of annexation, seems to heavily indicate he was anti-annexation. If you find more information regarding him, I could be convinced his opinion was pro-annexation, but without evidence, I think the weight of evidence points in one direction. --JereKrischel 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's why I specifically said "to read the Blount report and ingest everybodies sentiment."--M.ana 23:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

State the Case

Hi! I'd like to get the involved parties to state their cases. I would like to see where we can start with agreement and exactly what the issues are. Please use this place to make your own case without refuting the other side. Anyone who feels they have a stake in the resolution should feel free to state their cases. thanks, --Tbeatty 21:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

One view of the dispute

The Morgan Report is a historical document which refutes many of the claims of hawaiian sovereignty activists. As such, it is challenged by them for several reasons (we've listed those challenges under the "Controversies regarding the Morgan Report" section).

I feel it is important to characterize accurately and evenly both sides of these particular controversies, and have been under the impression that M.ana wants to eliminate any references that may provide rebuttal to the critiques of the Morgan Report. I am under this impression because of his numerous edits to the "Contradicted by the "Apology Resolution"" section, with comments critical of how the rebuttal is characterized, did not bother to edit the text to improve it as per his critique, but merely deleted the entire rebuttal, leaving only the original critique available.

One of his particular critiques of the rebuttal in the "Contradicted by the "Apology Resolution"" is that it cites an article at a website which I have written and maintain. Over this past winter, with the help of other volunteers, I was able to scan and wikify the entire 808 page Morgan Report, which had previously been unavailable in a searchable format on the web. Included in this work has been opinion and commentary not appropriate for wikipedia, both because it is original research, and because it does not have the same NPOV quality (although we strive for it as best we can).

I would like to keep the current reference to the external article that I have written, and ask that further edits due to disagreement avoid mass deletion of entire sections. --JereKrischel 00:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if we will get a response. Here's my take on the external article though and it is my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. First, on the policy on "No Original Research." I don't believe this qualifies as such. However, there seems to be a clear constituency or client for the web page. In that sense it is an opinion and not a refereed journal. I believe references to the report should reflect who holds the opinion or interpretation (or who funds the report, etc, etc,). It can be broad groups but I would stay away from generic language such as "Some believe", "According to critics", etc. For example, "The Grassroots Institute of Hawaii and other critics believe" or "Groups such as the Grassroots Institue of Hawaii are critical of ..." is fine and you can reference your work. This is a wikipedia guideline under the "weasel words",

Certainly, factual references about the Morgan report should go to the original sources (i.e. the fact that is was 1894) or news media accounts and this seems to be the case. In cases where you have "wikified" factual documents, cite both. But since the whole idea of Wikipedia is to "Wikify" human knowledgem the fact that you did it on your web page should not violate Wikipedia Policy.

So the short answer is keep it, but reword "Critics of" to the actual holders of the opinions. Name a few of them that are on your web page and cite your web page. I think the organizations that hold these views are substantial enough that their opinion can be included in the article. I think this will also force the due diligence necessary to avoid mischaracterizing an organizations beliefs or opinions. --Tbeatty 07:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Tbeatty, I'll see what I can do to adjust things. Of particular note though, I'm not affiliated with any particular group (i.e., I'm not part of the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii). As an independent, unaffiliated with any group, I would come under the header of "other critics". Your time and attention are appreciated. --JereKrischel 07:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been on hiatus. The problem I have with him referencing himself is that his site is under the guise of wikipedia. There is no NPOV editing involved except for his one sided approach. I thoroughly believe that the sources should be referenced from their original sources, and have even suggested to jerekrischel that he cite the original source or at least another source that corroborates what his site is asserting.

I agree with Jerekrischel in that there should be both sides of the story told. So far, everything I've put up jerekrischel has taken and given a sympathetic tone to. It wasn't until recently, where I pointed out that most of the material that he put up was a copy and paste job from his personal site, that he suddenly developed a conscious. He has been less than forthcoming and admits to having to try hard to be NPOV. As far as the opinion pieces, for every point there is certainly a counterpoint. In fact, I could probably go back over all of Jerekrischels work and add a "yeah, but" statement. I have refrained to do so, yet Jerekrischel insists on doing it to everything I put up.--M.ana 07:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As an independent, unaffiliated with any group, I would come under the header of "other critics". Your time and attention are appreciated. Unfortunately, I think that you cannot keep 'Other Critics' type arguments. If "Other Critics" means "JereKrischel", then that's what the article should state. It then becomes obvious it should be removed. Please keep the arguments to those espoused by substantial groups, works published in the news media, reviewed journals, primary source documents, etc.

There is also no room for the "yes, but" type arguments that come under the 'Weasel Word'[WP:Weasel]. Opposing views should be listed with attribution as to who holds them.--Tbeatty 16:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point Tbeatty...I suppose I have sympathy with groups like the Grassroot Institute, and Aloha for All, and on my own I'm not much of a name, although I did have an editorial in the Honolulu Advertiser regarding my work on the Morgan Report, and have a cross-link in place with the University of Hawaii...I'll work on the wording, please let me know if it sounds okay to you. --JereKrischel 17:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor Request

There seems to be repeated references to the Turpie Resolution in this article. The Resolution is linked to a non-existent article. For research purposes would anyone with knowledge on the subject be willing to create an article about it? If I had any real idea what it was I would do it myself, however it seems that whoever included it in the article knows what they're refering to. Its not truly mentioned in any other of the articles on the overthrow of the monarchy and for the sake of being complete having an article for it would be nice. Oroneko 17:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the direct reference...it's a very short resolution:

The Turpie resolution, which passed the Senate on May 31, 1894, and stated: "That of right it belongs wholly to the poeple of the Hawaiian Islands to establish and maintain their own form of government and domestic polity; ..." Congressional Record, 53 Cong. 2 sess., p. 5499 (May 31, 1894).

--JereKrischel 07:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology resolution defense (Morgan Report Contradicted by Apology Resolution)

I'm not sure if it helps to put in some sort of apology resolution defense not specifically related to whether or not it contradicts the Morgan Report on some factual basis. Including text supporting PL 103-150 in general doesn't seem to be appropriate in the specific context...maybe we could tighten that whole section up, or remove it all together? I think it was put there originally as a critique, but it isn't a very strong one, and lends itself to contradiction. Thoughts Kaihoku? --JereKrischel 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you're looking at your own talk page, Kaihoku - in any case, the question being addressed is whether or not the Morgan Report is contradicted on a historical basis by the Apology Resolution, not whether or not it was a morally proper resolution. --JereKrischel 15:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was looking at my own page... you had originally answered me on my Talk and since it was late and I was tired, I naturally looked there.

Anyhow, I appreciate that you're trying to keep this factual, but I think it's easy for readers to confuse the factual with the moral in this highly charged subject. Many readers may feel that the moral trumps the factual anyhow. Not only that, when you're discussing "Controversy" it is by nature, POV.

I think we need to have either the "other side" presented in some form, or a statement clarifying that this is a "factual challenge" as opposed to a moral one, or as you suggest, delete it altogether. Thoughts? Mahalo, JK. Kaihoku 11:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm for deleting it altogether...the Morgan Report really stands on its own, and the interpretation of the Apology Resolution as unbiased fact is a fairly fringe POV. Although there is the POV that the PL103-150 has some moral basis, it is terribly hard to defend as having a factual basis. I'll make the edit, see if that helps. --JereKrischel 19:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate the deletion. Factual or not, it was too easy to mix fact and emotion. Mahalo nui loa. --Kai

Kaihoku 02:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dispute

POV tag

Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! --JereKrischel 01:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

See this for clarification. Arjuna 19:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we're making some fairly good progress on that page, but we still have to work out a better way to deal with specific sentences, once we've established what we think the positions are. I've outlined a proposal on the Talk:Blount Report page, where we can take turns presenting evidence, and leaving it to the other person to characterize it - perhaps this will be the best way of moving forward. --JereKrischel 21:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I regret to say that I do not think that working "in tandem" will be productive strategy as I question your good faith, among other things. Rather, following the matrix and then having third parties assess the evidence based on citations is likely to be the only way forward. Arjuna 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I still have hope that you will eventually decide to abide by WP:AGF, but accept that you are not quite emotionally ready for that. If we require a third party between us to assuage your current feelings, I'm more than happy to work that way for now, although I'm hopeful for the future. I do assume you are approaching this process with good faith, even if your recent edits have not shown that. --JereKrischel 23:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Cleveland Gave In

I have not touched this page yet, as Iʻm sure you have noticed, Jere. To be totally honest, it is so full of problems that Iʻm trying to figure out where to start. For now, I will make one small but important fact clear: The Morgan Report was NOT the cause of Clevelandʻs withdrawal of support for the Queen. Do you really think that Cleveland and congress were so stupid that they read this piece of racist sensationalism, compiled by a known KKK Grand Dragon who was known primarily for trying to legalize lynching and to repeal the 15th Amendment, and said, "whoa! hold on!! I guess those American sugar planters really were being oppressed by those natives!!"? The truth is that Cleveland was in SERIOUS trouble at home because of the Pullman Strike (notice that July 4, the day that the "republic" was declared, was the same day that the workers rioted against the federal troops Cleveland had sent, overturning their cars, burning the streets, etc. -- not a real "good hair day" for the Prez, or a time to get himself in MORE trouble, hello) and the Panic of 1893 (the single worst financial crisis to that point in US history), and especially for some rather major blunders with the gold & silver commodities (ok, so I guess he wasnʻt exactly a strategist or a financial whiz!)... Blount (who was also in some trouble in the extremely racist Senate, which saw him as a traitor amongst other things -- he was an ex-confederate, remember?) and Cleveland were both threatened into pulling out of the struggle for justice in Hawaiʻi. Furthermore, Cleveland was kind of in a practical bind, because the PG troops had swollen in number by that point, so it would've taken more federal troops than he could have sent to fight them (for the return of a dark-skinned queen? Ya, right), it would've been bloody, and it obviously couldn't happen while he was getting his butt kicked on every front page in the U.S. by the Pullman workers, among other things. The Morgan Report changed nothing. It just gave a document to the anti-exec Senate to shove at a man who was already in more trouble than he could take. Threats and Blackmail, not "facts", made Cleveland reverse his position, and very begrudgingly, at that.--Laualoha 09:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the historical record, both from Russ, Daws, Kuykendall, Twigg-smith, and Andrade indicate that Cleveland was unable to support the Queen after the submission of the Morgan Report, followed on by the Turpie Resolution, which forbade further interference (by Cleveland, or others) in Hawaiian affairs. Remember, it was the lynching KKK democrats who wanted to restore the Queen - Morgan bucked the trend and sided with the anti-slavery abolitionist Republicans on his report.

The Turpie Resolution was well before the Pullman Strike (May 30th), and Cleveland acknowledged the primacy of the Provisional Government even before he recognized the Republic of Hawaii.

I think you misunderstand Cleveland's political base - he was a democrat, like Morgan, and it was the democrats who were trying to repeal the 15th amendment, and legalize lynching, and wanted to support the Hawaiian monarchy. Cleveland, begrudgingly or not, accepted the Morgan report and never again supported the Queen in her quest for restoration. (Unless you believe the conspiracy theory that U.S. agents provided the 1895 rebels with weapons through San Francisco.)

Could you provide the exact quote from p24 you're referring to? I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to cite there. Also a reference for "PG troops swollen" would be appreciated - I'm under the impression from the historical record that there wasn't any influx of PG troops (from where would they come?), and that their numbers didn't increase appreciably from 1893, although their readiness may have.

Anyway, we could mention that there were a number of factors leading to his dropping of support of the Queen, if you have reference to them, but I believe we're on firm ground when we say that the publication of the Morgan Report was the turning point for his dropping support for the monarchy. --JereKrischel 17:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland Buckled Under Duress, Braddah

Cleveland changed his position, not his mind. The Morgan report was designed as an instrument to "allow" Cleveland to give in (he could not very well be expected to just say "I changed my mind because I'm gonna get deposed or killed if I don't", could he?). What you say about the Democrats having their base in the pro-slavery South was largely true, but Morgan was not alone (the whole committee that commissioned the report were basically of the same mind, I believe), and you are incorrect about them all wanting to restore the queen. Those democrats just did not want to annex Hawai'i, because of racism and related fears, and most of all, fear of competition in sugar. Morgan was just a little more racist than that! Sugar could be sacrificed, if it meant "saving" his White brethren (he was obligated as a Klansman to fight for them when called), taking a significant step toward fulfilling his expansionist/deportation-of-Blacks fantasy, and sticking it to an audacious brown female in the process. He could not allow the Queen to win this one -- how would that be for the U.S. of his dreams in terms of world power? Not a good precedent.

You mention the Turpie Resolution. Tell me, Jere, why would there need to be a resolution to prevent Clevelend guys from "meddling" in Hawai'i, if he was not being forced to change his position? The force was not subtle.

As for the Pullman Strike, the buildup was happening well before the Morgan report was handed to Cleveland, along with several other strikes that effectively turned S--t Creek into a raging river, and anyway my point was about his "recognition" of the "Republic", which was declared on the very day of Cleveland's biggest SNAFU of his life (um, he had just controversially sent troops to restore order, and the Pullman workers massively kicked their butts all over town!). Uncle Grover was not in any position to do what he thought was right, especially when his chances of success were minimal and his country, which had not yet evolved from blatant racism, criticized him "savagely" for it. So to speak.--Laualoha 00:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC) p.s. no I'm not running around for citations for you for a talk page when I've already given you the ref with page number. I would if I had the time, but you keep me pretty busy, braddah. However, the PG troops did swell massively, and I'll find the ref for that when I get around to working on the article.

I'm sorry Laualoha, but I've got a lot more respect for the integrity of Cleveland than you do - he was the veto king of the world, and was not afraid to buck the trend. I believe that he honestly thought he was doing the right thing in demanding the Queen's reinstatement, and I believe that he honestly thought he was doing the right thing in dropping support for the Queen's reinstatement. Any other view makes Cleveland's honor and integrity suspect, on either side.

As for the Turpie Resolution, it was the result of the Morgan Report, and made clear that our policy was non-interference. Cleveland never really imagined he would land troops and restore the queen by force, although Gresham (a villain if there ever was one), probably entertained the idea.

I still don't see how you can possibly link the Pullman Strike to his recognition of both the Provisional Government and Republic of Hawaii. He had already dropped his level of support for the queen because of her demand to behead her opponents, and the Morgan Report was simply the nail in the coffin.

Cleveland was also chastised for having a child out of wedlock - would you assert that that's why he stopped supporting the Queen?

If he had been under as much pressure as you assert, he never would have even sent Blount to Hawaii, and we would have been annexed in 1893. Occam's Razor applies here, and the tenuous links you make are much too complex. --JereKrischel 20:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

To try to find the common ground here, it's not what any of us "believe" -- the article should be based on published mainstream historial scholarship, or else it's original research. This is not my area, and I don't have books on the Cleveland presidency at hand, but although I suspect the truth is probably more complicated than JK is suggesting, I don't know if L's assertions are correct either. In short, this merits investigation, and whatever is added should be cited. It would be quite interesting to find out, actually. Cheers, Arjuna 00:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Arjuna - before it gets out of the talk page, into the article, we need references. I believe the question on the table is "was Cleveland coerced into dropping his support for the Queen and recognizing the Provisional Government by the Pullman Strike fiasco". As for my cite, I refer to An Honest President: The Life and Presidencies of Grover Cleveland, p312:

The status of Hawaii, he declared, was a matter to be left to "the extended powers and wide discretion of the Congress." The House and Senate passed a resolution mandating the status quo. Hawaii would not be annexed, but neither would Queen Liliuokalani be returned to her throne. Tacked onto the decree was a warning to foreign powers not to interfere in Hawaii.

When Grover accepted Congress's will, Dole lost no time in proclaiming the Republic of Hawaii, which Grover also accepted. Sometime later, he greeted Dole as a great and good friend and offered best wishes for Dole's "personal prosperity."

It sounds to me like mainstream historical scholarship asserts that he referred the matter to Congress, and accepted their assessment of the situation, going so far as to befriend President Dole. Certainly, if he was coerced into dropping support for the queen, he would never have become friendly with Dole (for an example of someone who never did get over it, research Walter Q. Gresham - he never was emotionally able to accept the situation). --JereKrischel 03:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Insofar as complexity, I think what we often miss is that Cleveland was opposed to any expansion of any kind of the United States, and even when he no longer had the moral ground to assert that the Queen should be restored, he still did not waver in his commitment against the Monroe Doctrine. What this means is that he was certainly still upset once Hawaii was annexed, but not because he felt the Queen got a raw deal, but because he thought it was not in the United State's best interests to expand its territorial reach. As far as I know, Cleveland did not leave any detailed writings about his feelings towards the Queen, but if he did they would be most helpful in illuminating his perspective. As it is now, I think mainstream historical opinion is that he was a brusque, yet honest man, and did not always play the game of politics well. I believe in that honesty, and believe that just as he was being genuine when he was trying to help Liliuokalani, he must have been genuine when greeting Dole as a friend. To think of him as capable of deceit is not anywhere in the historical record that I've seen. --JereKrischel 03:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Arjuna reverts

Hey arjuna, under controversies, why do you think it isn't appropriate to note the historical censorship and dismissal of the Morgan Report by pro-sovereignty scholars for the past 30 years? If we can talk about Morgan's racism, why isn't this controversy as relevant? --JereKrischel 03:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi JK. Sorry, but I disagree. 1. It's NOT "censorship" -- only a government can censor speech. If someone thinks a source is not as useful or valid as something else, and puts a lower priority on its availability than other sources, that's a judgment call, not even in the same universe as censorship. While the MR may have been less accessible, it still existed and was available to anyone who wanted to find it -- it's not as though all copies were burned. 2. I'm glad the MR report is now freely available, but it is rather doubtful that their reason is because they think Morgan was racist. That's a total red herring. There is no reason whatsoever to doubt the good faith of scholars or archivists -- after all, they do link to morganreport.org now, don't they? The delay in scaning it is most evidently the result of the fact that they felt that it is of simply of less value than other sources, because the Morgan investigation is largely seen as having been a whitewash conducted by someone with a pre-determined agenda to "exonerate" everyone except the queen. 3. Such dismissal is hardly the sole province of "pro-sovereignty" scholars. You may want to consider the possibility that the whitewash of the events exemplified by the MR is dismissed by the majority of people who have looked at the history, and simply disagree that the MR is a fair account. As you know, Russ, Kuykendall, and others had access to the MR and found it lacking. Yes, so was Blount (and they said so too), but not in quite so comprehensively biased a fashion as the Morgan investigation. I know you will disagree, but the point is that there is no reason to imply a conspiracy. Cheers, Arjuna 05:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're right, censorship is too harsh of a word. I'll try something more balanced. But I challenge you to find any non-sovereignty movement scholar who has critiqued MR regarding his racism. As you say, it's a total red herring, since he sided with 4 republicans and against his own racist democrat party. Russ and Kuykendall never looked at the MR and said, "Morgan was racist so his report was biased". What they said was, "Morgan was politically aligned with the republicans, but loyal to the democrats, so he had a vested interest in appeasing both parties".

I'll work on not implying conspiracy, but I'd ask that you cite something specific that says "Morgan's racism influenced the MR" from someone like Daws, Russ, Kuykendall, Andrade, etc. If you do find a cite for that somewhere else, from a pro-sovereignty scholar, we can use that cite as well, so don't stop looking for that just because it isn't in the works we agree on. c/m/t --JereKrischel 05:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Returned wording to "Morgan Report critics", and used the "who" template to ask for attribution. Hopefully this is a good compromise, until we can get attribution. c/m/t --JereKrischel 05:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Morgan Report. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826043722/http://www.hawaii.edu/ala/flood.php to http://www.hawaii.edu/ala/flood.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

References