Jump to content

Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversial move to coup d'état

[edit]

This controversial move/change needs further discussions and a request move before a move or a change of name. I personally oppose any change on the ground that this event is known predominantly in Hawaiian historiography as the Overthrow not the "coup d'état." The two terms are interchangeable and our article coup d'état states "A coup d'état...literally "blow of state"; plural: coups d'état, pronounced like the singular form), also known simply as a coup, or an overthrow, is the sudden and illegal seizure of a state." --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if this type of canvassing is appropriate but I will justify the move with the long standing consensus of editors that this was indeed a coup d'état as seen in the article and lead. Overthrow is not accurate to current academic understanding.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google search results seem to indicate that "overthrow" as a definition of the event is only outweighed slightly (about 297,000[1]) to coup d'état (about 245,000[2]), and Wikipedia may be a particular partner in that reason. But it does appear that the accurate description to sources is that this was a coup and should be titled as such.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, I don't believe you know the current academic understanding nor can I undoubtedly claim that I know either. Regardless of your justification, I believe this is a controversial move per Wikipedia:Article titles#Considering title changes and Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves and needs to be addressed in the proper manner through a RM. This is not a unilateral decision for any user to make.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on the contribution and not the contributor please.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your contribution is controversial and needs to be addressed inline with Wikipedia policies on these issues. Please revert your move or I will report this to an administrator.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not. Overthrow and Coup d'état have the same meaning, however, overthrow alove denotes revolution and historically, that is not accurate here. This was a clear Coup d'état for political reasons that all academics may not agree on, but the current consensus is that this was a takeover, not a revolution. Coup d'état is the most accurate and encyclopedic manner to deal with this subject in a neutral manner. "overthrow" is POV in that it attempts to mislead the reader to believe there was a just cause. That would be indeed be POV.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of overthrow (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/overthrow) does not denote revolution. Deposition denotes revolution. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is Wikipedia a place for baseless claims of connotations regarding a word. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The move is inherently controversial (the wording is POV and not supported by all historians) and was not the result of a WP:RM, so it can just be moved back per Wikipedia policy. A move such as this must be preceded by a public WP:RM. If a move is still desired by one or more editors, the matter can then be settled within normal Wikipedia policies via a public WP:RM. There's no point arguing the case here -- arguments are for an RM. Please someone just revert the move, and someone start an RM if they want a move. Don't prolong this pointless discussion. Softlavender (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree and do not believe this to be a pointless discussion. I also do not believe it must be reverted. If it is, I encourage someone else to just revert that. It may not help but the above did not help either. Calling the move POV because it is not agreed on by all historians is not accurate. "All" is not the criteria but just that the it be the majority of academic consensus and that appears to be the case for "Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii ".--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree using a simple google book search where half of the results don't even have bolded text and where one or more refers to different events including the Bayonet Revolution and the Kamehameha V's 1864 abrogation of the constitution as a coup d'état to be considered an assessment of the majority academic consensus. Some of the results are not even books related to Hawaiian history. One of the results on Page 19 of the search, "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money & Power" by Daniel Yergin speaks about Hawaii and about coups in other parts of the world but not about the 1893 event. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR, it doesn't have to be a third-party editor. If you contest the move, then move it back, it's as simple as that. There is no further protocol to observe on a contested move that did not result from a WP:RM. If the redirect prevents it, then tag the redirect with {{Db-move|Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii|page moved without RM}}. Softlavender (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked the revision history? Mark Miller has reverted my moves and edits each time despite my insisting on a RM. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Technically Softlavender is correct that you can revert. You did and I WP:IAR by reverting you as I felt it was an improvement worth using my reverts because I do not believe the move was controversial, as the article immediately made the disclaimer that the "overthrow" refers to the Coup d'état. That is not inherently controversial. Just saying it, does not make it so. I have explained in detail why the move is encyclopedic, accurate and to the article itself. I don't see the move as controversial in itself but did see KAVEBEARS revert to be without justification.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree and maintain it is still a controversial move requiring a RM... Softlavender, I'm not reverting his move again because I don't want to be accuse of edit warring.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you believe is less important than what is accurate and that is I do understand protocol here and I did appreciate Softlanders input.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR, thank you for mentioning me on this thread. I've actually pondered this myself quite a bit. I can definitely say that "overthrow" is by far the most popular word used in Hawaii by anyone when discussing the coup/overthrow in 1893, but as someone who's studied modern political history, I've only become familiar with the term coup d'état because of my college education and find that the phrase resonates more with me, since it describes what happened in Chile in 1973 or Brazil in 1964—a U.S.-backed, capitalist-led overthrow of an existing populist regime. Coup d'état, being a translation for "strike/hit/blow of/against (the) state", highlights to me the violence that underlies the proceedings of 1893. Now, I won't comment on whether I support the move, but will comment that "overthrow" is what the people on the ground use, while "coup d'état" may transform our conception of the overthrow, perhaps more accurately. We can discuss the implications of how speaking of an 1893 coup d'état would transform discourse, but I'm interested in hearing from folks who are more knowledgeable about this particular subject. The Obento Musubi (t · c) 05:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will also note that the discourse regarding Hawaiian politics is markedly different from traditional leftist or liberationist discourse on the continent. For example, the movement speaks of "sovereignty" rather than "independence" or even "liberation". Keeping that in mind, it may be worth considering how words define movements and their political objectives. Even in a space like Wikipedia, which is supposed to be "unbiased" or "neutral", it's important to remember that by choosing a particular word or phrase over another, there is always a political implication discursively. Cheers, The Obento Musubi (t · c) 05:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another note: in my years of reading indigenous Hawaiian academic works, I've maybe read "coup d'état" once or twice; the vast majority of academics refer to it as the "overthrow". Still, I am in the minority in that I do speak of the "1893 coup d'état" with folks, and nobody has openly disagreed with me thus far. The Obento Musubi (t · c) 06:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It my research it appears that academic book sources use coup far more than overthrow. However on the internet alone, over all it is only slightly more. On top of that, most sources that use overthrow also use coup simultaneously.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KAVEBEAR: Reverting the move again isn't edit-warring; it's acting according to policy. This is my last post to this thread, which is an enormous waste of energy and words, as far as I'm concerned, when the whole thing could be settled instantaneously by observing policy. Why people would rather argue and throw accusations or insults at each other rather than using policy is really beyond me. That's why we have policy: because it works and it avoids and circumvents personal opinion and argument. Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved it back to Overthrow, the stable state before this mess. I have move-protected it because that seems likely to force all the parties that care about it to discuss and get a WP:CONSENSUS as determined by outside observers via WP:RM. @Mark Miller: is warned that if he continues or again decides to edit-war, he will receive a prompt block. DMacks (talk) 06:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I heed the warning but object to being told I was edit warring when just not liking the move and calling it controversial was not a reasoning within guidelines. Has there been a demonstration that this is a controversial article in any kind of dispute other than the revert by Kavebear?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--- I have three comments against moving this to the inappropriate title of Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii .

  • First, I strongly agree with George Orwell:
  • Second, I lived nearly 14 years on Oahu. This is the first time that I have heard this referred to as a Coup d'état. Let's not impose an elite academic term over common usage.
  • Third, that minor shaking on Oahu? That was bodies turning over at the Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii. Seriously. the Hawaiʻian Royalty were Anglophiles & styled themselves after the British Royalty, who reciprocated by welcoming & instructing them. Liliʻuokalani even attended Queen Victoria's golden jubilee & wrote a song, Queen's Jubilee, to honor the occasion. I do not think the they would have favored a phrase from the republican French over the Queen's English. Even after Hawaiʻi became a U.S. Territory, there was still an affection for things British, witnessed by the continued use of the Hawaiʻian flag, based on the Union Jack, & street names like Beretania and Lusitania Streets.

Coup d'état is simply foreign to Hawaiʻi.

Peaceray (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I too think it is the most common name for the 1893 event even in Hawaiian academia.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree and do not believe that using one nations prejudice as a manner of arguing against a phrase is at all encyclopedic.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Coup d'état is simply foreign to HawaiʻI". Peaceray I need to have that explained in detail please because I find it offensive even if it was not meant as such.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a takeover from an outside nation and you actually state that the phrase itself is foreign to Hawaiians? A lot of stuff is foreign to Hawaiians, does that mean they don't understand it? No, it does not. Your argument is simply to use education and nationalism as your argument. Please try something else within our guidelines and policies. Trying to drive a wedge between editors over what is or is not foreign to Hawaiians is not appropriate here.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peaceray, your argument is to declare that the monarchy of Hawaii was a supporter of the British? I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. If you cannot explain in detail I call bullshit on that contribution. It seems highly racially motivated in its referencing.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
♦ Overthrow is the common term used in Hawaiʻi. To re-title the name of the article to include Coup d'état would mystify a vast majority of Kamaʻāina.
I have no idea what you are saying here but most Kanakas I discuss this with are mystified by "overthrow".--Mark Miller (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
♦ English was the most common language on the islands at the time of the overthrow, with strong presence of Hawaiʻian and various Asian languages. I am unaware of any significant presence of French during that time or since.
English was NOT the most common language at the time.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
♦ I take issue with your characterization that the overthrow was "a takeover from an outside nation." First, if that had been the case, it would have been an invasion. Second the overthrow was organized primarily by the mercantile class and those who were descendants of American missionaries or American migrants to the island. It was they who sought out the aid of the U.S. ambassador & suggested that it would be a good idea to bring in Marines from an individual ship to protect American interests. I do not think a contingent of Marines from a single ship would have been a sufficient force in itself without the organization of the white gentry (I am not using the last term in a racist manner, but rather as a simple statement of the fact). Yes, Liliʻuokalani did order her Royal Guard to stand down after seeing the Marines, but I think that she was well aware that a significant portion of the citizenry was in revolt against her as well.
The article and academic consensus is that American citizens used armed force to take control of the government away from the ruler. That is a coup. The monarch was not murdered and lived afterwards. The Kingdom was never officially dissolved and is in exile.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
♦ The Hawaiʻian Monarchy used the British Monarchy as a model, and the British Monarchy mentored the Hawaiʻian Monarchy. Mark Miller, I know you edit a lot of WikiProject Hawaii articles; if you are ignorant of that bit of history then I am truly surprised. I find you referring to my mentioning of it as "highly racially motivated" to be absurd. If it is racism you looking for, go read about Leopold II's treatment of Liliʻuokalani in Weintraub, Stanley (1987). Victoria: An Intimate Biography. p. 18. ISBN 9780525244691. OCLC 13666542.
Peaceray (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised with your own ignorance. The British monarchy never "mentored" the Hawaiian monarchy. The Hawaiian monarchy began to copy the British style and title, but never adopted the British model of peerage of nobility. They kept their own structures in place. Mateo (Kam IV and Kam V's father) was the one who began to bring the clothing of the western monarchy to Hawaii and some of the things he saw but didn't get exactly right (such as guard drills). Hawaiian monarchy were far more influenced by the missionaries than the British monarchy. Many were Catholic. Seems odd if your theory were correct. No, Kamehameha I had no such influence. Kam II died in England so if you want to call that "influence", go for it. Kam V began a trend towards a western model but not completely British by the way. Part of the Hawaiian Royal Family was French by the way from Kamehameha's Secretary Jean Baptiste Rives. Yeah...there was a French influence in the Kingdom as well. Don't bring up racism. I said "highly racially motivated" and it was. Your argument is that the British prejudice and hatred of the French was projected onto the Hawaiian monarchy. It makes no sense. --Mark Miller (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References for use of Overthrow

[edit]


First off, honestly just start an RM if you want to argue further and feel your contribution was justified. I don't understand how precise Google Book searches are but the fact that a lot of the results (Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity, and Poverty. The Art of Political Murder: Who Killed the Bishop?. Coup D'etat: A Practical Handbook. The King Never Smiles: A Biography of Thailand's Bhumibol Adulyadej [6]) in your link where no relevancy to Hawaiian history or the topic (i.e. doesn't even mention the 1893 event in Hawaii) makes me question its overall validity. For example, Bhumibol Adulyadej's biography in the coup result mentions a coup in Thailand and mentions Hawaii as the location of a published source in its bibliography. Also the exact phrase being proposed as the title, word for word, end to finish "coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii" does not exist in reliable or non-reliable sources.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Google searches are used all the time and we have been over that before. I don't know why you always argue against their use but your above post was made while I was creating the request that frankly never needed to be made. In the future discussion is possible without a formal request. In fact, perhaps discussion should take place before a formal request.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 September 2015

[edit]

requested move/dated|Coup d'état of the Kingdom of Hawaii Withdrawn as "snowball chance" for the following reason: The request itself was ill thought out as the "overthrow" includes the coup d'état as part of how the Kingdom was eventually "taken over" or "overthrown". Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii → Hawaiian coup d'état of 1893 – Per Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title I am requesting that this article be moved from its current title to Hawaiian coup d'état of 1893 for the following reasons based on guidelines and per: * Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.

Equally recognizable.

* Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English. ::In this instance the term is French but used in English references to a political tactic that this subject falls under. * Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects. (See § Precision and disambiguation, below.) ::"Coup d'état " does actually distinguish the act of overthrowing a monarchy with the actual events of that are clearly defined by academia. * Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. ::It is actually needed to be concise to the actual events that led to an apolgy some 100 years later by the president of the United States. * Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above. ::"Coup d'état " is consistant with similar articles on this tactical, political maneuver. :Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as "snowball chance" for the following reason: The request itself was ill thought out as the "overthrow" includes the coup d'état as part of how the Kingdom was eventually "taken over" or "overthrown". For now sourcing is a good focus.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the responses. I will reply shortly. Some of the argument just above by 青い(Aoi) seem well thought out but I am unsure if the logic flow is supportive of Overthrow or the move suggestion.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, Aoi's response made me think about the precision being too much. The overthrow didn't happen on January 17, 1893, the coup d'état did. The events that completed the overthrow are detailed in the article and the coup is but one part.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:05, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose, for the various reasons already provided. "Overthrow" is actually a stronger term, and much more widely used than "coup d'etat". I'm late to this party, but it sounds like it's already been resolved in favor of no name change. Arjuna (talk) 01:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Kingdom of Hawaii which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of a rebellion by Honolulu residents with an occupation by the United States

[edit]

It seems clear from the citations that the overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom was executed primarily by Honolulu residents. It seems almost certain that they conspired with the U.S. Minister to Hawaii, the Republican John L. Stevens who sent a note to the commander of the Boston, Gilbert C. Wiltse, that stated:

In view of the existing critical circumstances in Honolulu, including an inadequate legal force, I request you to land marines and sailors from the ship under your command for the protection of the United States legation and United States consulate, and to secure the safety of American life and property.[1]

In 1890, the populations of Honolulu, Oahu, & the Kingdom were 22,907, 31,194, & 89,990, respectively.[2] The forces of the marines & sailors from the Boston numbered 162. There is no source that indicates that any military force from the U.S. base at Pearl Harbor that was a mere ten miles away was called into action.

I am unaware of any source that indicates the incursion of the 162 marines & sailors was anything permanent, nor have I seen anything that indicates U.S. forces occupied any building belonging the the Kingdom. While it is true that, on the face of it, Liliʻuokalani concluded that the U.S. troops were there to support the revolutionists, as the current version of the article states, The American sailors and Marines did not enter the Palace grounds or take over any buildings, and never fired a shot, ...

I find it unsupported, therefore, that a temporary incursion of 162 troops in a city of approximately 23,000 can be characterized as an occupation by the United States, especially when the U.S. had more troops at its beck & call at Pearl Harbor. To call this a U.S. occupation without verification from reliable sources seems to me original research at best & biased at worst.

It is true that there was an overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom by a cadre of non-native Hawaiian born & foreign residents, but I think it is clear that it is they & Minister Stevens who played the U.S. Military & not the other way around. Peaceray (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Message from the President of the United States transmitting a treaty of annexation concluded on the 14th day of February, 1893, between the United States and the provisional government of the Hawaiian Islands. Govt. Print. Off. 1893. p. 12. OCLC 9266729.
  2. ^ "Report of the general superintendent of the census, 1890". R. Grieve, printer. 1891. Table 2. OCLC 561860051.

improper sourcing

[edit]

The excerpt followed by source [69] is not correct. The excerpt comes not from the speech, but an appendix issued some time after the speech to go more in depth towards the situation.

With this being a simple issue, I will just make the edit for proper attribution. Userusermar (talk) 21:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Congressional Record citation

[edit]

67.8.169.171 removed the reference to the US Congressional Record, the source of the quote Six of them were Hawaiians, one English, and one German; five were Americans, but residents of Honolulu; a majority alien to us.[1] The Overthrow was clearly promulgated by these men with the duplicity of the American minister, John L. Stevens, who they coordinated with. As the article states, Advised about supposed threats to non-combatant American lives and property by the Committee of Safety, Stevens obliged their request and summoned 162 U.S. sailors and Marines from the USS Boston to land on Oahu under orders of neutrality and take up positions at the U.S. Legation, Consulate, and Arion Hall on the afternoon of January 16, 1893.

Let us be clear that this was not a coup d'etat that was initiated by the American government, but rather Honolulu resident businessmen of varied citizenship, the minority of which were American. The US military force was called in on the pretext of protecting American life & property, & not to overthrow Liliʻuokalani. Peaceray (talk) 14:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never intended to remove a citation, that must have been an editing error. I want to include the link to the treaty of navigation of 1875 that was violated by civilian actors of the US. This blow on the state was initiated by civilian arms of the US government. US military forces nonwithstanding, the US violated their treaties. Please let's not decontextualize the fervent support for annexation among US leaders at the time. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the Treaty of Reciprocity section below.
The only demonstrable support for annexation appears to Minister Stevens. There was a mix of support & opposition to annexation in the US at the time. Indeed, Hawaii was not annexed until 1898 due to opposition, & it was then annexed because of the Spanish-American war. Let's not overplay the US support for annexation either. The military commander involved was given to understand that troops were needed to protect American life & property, not overthrow the Queen. Minister Stevens was duplicitous in his request, but the actions of one man acting as a maverick should not be over-construed as US policy. Peaceray (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Congressional Record: Proceedings and Debates of the Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. 1894.

Treaty of Reciprocity

[edit]

67.8.169.171 inserted treaty-violating & replaced the body of a citation of a ref (but not the "Congressional Record") with a citation to the text of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875.[1] The Reciprocity Treaty went into effect in 1876 & was to have a term of seven years. In 1884, it was extended for another seven years, meaning that it would have expired in 1891.[2] The Overthrow occurred in 1893, by which time the treaty had expired. In addition to the treaty having been expired, what in the language of the treaty would have prohibited US armed forces from protecting the US Legation & Consulate? Peaceray (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From the same treaty source:
King Kalaukaua in his speech before the opening session of the 1887 Hawaiian Legislature stated:
"I take great pleasure in informing you that the Treaty of Reciprocity with the United States of America has been definitely extended for seven years upon the same terms as those in the original treaty, with the addition of a clause granting to national vessels of the United States the exclusive privilege of entering Pearl River Harbor and establishing there a coaling and repair station. This has been done after mature deliberation and the interchange between my Government and that of the United States of an interpretation of the said clause whereby it is agreed and understood that it does not cede any territory or part with or impair any right of sovereignty or jurisdiction on the part of the Hawaiian Kingdom and that such privilege is coterminous with the treaty.
I regard this as one of the most important events of my reign, and I sincerely believe that it will re-establish the commercial progress and prosperity which began with the Reciprocity Treaty."
The treaty was in effect. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The extension of the treaty had expired in 1891. Please see if you can the "Dozer 1945" citation that I posted if you can get access by clcking on the JSTOR # & registering. If you have citations indicating that the treaty was in effect in 1893, please post them.
Also, again, what in the language of the treaty would have prohibited US armed forces from protecting the US Legation & Consulate? Peaceray (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. The treaty was in effect, due to the extension of the treaty being ratified by both parties in 1897, then being entry into force of the treaty's renewal. I don't understand why you continue to ask about US forces (I will support the removal of "US-backed"); the US civilian forces acted as proxy agents, regardless. Thus violating the treaty that was still in effect from 1887. Please read the citations I posted too. If you have citations indicating the treaty was not in effect, please post them. Your citation supports my statement as well with "Treaty ratifications were exchanged on December 9, 1887, extending the agreement for an additional 7 years." 67.8.169.171 (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused if you could help. I'm not familiar with a case when the entry into force occurs before ratification. Is there legal precedent in the historical record supporting this 1884 date before the ratification exchange? Sorry for the confusion. Thank you! 67.8.169.171 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source "Dozer 1945" also supports my "treaty-violating" edit and citation, as it concludes on page 183:
"the reciprocity treaty as a whole, despite its varying vicissitudes during the 1890's remained in force until the United States annexed the Hawaiian Islands in July 1898." 67.8.169.171 (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The negotiated agreement of the extension occurred in 1884, so my reading is that the ratification was confirming seven years from then. I am certain that I have read that tariffs were back in place by the time of the Overthrow. I will need to research this to get the proper citations, but I have weekday tasks to perform, so probably not until tomorrow.
Yes, US citizens did act in the Overthrow, but let us not forget the proportions:
"Six of them were Hawaiians, one English, and one German; five were Americans, but residents of Honolulu; a majority alien to" the US. By "Hawaiians" the Congressional Record did not mean native or indigenous Hawaiians, but Hawaiian subjects. The subjects were, I believe, of American ancestry, but not American citizens. Really, I think white Honolulu businessmen would be a more apt description, but that needs a citation. Peaceray (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the discussion. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

67.8.169.171 has again inserted treaty-violating into the lead sentence & used the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875[1] as a citation.

  • Hawaii-United States Treaty -1875 is a primary source
  • The Reciprocity Treaty of 1875, & its extension, was "a free trade agreement." Articles I, II, & III, & the Schedules of I & II, are only about the items to be imported free of duty. Articles IV is about the conduct of the treaty regarding trade goods. Articles V & VI are about when the treaty will take effect & how it will be ratified. Outside of free trade & trade goods, the treaty is silent about the conduct between the two countries.
  • The US Tariff Act of 1890, known as the McKinley Tariff. eliminated tariffs on sugar, which constituted the bulk of the trade between Hawaii & the US. It essentially rendered the Reciprocity Treaty & its extension moot as it "annulled the exclusive reciprocity arrangement between the United States and Hawaii. It undermined Hawaii's special status by allowing other nations and territories, like Cuba, to export sugar to the United States without paying duties."[3]
  • 7.8.169.171 has engaged in original research by interpreting the Overthrow as a violation of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875. This is innappropriate because:
  • The treaty is a primary document.
  • The treaty was silent on the conduct between the two nations.
  • The treaty was effectively rendered moot by the McKinley Tariff.

I will revert the edit, & the other edits containg wikilinks attempting to buttress the argument, since it all appears to be original research. 67.8.169.171 may seek consensus here to reinstate the material provided that there is verification from reliable sources that are secondary or WP:TERTIARY sources

As the Wikipedia:No original research policy states in its section on Primary, secondary and tertiary sources:

  • Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
  • Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Peaceray (talk) 03:23, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the treaty of reciprocity was still in effect regardless of subsequent legislation such as the McKinley Tariff and regardless of government or military inaction, it is civilian action by US actors that violates clear terminology in the treaty. This is not an analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synythis, but historic fact. This is historic fact.
Peaceray said "Outside of free trade & trade goods, the treaty is silent about the conduct between the two countries." This is not true, as the treaty, renewed in 1887, still active in 1893, clearly states:
"The United States of Americas and his Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands, equally animated by the desire to strengthen and perpetuate the friendly relations which have heretofore uniformly existed between them, and to consolidate their commercial intercourse, have resolved to enter into a Convention for Commercial Reciprocity."
I wholeheartedly disagree with the claims that this is original research. This is history.
I welcome discussion to reinstate the material following a concensus. 67.8.169.171 (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted {{Please see}} to the talk pages of the WikiProjects list above & to the five registered editors with the most recent edits. Peaceray (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't even need discussion. They're using their own reading of the treaty to come to a conclusion that's not explicitly stated. That's original research. This content should not be restored unless they can find reliable sources that explicitly say what they're claiming. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree with Peaceray that the edit violates Wikipedia's No Original Research policy. A treaty is a primary source, and per WP:PRIMARY, Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A statement that a particular action violated a treaty requires interpretation of the treaty's text, which per policy, requires a reliable secondary source. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peaceray and Thebiguglyalien. In my opinion 67.8.169.171 is engaging in original research using a very thin subset of primary sources. He has not found "history"--that is because in Wikipedia "history" must be based on explicit published secondary reliable sources, none of which 67.8.169.171 has cited. Rjensen (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An action wouldn't be a violation of the provisions of the treaty merely by being antithetical to the hugs-and-kisses preamble, but this only illustrates the more important point for Wikipedia's purposes and fundamental principle of verifiability. If any actions were treaty-violating then it should be straightforward to find reliable sources, indeed WP:SCHOLARSHIP-compliant sources, that say so. We should not be trying to deduce violation by reading the treaty ourselves or ourselves determining when the treaty was active; that's WP:OR. NebY (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just got back to Wikipedia and need to catch up. Let me read through this.Mark Miller (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b "Hawaii-United States Treaty -1875". HAWAII - INDEPENDENT & SOVEREIGN. Retrieved 2023-06-09.
  2. ^ Dozer, Donald Marquand (1945-06-01). "The Opposition to Hawaiian Reciprocity, 1876-1888". Pacific Historical Review. 14 (2). University of California Press: 157–183. doi:10.2307/3634970. ISSN 0030-8684. JSTOR 3634970. OCLC 7021537946.
  3. ^ "The Annexation of Hawaii". Bill of Rights Institute. Retrieved 2023-06-10.

one certain line

[edit]

"President Harrison's Secretary of State John W. Foster from June 1892 to February 1893 actively worked for the annexation of the independent Republic of Hawaii. "

Umm....Hawai'i wasn't overthrown until 1893, the Republic was formed in 1894. @KAVEBEAR does this line need to be removed? 808Poiboy (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are his tenure as Secretary of State. Just simplified it to Hawaii. My assumption is he actively worked to get the Provisional Government annexed between January and February 1893. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a Man named John H soper

[edit]

Hello, I was wondering information could be added about a story of John H Soper. in this story, it was noted that around 60-70 citizens actually participated in the overthrow and helped the US marines take over Honolulu. see Hawai'i Digital archives: https://digitalarchives.hawaii.gov/item/ark:70111/478H 808Poiboy (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letter to and from Victoria

[edit]

Letter to Victoria


Manufactured reply, probably written by the British foreign office

“Victoria, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen Defender of the Faith, Empress of India, tc., tc., tc., To Her Majesty Queen Liliuokalani, Sendeth Greeting! We have received and referred to Our advisers the Letters which you addressed to Us informing Us of the revolt which has taken place in Your Kingdom. We wish You a happy issue from Your present difficulties, and We take this opportunity of reviewing to Your Majesty the assurance of Our highest consideration and regard. And so We recommend You to the Protection of The Almighty. Given at Our Court

Court at Windsor Castle the eight day of March in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety three, and in the fifty - sixth year of Our Reign.

Your Good Friend”

[signed]

KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Overthrow_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom&oldid=1247510567"