Talk:United States/Archive 82

Archive 75

←

Archive 80

Archive 81

Archive 82

Archive 83

Archive 84

Archive 85

New POV segment on Hawaii added to History section needs removal or alteration.

Mark Miller recently added this segment to the History section, replacing the most recent consensus version without discussion:

"On January 17, 1893, Americans within the government of Hawaii, assisted by the US military, helped Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. (sic) One hundred years later, President Bill Clinton would sign the Apology Resolution for United States involvement in the coup d'état. In 1898 the U.S. annexed Hawaii."

Multiple problems. First, there's a talk page consensus to only name a few, salient, agreed on presidents in the History section. As TheVirginiaHistorian and other involved parties no doubt remember, this followed a very long, work intensive process of paring down what had become a bloated, terrible History section full of random, out of place details and POV tangents, and which lacked overall coherent logical flow. Few presidents from the first half of the country's history were mentioned while excuses had been found for naming almost every president from the last century or so in an almost bullet point format. We fixed that and brought the article back to "good" status. This new edit threatens to take us back to the bad old days, and is an especially flimsy reason for the sole mention of Bill Clinton. He wasn't even involved in the events (neither Grover Cleveland, McKinley, nor the Hawaiian royals are mentioned). Countless figures have issued all sorts of statements about historical events ranging from the Revolution to Civil Rights to Hawaiian annexation, and there's no good reason to include this pandering Clinton statement from a century later when none of the others are included. This is a broad summary country article, not a history article, and the history section has to have an even lower detail resolution than most of the rest of the article. We don't have room to spend an entire sentence on a political statement, much less by an uninvolved figure about one of the smallest states.

Second, it's all undue emphasis. Other, more important events don't receive this detail level if they're mentioned at all. Even the specific date is given, not for the annexation (which is far more pertinent to this article) but for the coup. We don't give the details of the Spanish/American War in the sentence that follows, or even really much about the world wars. The entire War of 1812 occupies a single sentence that says it was fought "over various grievances". There's no mention at all of the Texas Revolution, vastly more important to the US than the Hawaiian coup, the bloody Philippines insurrection that raged for years, or many other topics there simply isn't room for here. Almost no other specific dates are given, just those for the signing of the Declaration of Independence, September 11, and a couple of WW2 dates (Pearl Harbor and the Japanese surrender) that may have been added later.

Spending three full sentences on Hawaii's acquisition creates an absurd distortion by elevating it in importance over these other events.

Third, the segment has a misleading, POV skew. The text implies direct US military action toppled the royal family. Actually the US military didn't fire a shot, but was mobilized to defend Americans living there if they were threatened. President Grover Cleveland did not support the coup and even opposed annexation, which is why Hawaii wasn't annexed until years later. The US government even initially tried to restore the Queen to power, but wasn't willing to use military force to do so. The main problem with excessive detail here is that it's cherry-picked, with other, often crucial details omitted. There's no mention that the coup was virtually bloodless, or that it was a reaction to the new Queen junking the existing constitution that had been governing the country under a limited monarchy. Such moves frequently spark revolts. The revolutionaries are just called "Americans" who are mysteriously somehow "within the Hawaiian government", when they were actually Hawaiians of American and European ancestry (sometimes with dual citizenship). It's not like most Hawaiians are clamoring for independence today. They seem happy with being US citizens. There's certainly no mention of the booming local economy propped up by mainland tourism, or the enhanced legal/human rights that accompany being an American as opposed to a subject of a tribal monarch. The sources used are extremely POV. One example [1] condemns the "American Empire", and includes bigoted, unscholarly phrases like...

“typical American hypocrisy”

“are Americans brain dead or simply gullible?”

“No wonder Americans have become the most hated people on the planet.”

Another is titled "The Sins of the Nation and the Ritual of Apologies."

• Hawaii's acquisition is a complex topic with many POVs and we don't have room to explore it in depth in this article. I proposed a compromise edit...

"In 1898 the U.S. annexed Hawaii several years after a coup by Hawaiians of American and European ancestry had overthrown the monarchy."

...that reduced the segment to one neutral, not overly detailed sentence that retained the coup mention. It was rejected outright by Mark Miller, who deigned only to correct his initial grammatical error, and even added more of the POV sources described above. His edit summary simply said "No consensus for removal", when there was no consensus for his new change either. The last version to have consensus was the long standing sentence he replaced, and there is a talk page consensus to not start naming random, recent presidents again. I know some people recently celebrated "Indigenous Peoples' Day" to protest Columbus Day, but this isn't the place to score political points or vent some emotional anti-Americanism.

I propose we either restore the last consensus version, delete the entire segment except for mentioning the year Hawaii was annexed, or adopt a shorter, more appropriate version like the compromise I laid out above. If this current edit stands, the less desirable alternative is for me and possibly others to add lots of detail currently omitted, blowing up the segment so that it's even more unduly emphasized, but at least bringing it closer to compliance with WP:NPOV. VictorD7 (talk) 22:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the characterization that the edit was POV. It is accurate. It is sourced and the burden of evidence has been demonstrated.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources are all from experts in their fields. Published University professors. University of Cambridge publications are used for two and a US congressional record is both secondary and primary illustration.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Really? What are the “are Americans brain dead or simply gullible?” guy's notable accomplishments?VictorD7 (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"direct US military action toppled the royal family" Basically, yes. The United States Marines landed on January 17 and backed the coup. Your version is POV to think that isn't direct involvement because the coup itself was bloodless however, the many battles against multiple counter resistance forces were not bloodless.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

These are living people and have names. I have no idea who you are talking about but I don't have to demonstrate accomplishments. If you are unfamiliar with reliable sour criteria, try reviewing them please.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your POV characterization is one version. The mere visibility of US troops intimidated the regime into not fighting back against the revolutionary committee. Another perspective, stated by the military itself, was that it was just there to protect US citizens. The neutral fact is that the US military didn't violently engage. If I recall the committee did have over 1,000 armed men of its own. And Hawaii wasn't annexed for the next several years because the US government opposed annexation. The president was friends with the ousted Queen and wanted to restore her to power, but that would have required military intervention and he wasn't willing to do that. However, all of that is secondary to the larger point that either way none of this excessive detail belongs in this article, no matter how much you personally care about this niche topic. If you must, go edit other articles with this material, though even there I'd caution you to be less strident and activist in your approach. Neutrality is a core Wikipedia policy. VictorD7 (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It's false to say that "Hawaiians of American and European ancestry" overthrew the monarchy, as the people who carried out the coup were not Hawaiian; they explicitly rejected Hawaii's existence as a nation and actively advocated for its annexation. None of them considered themselves Hawaiian, except perhaps as a regional identity second to their identity as American citizens. Yes, they lived there, but primarily as a means to better control their substantial business interests which they felt would be facilitated if Hawaii was annexed. We should definitely not call them "Hawaiians", especially that primarily referred to native islanders at the time (virtually all of whom opposed annexation). It's also false to say that " that it was a reaction to the new Queen junking the existing constitution that had been governing the country under a limited monarchy". The Bayonet Constitution, created by a bunch of armed Americans and Europeans who forced the King to accept it at gunpoint, shifted power from the monarchy to wealthy landed elites, primarily whites, and disenfranchised poorer native Hawaiians and Asians; Liluokani's removal of it was meant to be the precursor to writing a new one that would expand the franchise, a move that threatened to break the power of those American landowners and businessmen who had previously dominated the government. One sentence saying that the overthrow happened, was carried out by pro-annexation Americans, and was in response to attempted constitutional changes and expansion of the franchise, is probably sufficient. Rwenonah (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your characterizations are debatable and the quoted statements aren't "false", but going down the road of debating the historical details is beside the point. We agree it should be trimmed to one sentence. Do you have a wording proposal? I could live with dropping "Hawaiians" but we shouldn't just say "Americans", since not all the revolutionaries were American, and since they did live there. Maybe local "residents" of American and European ancestry? VictorD7 (talk) 01:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Something along the lines of "In 1898, the U.S. annexed Hawaii, pro-annexation American and European landowners on the island having overthrown the monarchy after their political power was threatened several years earlier."Rwenonah (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Getting close. Can we lose "...after their political power was threatened..."? My problem with including that characterization is that we don't get into causes of the Spanish/American war in the following sentence, the Mexican War, the War of 1812, or really even the world wars. The closest we come is mentioning Pearl Harbor, but that's a mechanical trigger, and doesn't cover the underlying causes (neither the Nazis nor Japanese expansionism is mentioned). Again, we don't mention the Texas Revolution, the invasions of Grenada or Panama, the Quasi War with France, or countless other events at all. Korea and Vietnam are barely mentioned as asides within the framework of summarizing the Cold War. We'll be including the link to the article about the monarchy's overthrow if people want to read the details. VictorD7 (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I just removed the Clinton apology from that section, without realizing that this discussion was taking place. However, I agree that the section should be at least partially reverted. Also, the Clinton apology had no less than three references attached to it, which is too much. Pick one. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Cite the policy or guideline that allows such a dictate? I see citations to controversial material more than three, four, five.... no. Multiple sources are used to cite what may be perceived as "an exceptional claim".--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Annexation of Hawaii deserves mentioning with the same limited summary language as that of Louisiana Territory or Texas, perhaps, “In 1898, the U.S. annexed the Republic of Hawaii following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy.”

It is a history at least as fraught as any substantial discussion of Texas. Discussion of the mechanics of annexation, "the American and European landowners”, merchants, tradesmen etc. can be put off or referred to elsewhere by links, as I propose here.

We do not have to expand the summary historical narrative to address whether the issue of "racially diverse electorates embracing all adult inhabitants with republican forms of government" is an American value to be sought in every clime and place of U.S. territory. It is, for now, settled law. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 03:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think VictorD7 harms his own case by providing a whitewashed version of history. Comparing U.S. actions in Hawaii to Columbus does little to defend the U.S. I agree though that little detail can be provided about specific events in the history section. There is nothing particularly unusual about U.S. actions in Hawaii, hence no need to single it out. TFD (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

It can be demonstrated that that there are things "particularly unusual about U.S. actions in Hawaii". But I will first state that all the content is accurate. Americans did help with the overthrow of a sovereign nation with US military help to eventually become a state. The entire issue of Native Hawaiian sovereignty is actually a focal point today, similar to that of Native American Indians. It is unusual for a US president and congress to pass such a resolution and should be mentioned with the overthrow content.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, “particularly unusual about U.S. actions” — like Texas without the Mexicans, Native American Indians allying with US opponents at war, Louisiana Territory without the Spanish, territory west to the Mississippi without the French, and Hawaii without overthrown monarchs, — we have determined here that a summary narrative of U.S. history of expansion in the United States country article cannot support going into any detail here, — especially as events are referenced by links in the text, such as “In 1898, the U.S. annexed the Republic of Hawaii following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy.” For instance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 05:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You say it is not unusual, then compare it to treatment of native Americans. You could add treatment of African Americans and Japanese Americans. The U.S. has also overthrown governments in numerous countries. TFD (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The sentence is not about treatment but about the acquisition of a state in an unusual manner of note. I do think that all of the above should have some similar sentence added, but do not think we should expand sections with great lengths of text. But I do feel the article does not seem to handle the subject of indigenous people in the US with enough clarity.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

No "whitewash(ing)". I just showed a narrative with a different perspective is possible. As TVH and others state, we shouldn't be getting into such details in this article at all. I'm not sure we need to mention Hawaii at all. Most states aren't mentioned in the history section. I'm guessing Alaska and Hawaii are mentioned since they represented the last mainland and overall (respectively) territorial acquisitions to eventually become states. For that reason I can accept a Hawaii mention. I can even support expanding the old text to mention the coup. But it should be brief, and one sentence at the most. I like his wording “In 1898, the U.S. annexed the Republic of Hawaii following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy.” Though we still might put "...Republic of Hawaii several years after the overthrow..." to show it wasn't a bang/bang overnight thing. VictorD7 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I think a sentence saying "“In 1898, the U.S. annexed the Republic of Hawaii following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy by pro-annexation American and European landowners" is sufficient. It's important to identify the overthrow and annexation as a movement generally driven not by popular, local interests but by the interests of a small group that advocated annexation throughout. Rwenonah (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I could see it being something like this: "On January 17, 1893, the US helped overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii, apologizing for the action one hundred years later. In 1898 the U.S. annexed Hawaii."--Mark Miller (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

With further editing for brevity "In 1893, the US helped overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii,[117][118] apologizing years later.[119][120][121] In 1898 the U.S. annexed Hawaii.[122]". This retains the heart of the original content, reliable sources etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that's important given all the far more important stuff from American history that's not mentioned at all (including causes of major wars and acquisitions), but certainly Rwenonah's version is a lesser evil than Mark Miller's. Mark Miller's response to various editors pointing out the undue emphasis created by his edit given all the more important events not mentioned at all is to say that we should comment on all of them too, which would require a massive expansion to the History section that would leave it even more insanely bloated than it was back when it contributed to this article losing "good" status. I strongly oppose. I could live with either TVH's or Rwenonah's wording here. VictorD7 (talk) 04:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not sure why that's important given all the far more important stuff " See...we call that POV Victor. "certainly Rwenonah's version is a lesser evil than Mark Miller's" Try discussing the contribution and not the contributor. My response to other editors is also not the point nor does it demonstrate anything but your need to focus on editors and not the content itself. As I said, the coverage of the indigenous people of the US is poorly done and could be improved with a few sentences well placed and without bloat or over stuffing. I have offered a compromise that reduces the new contribution to one sentence but retains the reliable sources and the major facts, presented in a similar fashion as the rest of the dating. There is no consensus to lose the sources or the major points added.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I was discussing the contributions ("version"). It's unclear why you assumed otherwise. And no, stating that things like the Texas Revolution, world wars, etc. are more important to the US article than the internal politics of Hawaii before it even joined the country is called editorial judgement (based on reliable source weight), not POV. POV refers to inserting opinionated text into the article and/or emphasizing a niche topic to a degree that's undue in the particular article (even if your sources are impeccable, and as I showed above at least some of them aren't). Also, your edit left two sentences, not one, and the frivolous "apology" mention, the inclusion of which I've seen strong opposition to and no support for. VictorD7 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of what you just wrote made no sense and does not come close to resembling you actions above. Your opinion does not demonstrate itself. You have shown nothing about my sources other than that they have bias. They are reliable, university publications. What you mean by "impeccable" and showing that some are not...again, not seeing that above. You have not demonstrate a weakness in the author, the book itself or the publication or context. And no...that is a single sentence including the US president and congressional resolution.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit left two sentences about Hawaii's acquisition, not one. [2] "In 1893, the US helped overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii,[115][116] apologizing years later.[117][118][119] In 1898 the U.S. annexed Hawaii.[120]" Since your "single sentence" claim is demonstrably false, perhaps you should take some time before answering my next question. Precisely what confused you in my post? BTW, saying "the US helped" overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii when the president at the time opposed his friend's overthrow and the US military didn't fire a shot is an example of POV phrasing, in this case phrasing that also leaves a misleading impression. Even if you think you could argue that in a roundabout way elements within the US did help the revolution, the image conjured in the minds of readers who don't know better is very different (US forces charging in, guns blazing, with the full backing of the US government, followed by an immediate annexation). But the primary problem here is the undue emphasis created by excessive detail. VictorD7 (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, "Your edit has no support on the talk page, and opposition from multiple editors" there is no opposition from multiple editors to the compromise wording. Just yours.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You've been reverted by at least three different editors, all of whom have participated in this discussion. Another editor has said a single sentence should be sufficient, and made his proposal above (which I could live with). Yet another editor has argued that there's no basis for singling out this Hawaiian episode for special treatment given all the events left out at this article detail level. VictorD7 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually no, I was reverted by you and one other who didn't realize a discussion was ongoing. The other changes were in response to this discussion. You however, were reverted by two editors who still do not agree with you completely.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I see;

• The first response to your thread here was from Rwenonah who basically disagrees with most of your arguments and goes into detail on the subject as to why they hold the opinion but does state: "One sentence saying that the overthrow happened, was carried out by pro-annexation Americans, and was in response to attempted constitutional changes and expansion of the franchise, is probably sufficient." So a single sentence is suggested and that is probably sufficient to mention American involvement but is not something I agree with entirely but yes, brevity was something I agree with as well attempting a single sentence. The made this suggestion: "In 1898, the U.S. annexed Hawaii, pro-annexation American and European landowners on the island having overthrown the monarchy after their political power was threatened several years earlier."", I still believe mentioning the apology is relevant and notable enough to not be undue weight.
• Dhtwiki stated " I agree that the section should be at least partially reverted" and that they felt three sources were too many however as I stated, a perceived exceptional claim does require multiple sources. Three does seem excessive when another claim further up has no less than 6 references.
• TheVirginiaHistorian suggested: "Annexation of Hawaii deserves mentioning with the same limited summary language as that of Louisiana Territory or Texas, perhaps, “In 1898, the U.S. annexed the Republic of Hawaii following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy.”" They were of the opinion that the subject is as substantial as similar subjects and refers linking the mechanisms of the issues with wikilinks. They also add: "We do not have to expand the summary historical narrative to address whether the issue of "racially diverse electorates..." No reference to such is in my original or final text. It isn't about race but that Hawaii was already an established nation in good standing with the US that was overthrown and the entire nation and its people were incorporated into the US. That is unusual.
• The Four Deuces stated "I think VictorD7 harms his own case by providing a whitewashed version of history. Comparing U.S. actions in Hawaii to Columbus does little to defend the U.S. I agree though that little detail can be provided about specific events in the history section. There is nothing particularly unusual about U.S. actions in Hawaii, hence no need to single it out. " I stated that this subject was unusual enough to mention. They stated that the same could be said about other subjects and I agreed that they could in a similar manner.

So, my view is that there is a rough consensus to add the content in some reduced form (if TFD can live with that). Several versions of what to add have been offered but no consensus has been reached as to which version so...--Mark Miller (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dhtwiki reverted your apology sentence while I and TVH reverted and replaced your entire edit. Rwenonah didn't "basically disagree" with most of my arguments, since the historical narrative is of secondary importance (almost tangential). TFD's commment (which I disagree with) was also tangential, since his primary point was to agree with me in opposing excessive detail here. You also left out my acceptance of either TVH's or Rwenonah's version. I haven't seen anyone on the talk page except for Aquillion below agree with your proposal, and even he just added an edit that left the "apology" portion out. VictorD7 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Dhtwiki had no idea this discussion was taking place and I believe would not have made even that edit had they known and did state they believed a portion of the original contribution should be used. TVH's edit was also not whole sale and was from this discussion attempting a compromise text. "his primary point was to agree with me in opposing excessive detail here" I do not believe it was their primary point and that concern has been addressed by reducing the overall text.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Your first sentence is a non sequitur, and a funny way of spinning him saying here that he thinks "at least part" of your edit should be reverted. TVH's edit went even farther away from yours than what I had already indicated I would accept as a compromise. Even as you speak about reducing text you're adding new, undiscussed Hawaii sentences to the History section, [3], though the current content asserting that "the US helped overthrow" the Queen is misleading POV and also a problem. VictorD7 (talk) 09:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

My first sentence is accurate; "I agree that the section should be at least partially reverted". That adds to the consensus that some portion of my initial edit should remain. What you mention about TVH is just not relevant. Not really. how different the versions are from what I wrote is not the issue. That all agree some version should be included is the consensus we jusy have to determine what that consensus is. It looks to be forming below.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I said your sentence was a non sequitur; it was irrelevant to our exchange. And no, him saying that at least part of your edit should be reverted is not an endorsement of any part of it. The only portion of your additions for which there's anything remotely approaching consensus is a mention that a coup took place, which I was among the first to accept, so that's another pointless claim. I'll add that the new Hawaii sentence you added is jarringly off topic since you crammed it into the middle of the Cold War paragraph. I suggest you start paying some attention to the context in which you edit. VictorD7 (talk) 09:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of what a non sequitur is and, again, my first sentence was not that. And yes, when we determine a consensus we do indeed go by the words of the editors when they agree that something should be partially reverted and not fully reverted once they see that a discussion is ongoing. That shows they are not against the content in general...especially when they outright say what they object to...and it is removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere did he endorse any part of your new edit. His words "at least" explicitly leave open the possibility that he might support reverting more or all of it than he did with his initial revert. And if you knew what "non sequitur" means you shouldn't have attempted to counter my accurate description by insisting that your sentence was "accurate". VictorD7 (talk)

I'm not running for president and don't need an endorsement. What this is about is what the editor added to the discussion and what they said; "I just removed the Clinton apology from that section, without realizing that this discussion was taking place. However, I agree that the section should be at least partially reverted. Also, the Clinton apology had no less than three references attached to it, which is too much. Pick one. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "

I see this as Dhtwiki saying, he should not have taken that portion of the section out because there was an ongoing discussion but still supports the partial reverting of that section...the Clinton apology. He did not revert the entire portion, so it is clear from the edit that they did not object to the portion they did not revert but still supported reverting the apology portion.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I said he endorsed no part of your edit, which you confirmed with your quote. Not immediately reverting something is not a sign of support. An editor could be apathetic on a particular issue or even oppose it but not want to unilaterally revert it right away himself. He only mentioned opposing "at least" part of your edit, and hasn't posted here so far to support any of it. VictorD7 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I had wanted to revert all of it as Mark's edit warring; but, not wanting to get quickly into an edit-warring mood and seeing that the rendered text when not bloated by reference markup wasn't such a huge addition, what had been added by Mark seemed appropriate (minus the apology section and its three sources, when the mention of it in the state article isn't much longer and has only one NPOV source!). But I wasn't necessarily endorsing it in that form. I was looking for a discussion to sort it out. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

The sourcing issue is secondary to the text concerns here, but it's worth pointing out that Mark Miller's chief source for the claim that "the US helped overthrow" the monarchy....

Rocky M. Mirza Ph. D. (August 2010). American Invasions: Canada to Afghanistan, 1775 to 2010. Trafford Publishing. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-4269-3848-1.

....was "published" by Trafford Publishing, a self publishing outfit. [4] It's essentially the equivalent of a blog or Facebook post. Not only was it not really published, but the book's own description boasts that its view on "the American Empire" is "contrary to the views expressed by the Western media and Western historians", meaning it's proudly anti-scholarly consensus. The author, Mirza, has an unscholarly style and rabid, across the board hostility toward America that can be summed up with this small sample of quotes from the very page Mark Miller links us to.

“typical American hypocrisy”

“are Americans brain dead or simply gullible?”

“No wonder Americans have become the most hated people on the planet.”

The other source used...

Juliet McMullin (2010). The Healthy Ancestor: Embodied Inequality and the Revitalization of Native Hawai’ian Health. Left Coast Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-1-59874-499-6

...was published by Left Coast Press, a non-notable outfit, and is actually a book on Hawaiian health that only mentions this historical episode as a brief aside. It just vaguely asserts that the "US military" "supported" the "businessmen and planters" who placed the Queen under house arrest. In the next sentence it also points out that President Cleveland refused to annex Hawaii, underscoring what a complex issue this is.

This is terrible sourcing, and the one source that was actually published arguably isn't even faithfully represented in what nuance it possesses by Mark Miller's preferred text. The other three sources listed are all used to support the "apology" portion. No one has disputed the fact that Democratic politicians issued an apology a century later (though the apology itself was controversial). That portion has been rejected for other reasons, so the sources are unnecessary, though it's worth noting that one briefly covers the 1980 Congressionally authorized report concluding that the US was not responsible for the 1893 overthrow, and, unlike the later "apology" (which was the result of a purely political movement and process), was a fact finding effort employing multiple respected historians. VictorD7 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I concurred on the ridiculousness of the two sources mentioned here, especially the aside from the health book; the third, the sugarcane profile website, is no better. Sources should come from legitimate books of Hawaiian history discussing about this issue directly, scholarly, and neutrally from authors and historians of actual note in American or Hawaiian history and academia. Entire books about the Hawaiian kingdom and overthrow exist. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the sugarcane source was a vestigial reference someone had added to support the old sugar mention that was deleted. VictorD7 (talk) 20:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You can agree you think the sources are ridiculous. Now...demonstrate how they are not reliable sources. The sources I used did not come from this page. The claims can be sourced to man, many references however, biased sources are not excluded just because they are biased and we do not exlude sources because you just don't like them.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is academic consensus that the US assisted with the overthrow of Hawaii. It is an exceptional claim on Wikipedia that was referenced with multiple sources. All opinion of the source being terrible means absolutely nothing. It is only what you just don't like and is not how a consensus is formed. Burden of evidence has been demonstrated and the sources have not been shown to be un-reliable.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The sources are garbage for reasons clearly laid out above. The most salient problem is that your Mirza source is self published. Reliable source guidelines state: "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." It is most certainly not academic consensus that the "US helped overthrow" the monarchy. Even your own health book source gives a more nuanced description than that. Because the issue is complex, with various POVs involved, we don't have room to accurately, neutrally treat the issue here and should avoid commenting on it. By contrast, that the monarchy was overthrown and that Hawaii was ultimately annexed by the US are basic, undisputed facts. Those are also the only portions that have consensus support for inclusion at this point. VictorD7 (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion is meaning less until you can justify policy, guidelines and procedure to your accusations. Facts are what we summarize, not your opinion of the source. Self publication (if this is accurate) can still be used if the author is an expert in the field). Prove it...demonstrate it.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Your last post does not help, it is wp:bully. You have not justified violating the summary encyclopedic style of this article by expanding historical detail of US annexations for each annexation throughout its history. But you have not provided legitimate sources. As KAVEBEAR noted, "Sources should come from legitimate books of Hawaiian history discussing about this issue directly, scholarly, and neutrally from authors and historians of actual note in American or Hawaiian history and academia."

Instead of understanding the multiple annexations in US history which make detail of each prohibitive, you have proclaimed an exceptionalism for Hawaii which is not supported in the literature. Texas, California and Hawaii were “lone star” republics before they were states. Other territories were expediently annexed without prior consent of all parties — the details surrounding all cannot be explicated in the limited history section of a country article. Instead see Manifest Destiny and American Imperialism.

What "formal Admin closing” elsewhere? You have not a consensus here, but have bullied your way insisting that unscholarly sources impugned as POV justify overthrowing the consensus concerning all annexations. Shall you begin the arbcom process? very well, begin it, but do not edit war. Seek consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

First of all, I have not bullied anyone. In fact I have truly felt pushed around and had content removed without justification and mischaracterization of the current consensus. I have removed the uncivil comment.

Victor was reverted by another editor originally and then he reverted that, I saw it and reverted back to what I wrote. Then Victor started this thread and the discussion from Victors first post to the first comment all the way to now (including yourself) have been for including the content in some form. We have all been through this before and we should all understand how Wikipedia works and cherry picking pieces from the source for shock value still does not demonstrate the source is not reliable. Saying its a terrible source is opinion of the source and is not part of determining if something is "unscholarly sources".

There is a working consensus that I support and there has yet to be an explanation for the accusation that all of these sources are unscholarly. So again, if you are trying to exclude on that basis, please do so by demonstrating how. Sorry for getting upset.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The Mirza source is not reliable because the author is not an expert in the field. He is an economics expert. That source can be excluded.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Miller, Rwenonah and Aquillion seek to expand annexation detail for Hawaii as an exception to other lone star republics and territorial annexations, without justifying how Hawaii should be excepted from summary encyclopedic treatment in the history section of a country article, — unlike the treatment it might receive in an article devoted to American expansion or imperialism. Opposed have been VictorD7, and TheVirginianHistorian, with reservations voiced by TFD and Dhtwiki. There is no “consensus” to introduce the detail, only a working consensus to revert an edit based on a cookbook without any supporting scholarly published work. Mark Miller has again introduced his phrasing which is not agreed to, disrupting the article mainspace on this subject for the fourth or fifth time. Please find consensus before introducing new material on this subject. It may be that before Mark Miller's proposed Arbcom, we should try a Request for Comment and open the discussion up to larger wiki communities. @VictorD7: do you have any proposed language to frame the discussion relative to reliable sources and summary style? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"exception to other lone star republics and territorial annexations" It was a kingdom when overthrown so that "exception" is not relevant. Apples and oranges. Different events. Mentioning the overthrow is supported by almost everyone. I do not support additional expansion of annexation material. I introduced overthrow content about the US that is relevant to Hawaii. In its original version, it was reverted by Victor but he was reverted by someone else which he quickly undid. I reverted that undo and at that point Victor should not have deleted the content. Since it went into too much detail and differed in the formatting of dating (from discussion) it was changed. I never proposed this for Arbcom I said I was willing to. It does seem likely to go before Arbcom.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

"edit based on a cookbook without any supporting scholarly published work" What are you talking about? Even in its original form the content had scholarly sources. Even the Mirzer source was scholarly, it was just questionable because we could not say it was or wasn't self published and its an economists view and this should be from an expert on history and other related fields.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Mark Miller has again introduced his phrasing which is not agreed to It isn't my phrasing now actually. This was introduced by another editor as a compromise. I corrected an error and have added two notes and replaced one source. I also add that you have reverted and "disrupted" the article in the same manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion has garnered some consensus. The general consensus is that the material should be included in some form although, TVH, who has also agreed that the material should be added in some form objects to the style differences they perceive. The sticking point was the Mirza source because that had too many red flags that made it questionable as far as strength of the reliable source. We have not determined that it was self published but since the company has both regular contracted authors and self publishing by pay, we don't know for sure either way. The other source from Left Coast publishing is still objected to by Victor and Kavebear but has not been demonstrated to be weak by Wikipedia standards. Publisher is known for academic works and has a history of editorial oversight. Author is Associate Professor Juliet McMullin, a cultural and medical anthropologist. The source is not a "health book" it is a social science source. It is a study of a broad range of topics from medical anthropologists, as well as other experts and practitioners. The direct link to why it is relevant is mentioned in the book; that long term effects of sovereignty issues like this in many locations has been documented to have health effects on the indigenous descendants today. It appears to have good context that is relevant from and expert in the field, noted for scholarly work.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you've been singlehandedly reverting multiple editors repeatedly in recent days. And in the future please strike through comments that others have already responded to, rather than just self deleting them. TVH accurately lays out the lack of consensus above, but I'll add that the real sticking point, your insistence on "US helped", has virtually no support, apart from Aquillion saying at one point that he'd be "fine" with it. Even Rwenonah's proposed version doesn't include it. I definitely did prove that the Mirza source is self published. Trafford is a self publishing outfit (pay for print on demand). I even linked to the google search results where its own site says "self publishing" in the promotional banner. This is more from their own site's FAQ.

Q:"Is Trafford a traditional or non-traditional publisher?"

A: "No, Trafford is a supported self-publishing service provider."

That's the most salient problem with the source. That Mirza is an economics "expert" rather than an historian according to you is only a secondary concern. Self published sources are very poor even when the author is a relevant expert, and are mostly just good for information about himself or maybe his attributed (in text) views assuming authorship can be verified, not for what you've conceded multiple times is an "exceptional claim". That you didn't know any of this before, and have since deleted the source yourself, is reason for you to be thanking me for informing you, not throwing invective or threats my way.

As for the health book, despite it giving only passing coverage to this episode, even it doesn't say the "US helped" overthrow. It claims the US military aided in the overthrow and then in the next sentence that the US president opposed all this. That's already a level of complexity and nuance your text fails to capture. You want to change "US military" to "US" and omit the part about the US head of state being opposed to it. And that's without getting into the fact that other sources covering this episode in more detail show US troops didn't fire a shot, and indeed were ordered not to take sides in the dispute. In fact the Queen had requested US military intervention, and was disappointed when it didn't help her. At least some historians think that she mentioned deferring to the might of the US rather than the revolutionary committee in her stepping down statement as a legalistic maneuver to leave the door open to resuming power some day, especially if she could pull the US government into the dispute. She was friends with the president, and indeed he did try to restore her to power, but the committee was stubborn enough that military force would have been required to oust it, and he wasn't willing to go that far. The committee bided its time, obviously without US support, and several years later when McKinley, a pro annexation president, assumed power Hawaii was annexed. Multiple investigations on whether the US military helped the overthrow by simply being there have been conducted, starting in the years immediately following the incident, and have reached contradictory conclusions. The most recent one, launched in 1980, determined that the US bore no responsibility for the overthrow, and is touched on by some of your "apology" sources. There is no need for us to get into cherry-picked detail on such a complex, controversial topic here, especially when we don't do so for other, more pertinent topics. VictorD7 (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

What version should be used

So far there has been nothing to rebuke the sources or the claims just how much needs to be stated.

A

"In 1893, the US helped overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii, apologizing years later."

References

or

B

"In 1898, the U.S. annexed the Republic of Hawaii following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy".

References

or

C

"In 1898, the U.S. annexed the Republic of Hawaii following the overthrow of the Hawaiian Monarchy by pro-annexation American and European landowners."

<Insert> Inserting Rwenonah's proposal as "C'.VictorD7 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Some other suggested version?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• I think A is fine, but as a compromise, I suggest this (which I just edited in): "In 1893, the US helped overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii, annexing it in 1898." It's concise, and it covers US involvement in the overthrow of Hawaii's government without dwelling on it unduly. Possibly it could be tweaked slightly in various ways to link to the appropriate articles, eg. "In 1893, the US helped overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii, annexing it as the state of Hawaii in 1898." I don't think we can avoid linking to Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in some fashion, since it's the main article on the topic and needs at least a reference. --Aquillion (talk) 06:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Hawaii didn't become a state in 1898. VictorD7 (talk) 07:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I corrected that. I can live with this for now but still support mentioning the apology in some manner.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Working consensus

In 1893, the US helped overthrow the Kingdom of Hawaii, annexing it in 1898.

It's also wrong to imply the overthrow was US policy. VictorD7 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It isn't wrong, but no one has implied that.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what "the US helped overthrow" implies and it's undeniably wrong, since the president's opposition to the overthrow and annexation is well documented and undisputed, as is the fact that the US military didn't fire a shot. You don't even bother claiming that a rogue minister helped the overthrow (he personally favored annexation but even he issued orders to the landing troops not to interfere or take sides in the conflict), but just claim it was "the US". It wasn't. It's certainly disputed and problematic enough of an oversimplification not to make that claim here. VictorD7 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is undeniable and undisputed and continuing to simply discuss the general subject (incorrectly) as a source to your objection is going nowhere.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I just disputed it and your sourcing has been exposed as garbage that doesn't rise to RS standards here according to guidelines on self published materials. I also laid out above how the one source you used that was actually published isn't faithfully represented by your slanted text. Your source supports what I said above about the US president opposing annexation. You simply repeating debunked denials is going nowhere. VictorD7 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

It is undisputed academic consensus and recognized by the US. What you are objecting to here is that you feel saying the US helped is saying it was "policy". That says no such thing. That is an unreasonable leap.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you've now conceded above that your primary "academic" source, Mirza, isn't RS here after all, but you're still ignoring the problems I laid out with your cherry-picking text even failing to faithfully represent your other source, which is also of poor quality, but more nuanced in its approach. And the US recognition you mention, presumably the century old apology, was a controversial statement by politicians, not an authoritative historical judgement. Even it's more nuanced than your text is, blaming a US minister (Stevens), apologizing for his alleged actions, which it says were conducted without the approval of Congress or the president. VictorD7 (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see him conceding that about the source but it seems like people have objection on source having a Muslim last name more than anything else. Am I right or am I right? Sheriff (report) 20:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen anyone say anything about his name (apart from citing it to identify which source is being discussed) or mention the word "Muslim". I don't know what his religion is, if he has any. Unless you can produce a quote showing otherwise, I ask that you retract your claim. Serious real problems have been identified with the source, and the concession I referred to was Mark Miller removing the source [5] and acknowledging it was poor on the talk page, albeit for a different reason. VictorD7 (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• B, with C as a second choice. "A" is unacceptable for various reasons. First, you leave out the annexation, which is far more important to this article than the coup. It's also misleading. Saying "the US helped overthrow" the kingdom (and it should read "monarchy") is dramatically oversimplifying a complex issue, given that the US military didn't fire a shot and the president opposed the overthrow and later tried to restore the Queen (whom he was friends with) to the throne. The revolutionaries required no help from the US. Better to leave the details of alleged US involvement, and the various POVs involved, in the appropriate article where there's room to responsibly cover them. If we get into the coup actors at all here we should stick with "C"'s language identifying those who actually perpetrated it. The "apology" mention is frivolous. We don't mention apologies or other opinionated statements elsewhere in the History section even from involved parties, much less some politician who had nothing to do with the events speaking a century later. It's as if "A" was crafted in a vacuum, with no regard for the context of the rest of the section or article whatsoever. The sourcing and text issues have both been commented on above, contrary to the non-neutral intro of this subsection, but the low quality, POV nature of at least some of the sources used isn't worth getting too deeply into since sourcing is beside the point here. The issue is the text, and fitting it into the article. VictorD7 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

*A is the preferred version but the apology seems to be something that some feel is undue. I understand that, however the US has never taken this action with any other government that they helped overthrow and no other government became a part of the US in this manner, it is also a part of the determination of legal status of the indigenous population that has been an issue since the overthrow and annexation. I truly believe the article should distinguish this fact in some manner...that the Native Hawaiians have yet to be classified as Native American Indians. I don't think this needs a load of text but adding just the apology portion links to the article that can direct the reader to all the other articles in regards to Indigenous peoples classification and sovereignty issues etc..--Mark Miller (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Politicians have issued apologies for slavery and other issues, not to mention other types of statements on historical events, none of which are mentioned in this broad country summary article. It's not a place for political statements. You also just added another segment on Hawaii to the History section [6], this one to the Cold War subsection. This isn't the Hawaii article, it's the United States article. Most states aren't mentioned in the History section, yet we've got at least two sentences on Hawaii, and you've been pushing for adding more. VictorD7 (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The seated president and the full congress? Nope, never happened before. Oh...so you don't think Hawaii even deserves mention of being the 50th and last State? Hawaii is an important part of what makes up the US, its strategic strength and its entrance to the world stage with the control of the sugar industry through the overthrow. At any rate, that was added as clarification from the mistake that Hawaii became a state in 1898. It was annexed and then was made a state in 1959. I see no reason why it should not be mentioned.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Deserves"? You don't mention its strategic importance or the sugar industry in the article. In fact you deleted that long standing previous mention and replaced it with multiple lines about the coup. And countless formal opinions have been passed by Congress. Oh, and some people make similar claims about the US "stealing" Texas from Mexico that activists do about Hawaii. There are certainly similarities in that local revolutions created independent republics that later joined the United States in both cases. It's not as unique a case as you make it out to be, not that uniqueness necessarily elevates something to a vital importance demanding mention in this brief historical summary section anyway. VictorD7 (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to mention all that on the article. Don't confuse this. This isn't an accusation. It's history. Its academic consensus. I don't have to prove the US "stole" Hawaii....the US helped overthrow the Kingdom government. That has been demonstrated with the burden of evidence and is further demonstrated by the US admitting it and then apologizing for it in a formal resolution. You down play all of it by changing just parts of the events and then trying to make this sound like a conspiracy theory. LOL! It's history and the consensus is to include some portion of those facts.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated anything. Heck, so far I'm the only one here to actually quote something from your sources. I've also provided key facts showing why such a brief, simplistic claim out of context is problematic. As for the "apology" a century later, political statements aren't necessarily authoritative on matters of historical fact. VictorD7 (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have demonstrated the burden of evidence. WP:BURDEN: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

References

--Mark Miller (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not see how you have shown any issue with the sources, the author, the publisher and certainly not the context as that issue is moot. The consensus is to retain the overthrow information in some form and that the last editor above sees it (and I agree) as being nearly impossible to add with out mentioning the overthrow.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Various problems have been raised by me and other editors here, including by TVH again below. As for sourcing, I showed with bolded quotes above that the author of your primary source, Mirza, is a rabidly biased anti-American bigot with an unscholarly writing style. I'll add here that the book was "published" by Trafford Publishing, a self publishing service that's been the subject of Better Business Bureau complaints. So it wasn't even really published. Plus the book's own description states that the author's view on "the American Empire" is "contrary to the views expressed by the Western media and Western historians". That's the opposite of representing scholarly consensus. Your source prides itself on being anti-consensus. Your other source was published by a non-notable outfit called "Left Coast Press", and doesn't delve into details on the overthrow (at least not in the section you link to). It merely adds a clause vaguely claiming the "US military" "supported" the "businessmen and planters" who placed the Queen under house arrest. In the next sentence it also points out that President Grover Cleveland refused to annex Hawaii. This source is actually a health book on Hawaiians, so this historical episode is treated as a brief aside. These are terrible sources in this context. I shouldn't have had to point all this out. You should have known this before posting here, instead of deciding what you wanted to say and then finding random sources to support it, without regard to quality. And arguably the one source that was actually published isn't even faithfully represented by your preferred text, since it provides key facts and some nuance you omit, underscoring what a complex issue this is. VictorD7 (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You raised a lot of issues but didn't demonstrate most of it and could have just said, this is an economic view of the facts, not a historian. A lot of what you said about the author and the publishing company are not part of how decisions are made on Wikipedia, no matter how vocal editors are. The subject of the overthrow is often written and commented on by economic experts and authors but the publisher does have regular contract authors and you never established that this was self published. The Left Coast publisher is perfectly acceptable. Not being a notable publisher does not effect the reliability of the source.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Being a self-published source is more problematic here than him supposedly being an economics guy rather than an historian. Trafford's own site FAQ denies that it's a traditional publisher and defines the outfit: "Trafford is a supported self-publishing service provider." This has been demonstrated. I don't know what else I could do to demonstrate this further. This very much how sourcing is examined on Wikipedia. I even quoted the relevant guidelines on self publishing above. The Left Coast source is not as bad (at least it's published) but still poor, especially for supporting what you admit is an "exceptional claim". And your text doesn't even faithfully represent what nuance exists in that source, as I've laid out. VictorD7 (talk)

• B It is equivalent to the treatment of US annexation elsewhere. There is no consensus to add the apology of Hawaii proposed in A. Opposers to A have met their "obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia” that is, undue emphasis and the detail does not meet encyclopedic summary style for a summary country article. C raises detail which would require NPOV addition of more context related to the ideal of permanent resident access to citizenship and the right to vote for all races in a republic, which motivated the over throwers of the monarchy. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The undue emphasis of related sourced historical detail is likewise omitted concerning Texas, Louisiana, the Treaty of Paris 1783, and Native American Indians. Addition of such detail does not conform with the encyclopedic style established by consensus on this page for its history section. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A, is no longer the working consensus but what was suggested above by another editor, removing the mention of statehood that was an error. What treatment other subjects receive is not how to treat this subject. There exists no consensus of style on this page and cannot override the consensus of the larger general community. It does conform with the style of dating etc., and that is what matters. See the working consensus version. The new compromise version has a rough consensus as most editors do believe the overthrow is worth mentioning in a shortened version of A.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Even VictorD7's version has that much; ""In 1898 the U.S. annexed Hawaii several years after a coup..." However it was not the coup it was the "overthrow" because that as a subject encompasses the events prior to the coup, the coup itself, as well as the 1895 Counter-revolution in Hawaii.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've never opposed saying "overthrow", but there's certainly no consensus for supporting "the US helped" overthrow the monarchy, since the reality was far more complex than that, with differing POVs and conflicting, speculation heavy accusations on the matter. VictorD7 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I am attempting to say; by Wikipedia policy an exceptional claim needs multiple sources and that in doing so, one has proven the burden of evidence for the content. The general academic consensus of scholars is that the US "assisted", "Helped" or was "involved" in the overthrow. Now, the sources I am using are indeed academic publications from experts in their field and a suggestion that we must only use "legitimate" Hawaiian history sources is saying you want to determine what is and is not "legitimate" and without and definition? Wikipedia does have standards to determine if a source is reliable. If you feel a source is not legit, please explain how before you declare that it is not a legitimate Hawaiian history source.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is support for that from the very first revert (that was not me) to others commenting on the facts and their suggestions for text. I don't need you to agree. The text is there for a formal Admin closing. That is likely to be the outcome. Frankly, I am willing to take this to arbcom and have some basis for that fact considering lack of consideration you pay to our policies and guidelines. while I support a form of my original bold edit, I have consistently demonstrated my willingness to adhere to consensus. But I will not be bullied, my sources or their authors demonized or defamed or the content excluded by sheer force just because editors don't like the information. Don't waste Wikipedia's time by trying to call attention to content meant to shock those that support the subject in a nation you feel must be defended or one that must not be criticized is not the point. It is about claims that can be referenced with reliable sources. If you disagree, you need to demonstrate how the general community is wrong. If you cannot do that, or how the sources do not meet Wikipedia standards or the claims are not supported by the sources (or other sources), please expect me to fight this to arbcom. If you can demonstrate that the claim is false or the sources are inaccurate (when pertaining to the facts they support) within Wikipedia guidelines, policies and procedures.....this will not likely end soon.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You've already conceded that your primary source, Mirza, isn't RS here, so I'm not sure why you posted this. I was very specific in raising problems with your sources (like the Mirza "book" being self published). You've only provided one other source for the contentious "US helped" segment, and that's a low quality source considering you admit this is an "exceptional claim" (a Hawaiian health book that briefly touches on the historical topic as an aside). I've specifically laid out how your oversimplified text doesn't even faithfully represent it. Attacking my motives or threatening to take this to arbcom is silly. You should be thanking me for providing information that contributed to you withdrawing at least one of your own sources. Furthermore, even if your sources had been impeccable and faithfully represented by your text, simply having sourcing isn't the only factor to consider when adding material to an article. The article/section topical scope, detail level, and the context of the surrounding text all matter too. Just because a fact is undisputed, like "Washington DC is the capital of the US", doesn't mean it's an appropriate item to add to the article on steak. As this section and the others show, there is no consensus for your preferred wording.

Basically there are three components at question here: 1. The US annexed Hawaii. 2. There was a transition (or overthrow) from the monarchy. 3. The US helped overthrow the monarchy. The first two items have working consensus support. The third doesn't, and indeed has strong, well reasoned opposition. VictorD7 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)VictorD7 (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A or the original text As, I was one of the editors who reverted VictorD7's edit when he took out the section about Hawaii, it's my responsibility to speak out about this matter. I do not know much about US history or Hawaii's history thus I am the only one who can speak about this from an encyclopedic point of view and without having any personal opinion about the matter. Original text by Mark Miller should be kept as long as it is supported by sources. We cannot keep an article in a status quo just because a consensus was achieved years ago or months ago thus nobody has a right to contribute to it or expand it and we cannot reject an edit just because the source had an Anti-American tone. This is an international encyclopedia and some reliable sources around the world does not have a favorable view point of US or its policies and they have the right to be featured in the same manner as pro-US sources. Sheriff (report) 20:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• A few corrections. "A" wasn't the "original text". As you indicate, his edit was a recent change to a long standing consensus segment that he deleted. Also, the primary criticism of the main source he used is that it was self published, which Wikipedia guidelines strongly frown on. I suggest you read the above section on Sourcing problems. Its unscholarly, anti-American tone is a secondary concern, but worth noting for the same reason you raise alleged editor bias here. Note that even Mark Miller has since withdrawn the source. Since sourcing problems have been demonstrated and admitted, I ask that you reconsider your support for "A", in accordance with the open minded, non-biased perspective you said you possess. Also note that "A" fails to even mention Hawaii's annexation, the most pertinent fact (to the US article) in this entire discussion. I also ask that you consider at the very least offering equal support to "B" and/or "C", or, if not, explaining your opposition to the basic, undisputed facts in those versions. I'll add that it's wrong to suggest that editors shouldn't know much about US history, or that you're the only one here capable of commenting on this from an encyclopedic POV, but I suspect that comment was well meaning and you were only trying to establish your own neutrality, not denigrate other editors. VictorD7 (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• B with what is in the article now (In 1893, the Kingdom of Hawaii was succeeded by the Republic of Hawaii, and the US annexed it in 1898.) seeming very similar and also sufficing. Version A has some good sources, but is, of course, WP:UNDUE with the apology, which is out-of-place chronologically. I think the Nobles book is the most complete of the last three sources, which are the ones I've consulted. However, these sources belong at the state article, where the apology mention has no non-NPOV source that I could see. Version C verges on the UNDUE with the simplistic mention of an "...overthrow...by pro-annexation American and European landowners". And there are no sources. The article on the Kingdom of Hawaii gives a history that is fairly nuanced in comparison, including previous heavy-handed intervention by the French and English (protection from which the U.S. could reasonably be seen as rescuer), the dependence on U.S. trade, the internal royalist-republican dissension, etc. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• A or some variation on C. B is utterly unacceptable and fails to represent the situation accurately; the involvement of US forces in the overthrow is extremely well-sourced, and is uncontroversial among modern historians, nor is there any reason to think that devoting a few words and a wikilink to it here is WP:UNDUE given that it's central to that aspect of the history. --Aquillion (talk) 00:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• You didn't cite a single inaccuracy in "B", and though this might be central to Hawaiian history it's not central to US history. Also, if we included the link to the "overthrow" article in the word "overthrow" would you find "B" acceptable? As for your claim about US force involvement, it's not extremely well sourced here, since the only third party published source directly commenting on it that's been presented is a Hawaiian health book mentioning it in passing. But no one is disputing that US forces were "involved" in some way, even if it hasn't been adequately sourced here. What's problematic is the oversimplification "the US helped" the overthrow. That's a misleading summary of a complex issue. This report, commissioned in 1980 with its key sections (esp. these [7], [8]) written by historians, provides far more factual detail (including numerous primary source quotes) than the junk sources presented here so far and shows how complex the issue is. At most elements within the US, namely one minister acting on his own, intervened, and even then troops were landed ostensibly to protect non-combatant US citizens (especially the consulate and legation). By "A"'s logic one could say that "the US plotted to surrender West Point to the British during the Revolutionary War", rather than the traitor Benedict Arnold doing so. Furthermore, both the queen and revolutionary committee requested armed US intervention on their respective behalf, and Stevens told both no, that US troops wouldn't take sides. US troops landed but didn't fire a shot, and true to their orders didn't take sides in the dispute.

""On Sunday evening two cabinet members called on Stevens to find out if the rumors were true. Stevens made it clear to them that he would not support the queen in a conflict. That same day, members of the Committee of Safety also called on Stevens. Stevens reiterated "that while he would call for the United States troops to protect life and property, he could not recognize any government until actually established." He repeated that the troops when landed would not take sides with either party, but would protect American life and property. 191/"

"A landing force had been organized and armed, and an order couched in terms of standard Navy policy had been issued to Lieutenant Commander Swinburn, who was to lead the force:

...You will take command of the Battalion and land in Honolulu for the purpose of protecting our Legation, Consulate, and the lives and property of American Citizens, and to assist in preserving public order. Great prudence must be exercised by both officers and men, and no action taken that is not fully warranted by the condition of affairs, and by the conduct of those who may be inimical to the treaty rights of American Citizens...194/

The landing force consisted of "one company of Marines, 30 men, under command of Lieut. H, L. Draper, U.S.M.C., two companies of Sailors, the first consisting of 34 men under command of Lieut. Charles Laird,...and the second consisting of 35 men, under command of Lieut. Dewitt Coffman...and two pieces of artillery, one short gatling and one 37 m/m H.R.C. (Hotchkiss Revolving Cannon)..." 195/"

The only way one could argue that the US military aided the overthrow was by intimidating a paranoid regime simply by being there, possibly by accident. Some elements within the US thought the US landing played a role, and, given their pro queen/anti-annexation sentiment were furious. This included the president, a personal friend of the queen. Stevens was forced into retirement and condemned by the president and other anti-annexation government elements, his actions disavowed. He had acted without approval from the US government. The US government called for the queen to be restored to power, but the new Hawaiian government refused and the US wasn't willing to go to war over it.

Different people have interpreted the above events in different ways with different spins, but simply claiming "the US helped overthrow" the monarchy clearly doesn't do it justice and is misleading without greater context. It implies the US acted as a single body with a united purpose, ordered from the top down, and even that it took direct, violent action. The academic consensus is the opposite. VictorD7 (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

All, i have to say in this regard is this is a country article on United States and anything/any event which significantly altered the composition of a country or had any other significant affect on United States as a country is worth mentioning in this article. I do not agree with any previous consensus if there was any to remove any information about any event which had a significant effect on United States. By this standard, i think acquisition of a state by force or otherwise is a significant event and belongs in United States article and is just not about that state, in this case Hawaii. I think apology should be mentioned if there was one as it does not happen every day that a US president apologizes for some thing. I see people here are trying to change a sourced text with their own made up versions or trying to mask a sourced content with their own version. You have to include something about acquisition of Hawaii and you have to basically support it with a reliable source and i am okay with that. If apology is supported by an RS, include that in as well because that is unusual and that fact makes it encyclopedic and worth mentioning. I don't think article on United States can be complete without mention of Hawaii and i don't think an article can be an FA without completeness. Sheriff (report) 20:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

We can't put every significant event to ever happen to the US in this broad country summary article, and political statements (apologies and otherwise) are common. The US government has even gone beyond apologies and paid reparations to certain groups of people, like thousands of Japanese Americans interred during WW2, or people involved in the Tuskegee experiment, something it hasn't and won't do for ethnic Hawaiians, neither of which are mentioned in this article. The notion that an apology must be mentioned is simply fallacious. This isn't a history article. It's a country article with what's supposed to be a very brief, broad, historical summary. Many of your other claims are false too. I just provided the best source anyone has here in my last post, and I'm the only one to quote material from sources. The only one attempting to change source material to their made up version are the editors who support "A". Unless that's what you were saying, in which case you should have been clearer. You say it's important to mention the acquisition of Hawaii. I agree. "B" does that. "A" doesn't. So are you now supporting "B"? No one has suggested we don't "mention Hawaii". I'd still like you to retract your baseless claim above about the "Muslim" angle influencing editors. That's important for preserving some credibility for your boasts about being neutral, open minded, and encyclopedic. VictorD7 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologizing about an incident which led to acquisition of a state has no comparison with events that you mentioned above and i don't think those should be included in country article but i would still support the mention of apology in Hawaii context along the lines of A. There is nothing wrong in doing that and it adds encyclopedic value to the article. I never said that we should mention every significant event in which US was involved but yes we should mention those events which significantly changed the composition of a country or had any other significant effect. For example, i would not support mentioning of Gulf War on US article but i would support its mention on Iraq article because it significantly affected that country. The article should be able to spell out how United States became United States of 50 states, how did it become 1 to 50 to 1. Sheriff (report) 16:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

It would be the only political statement of any kind, let alone apology, to be in this article's history section, and would be arbitrary and undue for that reason. Most states aren't mentioned at all in the section. You also didn't answer about whether you find "A" unacceptable since it doesn't even mention the USA's acquisition of Hawaii, while "B" does. VictorD7 (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary, call for RfC

Summary Comment. So we have 3 for A Mark Miller (withdrawn), Sheriff, Aquillion and 3 for B VictorD7, TheVirginiaHistorian, Dhtwiki, with C second choice of two. Perhaps we can recast the three alternatives as an RfC. Calling for initial comments by participants might avoid the present wall of text so we can attract additional editors to work towards a consensus. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You may be right, though I had been hoping to let the current discussion play out a little longer. It's been productive in content and sourcing investigation that might not have occurred in time if an RFC had been called from the get go. Maybe its productiveness is nearing an end. I do agree that if and when we initiate an RFC we should begin with fresh summaries of the arguments involved for the benefit of new participants who probably won't read all the above discussion. VictorD7 (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I also would let this discussion go on for awhile. Not everyone who might venture an opinion eventually is necessarily quick to do so. Also, how does an RfC expand the discussion other than haphazardly ("summoned by bot" doesn't necessarily bring in the most interested editors who might not be watching this page)? If we cast the net wider, we should target those places where others familiar with the issue are likely to be concentrated, such as the state article for Hawaii or WikiProject United States, especially if we're looking for consistency and proportion across a range of articles. Dhtwiki (talk) 03:49, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Hawaii annexation Compromise D

Okay, for now. @Rwenonah: offered an interesting compromise with promise in the mainspace,

D. "In 1893, pro-American elements in Hawaii overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii and formed the Republic of Hawaii, which the US annexed in 1898.”

This is comparable to the treatment of Texas, California and Florida:

"The U.S. annexed the Republic of Texas in 1845 during a period of expansionist Manifest destiny."

"Victory in the Mexican–American War resulted in the 1848 Mexican Cession of California and much of the present-day American Southwest."

"A series of U.S. military incursions into Florida led Spain to cede it and other Gulf Coast territory in 1819."

Support. but open to further copy edits along this line. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Less than ideal since neither the Texas Revolution nor the causes of the Mexican War or Spanish/American War are mentioned at all (nor much about the underlying causes of the world wars for that matter), but as I indicated earlier I would find this an acceptable compromise, and can therefore support it. VictorD7 (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please note support or oppose Rwenonah's proposal, "In 1893, pro-American elements in Hawaii overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii and formed the Republic of Hawaii, which the US annexed in 1898.” : @Mark Miller, SheriffIsInTown, Aquillion, and Dhtwiki: Thanks in advance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per the points @TheVirginiaHistorian: and @VictorD7: has made. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support, as the person who wrote it originally. Rwenonah (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

*Conditional Support, if you have an RS which can testify the truthness of major facts in the sentence otherwise oppose and replace with option A. Sheriff (report) 01:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Overthrow is needed for balance and had the required consensus to include. Balance is what the academic consensus gives weight to. If you mention annexation it needs the balance of mention of the overthrow and US involvement and those are the actual facts my original contribution added, was then removed by Victor, added back by another editor and the edit warred out by Victor, placed back into the article by me (because it had support by another editor) only to have it edit warred back out again by Victor.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Four support, one conditional support, one oppose. This is what we mean by consensus. The majority takes the minority into account. Mark Miller observes, “‘Overthrow' is needed for balance”, along with “US involvement” and so Rwenonah’s “pro-American elements in Hawaii overthrew” takes the minority of one into account. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 06:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Both texts have totally different meaning, I don't think it takes minority one into account. Do you think you have WP:CONSENSUS, all right? My proposal is that we count the available reliable sources, if more mention "overthrow by pro-American Hawaiians" then we include that otherwise if more of them mention "overthrow by US involvement or support" then we go for that and same goes for apology. Sheriff (report) 08:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If apology is a fact then it doesn't make sense for Clinton to apologize for an "overthrow by Pro-American Hawaiians" or was he high on drugs that day? Sheriff (report) 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

1) "Overthrow" and "overthrew" has precisely the same meaning. The US foreign minister acted without U.S. government instructions and was forced to resign as it was, so "pro-American elements" (anti-monarchy faction) is well chosen.

2) This article does not go into the motivating causes of any other annexation. Hawaii already has a dozen state references, Texas has five. This article should not become the Hawaii blog WP:UNDUE. Cookbooks and vanity publications are not reliable scholarly sources.

3) The legal effect of the Apology Resolution was addressed by U.S. Supreme Court in 2009: the 37 "whereas" clauses of the Apology Resolution have no binding legal effect, nor does it convey any rights or make any legal findings for native Hawaiian claims. It is a consideration for a narrow Hawaiian context, not for a summary country article. See Apology Resolution#Practical legal effect for a reliably sourced explanation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Bill Clinton apologized for the American annexation of Hawaii, not the overthrow of the monarchy. Grover Cleveland's administration repudiated the annexation and even attempted to have the Queen reinstated; it wasn't until a more pro-annexation president arrived in office that Hawaii was annexed. If the American government opposed annexing Hawaii during the overthrow, it's reasonable to say they didn't support it. Rwenonah (talk) 10:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - As the "compromise" was an edit that was made while discussion was underway and therefore disruptive. The need to say "pro-American" elements overthrew the monarchy, when such events are apt to be the result of the confluences of more than one pro- or anti- impulse, seems POV-ish and simplistic and better left to be hashed out on other pages. The current B text, which tells of "overthrow" rather than just "succeeded" places the events of that time in violent enough context. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@Dhtwiki: I am not disputing your reverting Rwenonah's edit in mainspace without discussion, I brought it here for discussion because I think it has merit because it adheres to the chronology of events. There are seven editors trying to hash this out on this page, I was hoping to bring you along with the consensus. The “confluences” for a democratic republic in Hawaii are aptly captured by the term “pro-American”, especially since the actors openly and repeatedly made efforts to seek annexation by the United States, before, during and after the overthrow of the monarchy. But “pro-American” does not unduly assert annexation was US government policy by a faulty anachronism, which is the simplistic POV that I object to on this page. I hope you can give D your support. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@TheVirginiaHistorian: Sorry, but I definitely prefer what's there now, even in preference to B. And I think even the current text, discussing the Kingdom and Republic, and linking to them, is much less relevant than talking about McKinley's role as expansionist, the Newlands Resolution, and the Territory of Hawaii, and linking there, where discussions of the events relevant to annexation seem to be centered, which is what we really need to be talking about. But better to leave it be, than any option being proposed, as I see it now. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Even if you prefer it, it's reasonably clear that that version doesn't enjoy any sort of consensus, while D seems to have at least a rough support; there's stronger support for version D than the current version, anyway. Ultimately our goal here has to be to find some compromise version that everyone can agree to, and this is at least a step forward. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but there seems to be a tie in the above from what I see and this latest proposal seems shot down. I have edited the article once more, boldly.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I support your change, which I think was a clear improvement over what was already there; at the very least, I feel that linking to Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in some form is essential, since it's a key part of the history. But if we don't stick with that, I think we should at least move to proposal D; it is clear that that version, at least, enjoys a stronger consensus than what was there originally. --Aquillion (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If there's no agreement then we let stand what's there, as long as we have sufficient mention of Hawaii becoming a territory, in line with Alaska, etc., which we do. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion: Agree with Aquillion. While I can live with Dhtwiki's version, the vote is now 5 to 2 to 1 as follows:

5: TVH, VictorD7, Gwillhickers, Rwenonah, Aquillion ---

"In 1893, pro-American elements in Hawaii overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii and formed the Republic of Hawaii, which the US annexed in 1898.”

2: Mark Miller, Sheriff, ---

"In 1893, the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthown with help by the US and annexed in 1898."

1: Dhtwiki. ---

"In 1893, the Kingdom of Hawaii was succeeded by the Republic of Hawaii, and the US annexed it in 1898."

TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy and polls shouldn't be used to decide article changes. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

The resolution here should depend upon reliably sourced consensus, rather than minority POV bullying.

We have seven who want to note that the Kingdom of Hawaii was overthrown. Six object to the factually incorrect implication that USG policy was to overthrow the monarchy. The monarchy was restored "with help from the US" under Cleveland, but that is too much detail for annexations in this summary article. Only two would assert the pro-American elements finally established the Republic of Hawaii “with help from the US" --- referenced to a cookbook and a self-published screed, which are demonstrably not reliable sources.

Be aware that WP:CONSENSUS does not require unanimity. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hawaii Annexation consensus D discussion

Quick suggestion: can we say "monarchy" in text (as earlier proposals suggested) instead of "Kingdom of Hawaii"? Otherwise we're saying "Hawaii" three times in the same sentence, and overthrew the monarchy is clearer than overthrew the kingdom. We could still keep the underlying Kingdom of Hawaii link. VictorD7 (talk) 19:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Like the suggestion of "monarchy" with Kingdom of Hawaii link as better style, without altering substance. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:30, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Becoming curious about the quality of the various articles on Hawaii—thinking to suggest linking to the Territory article, possibly at "annexed", to better signify Hawaii's becoming a territory—I surveyed their relative readerships, which should give some indication of what people are interested in. It turns out that Mark's Overthrow article placed third out of the five I checked, in recent 30-day traffic statistics (State - 140k, Kingdom - 13k, Overthrow - 8k, Territory - 6k, Republic - 4k). So, that article might be linked at "overthrow", since you're making adjustments, and if that's not too much wiki-linking, or disruption of a consensus that I have not formally joined. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If I may speak for a group I have not formally joined, as those with a particular interest in the mechanics of historic transitions in Hawaii may wish to bring too much detail into this summary article.

Their main point seems to be that the Monarchy was overthrown by permanent residents excluded from self-governance — but without a referendum in the general population. The overthrowing group that was for American annexation then excluded other residents in their new Republic of Hawaii although it had more democratic structure. Those editors would like to highlight that inconsistency. (Not the consistency that the monarchy fell as the monarchy was established.) But our participating editors choose to emphasize the inconsistency, as though to say, Two wrongs do not make a right. Although WP is not the place to right great wrongs. -- I agree some of the various articles on Hawaii have issues of WP:BALANCE. It is well that the ancient Hawaiian tradition of executing women who ate pork is no longer observed anywhere in the US, for instance.

But answering the concern of the minority view is the importance of “overthrow” in the narrative consensus D, and the significance of linking to the Kingdom of Hawaii article and its account of the transition in forging a consensus incorporating the minority point of view, --- so we have a true consensus, not mere outvoting in a poll. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the pro-American elite group who overthrew the monarchy actually controlled the kingdom's governance, having forced the previous monarch to accept a consitution that concentrated power in the hands of landowners in 1887(Bayonet Constitution). The overthrow occurred in response to an attempt to create a constitution that would have reduced this group's control of the legislature, a change which enjoyed fairly broad support from the native Hawaiin population.Rwenonah (talk)

I appreciate Dhtwiki's research, and would support using the Territory article link under "annexation". In fact I think I used that link myself at some point earlier in this process, though I don't remember for sure. VictorD7 (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Incorporating both Dhtwiki's and VictorD7's link amendments, I have posted the D consensus, which now reads, "In 1893, pro-American elements in Hawaii overthrew the monarchy and formed the Republic of Hawaii, which the US annexed in 1898." TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I absolutely can support the text: ""In 1893, pro-American elements in Hawaii overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii and formed the Republic of Hawaii, which the US annexed in 1898.”" But feel strongly about linking to the overthrow article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As making that linkage was part of my suggestion above, I can have no objection. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Dhtwiki may be objecting to the Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii link because of the introductory sentence, "It was largely at the hands of United States citizens, who were backed by an invasion of U.S. Marines under John L. Stevens." As the article notes the commander landing a company of Marines standing before a hotel was "overstepping his authority" in that the misreported claim of rioting to the US commander was false. "Invasion" is unbalanced usage of the American English term implying territorial conquest by the armed forces of a foreign state; there was none. A demonstration was held in front of a hotel when it was supposed its occupants were under siege by rioters, then it was withdrawn when the threat was manifestly misrepresented. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That is an unacceptable, POV characterization and it appears that Mark Miller heavily edited that article in recent months. A previous intro version omitted that assertion. [9] I think this is problematic enough to remove this link, at least for now. The sentence is in danger of becoming over linked anyway, and the events leading to the acquisition of Hawaii, including the monarchy's overthrow, are covered in other linked articles. VictorD7 (talk) 19:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Mark Miller has again edited mainspace without consensus at [10], while there is ongoing discussion here --- without joining in with additional sources or explanation. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I was not objecting to the link, but that was partly because I was trying to join in the spirit of conciliation. I was aware that Mark was the lead editor of the Overthrow article, but hadn't examined the text for POV pushing the way Victor has. I'm still not too bothered by the linking, because my main objection is the amount of irrelevant detail here, more than the risk of pointing someone to a possibly skewed article somewhere else. I'm aware of Mark's recent edit to this article, which was a bit fast, but TVH has changed the Hawaii sentence already, without this RfC having run its full 30-day course (and have all the people who voted for A, B, or C been accounted for?). Dhtwiki (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The text, excluding one link, is agreed to by Rwenonah, TVH, VictorD7, Gwillhickers, Aquillion, Dhtwiki and Mark Miller. Sheriff still opposing. I think that is all participants… it has been 30 days of discussion, although no RfC was formally promulgated.

The agreed to text is, "In 1893, pro-American elements in Hawaii overthrew the monarchy and formed the Republic of Hawaii, which the U.S. annexed in 1898.” Mark Miller would like a link at “annexed” to Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii which is not objected to by Dhtwiki, but objected to by VictorD7 and TVH. Discussion continued below on the link. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't explicitly agreed to the text, but I'll do so now, because it's close enough (and because it must be pretty hard to keep track of all this). I've also checked to see that all those who had voted for A, B, and C options were accounted for. They have been. I'll reply to the discussion on the linking later, but will say here that I'm less enthusiastic about linking to the Overthrow article than I had been, partly because I agree with the concerns expressed by others and partly because the sentence is over-linked as it is. Dhtwiki (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Link to Hawaii “invasion"

I believe that Victor's accusation of POV pushing requires some demonstration. Yes, I have edited the "Overthrow" article, but its content there does not mean it should not be linked here. My contributions are referenced and verifiable and are from my general interest in Hawaiian history and genealogy, none of which is skewed but all based on sources from research. It may well be that Victor has the extreme bias against others that he deems not "American"? I don't know for sure but the accusations of "Anti-American racist" against one author from Victor above, has left me with serious doubts to whether their opinion is neutral itself.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:54, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I can offer this demonstration as to my neutral and encyclopedic contributions to the article "Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii; the majority of the additions were transferred from the contributions I researched and added to the Feature Article, Ford Island, that was on the main page of Wikipedia on December 7, 2014.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Victor’s term was not racist, but “bigot” as intolerant of others opinions, and he cited examples from Mirza: a) “typical American hypocrisy”, b) “are Americans brain dead or simply gullible?”, and c) “No wonder Americans have become the most hated people on the planet.” — without any corroborative academic sourcing on Mirza’s part.

What are the sources again which characterize a demonstration as an invasion? A reliable source is peer reviewed --- as in a university press; it is not self published.

To recap the history: An unauthorized ship’s detachment of 102 men demonstrates in front of a hotel to protect American lives and property at a legation using less than 10% of the force available, with strict instructions not to become involved in local affairs, and the pro-annexation instigator Stevens is “disavowed” by the US State Department to the extent he compromised the “independent sovereignty" of the Monarchy. This is not US government sponsored invasion. See Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, [11] TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)