This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Yosemitesam25 (talk | contribs) at 05:14, 13 February 2008 (→Controversial edits). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:14, 13 February 2008 by Yosemitesam25 (talk | contribs) (→Controversial edits)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
|
January 2008
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to List of climbers, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Misplaced Pages articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Misplaced Pages:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Reliable secondary sources
Please provide reliable secondary sources for your POV edits to Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Your user account appears to be used only to add unsourced POV to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- The reference to the Grassroot Institute that you provided is a selective interpretation of a primary source document (Native Hawaiians Study Commission Report). I encourage you to review Misplaced Pages's sourcing guidelines and to use secondary sources to support primary source interpretations. The easiest way to do this is to attribute opinions to reliable authors and publications. Even so, we do not use the lead section in the way that you are using it, as it represents a summary of the article, not a POV. To add this POV to the article, you will need to develop a sourced section that directly discusses the Hawaiian sovereignty movement in relation to the point you are trying to make. Selectively choosing items from a primary source document to represent your personal opinion is original research and is not allowed. —Viriditas | Talk 02:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please do not continue to ignore my requests for secondary sources. We simply do not interpret primary sources, especially in controversial articles where secondary sources are key. —Viriditas | Talk 03:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I am new to Misplaced Pages and am in need of help with respect to the issues raised. As I understand it, your request is for a secondary source, which ought to be a reliable publication. At the same time, you reject the reference to the Grassroot Institute as a secondary source, even though 1) It is a reliable publication 2) It provides the full text of the original Native Hawaiian Study Commission report. Secondly, your idea that "we don't use the lead section in this way" is wholly subjective. In fact, the reference is germaine to the question of reparations, which is presented in the lead section as a foregone conclusion even though the congress settled the issue long ago. Finally, you call for a developing a "sourced section that directly discusses the Hawaiian sovereignty movement in relation to the point you are trying to make". That requirement was met when I added critical quotations from Rice to the pre-existing section entitled "backlash". You deleted that and you also deleted the link I added to the decision itself. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm sorry, you have not offered any secondary sources, nor do we interpert primary sources in controversial articles the way you using them; you need to use inline citations to secondary sources that expressly discuss the movement in relation to the points you wish to raise. What you have done at this point, is add original research to the article, which is not acceptable according to Misplaced Pages policy. Please review WP:OR. I would also like to point out that your account appears to have been created solely to insert controversial POV material. —Viriditas | Talk 04:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your reference to Hanifin needs to be attributed to the author; you cannot state the opinions of others as fact. Please take a break from editing and review WP:NPOV. Furthermore, that article is from 1982, and you need to pay close attention to the idea of currency when reviewing sources. An argument could be made that the source is outdated or irrelevant. So, please, review WP:CITE and its related policies and guidelines. Representing the opinion of an author from 1982 as unattributed fact is not acceptable. —Viriditas | Talk 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, do you know User:JereKrischel? —Viriditas | Talk 04:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your reference to Hanifin needs to be attributed to the author; you cannot state the opinions of others as fact. Please take a break from editing and review WP:NPOV. Furthermore, that article is from 1982, and you need to pay close attention to the idea of currency when reviewing sources. An argument could be made that the source is outdated or irrelevant. So, please, review WP:CITE and its related policies and guidelines. Representing the opinion of an author from 1982 as unattributed fact is not acceptable. —Viriditas | Talk 04:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the link; I'll review the material as you suggested. Please bear with me as I learn how to formulate the proper citations and references. I've asked for a "mentor" so that the content I'm hoping to add complies with all the rules of Misplaced Pages and informs readers as well. Kuykendall is from 1938, Daws from 1968, Kamakau from 1866, Malo and Ii also from the 19th century. Not only are those sources not outdated or irrelevant, they compose the critical body of work scholars interested in Hawaiian history will read, even though they are "old". The same holds true for Hanifin.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, let's stick to one topic at a time, please. We are discussing Patrick W. Hanifin, an "adversary" of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. Hardly representative of the topic, nor a neutral party. Now, according to NPOV, his opinion deserves to be represented, but undue weight does not allow you to twist the article so that it unfairly represents his POV. Your additions to to the lead section do not follow WP:LEAD and place undue weight on the POV from the opposition. It will be removed from the lead section tomorrow. I suggest you start working on a new section, or expanding the opposition section. Please do not attempt to distort this article again with bias. —Viriditas | Talk 08:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You cannot add controversial material to an article from a 500 page report without adding page numbers. Please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 05:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
The relevant information is on page 45 but I don't know how to cite that yet. Hopefully my "mentor" will provide some assistance soon. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's easy to learn how to cite, so I would be happy to help you with it. —Viriditas | Talk 08:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Pat Hanifin was a civil rights attorney advocating "sovereignty" for everyone regardless of race or ancestry. He ought not to be labeled as an opponent of Hawaiian "sovereignty" merely for pointing out that American citizens of Hawaiian ancestry, like all other citizens, already are "sovereign". By that, he meant that every adult citizen of the United States and Hawai'i shares in individual freedom of choice and collective political power. His opinion is on topic and neutral.
Thank you for the link to the "lead" section. A rough checklist of the section suggests these broad themes: the lead section should be central to the article as a whole, it should summarize the most important points, it should not tease the reader by hinting at startling facts without describing them, and it ought to include citations if likely to be challenged. By these standards, every addition I made ought to remain. In fact, the edits ought to run deeper.
For instance, the line, "In some instances the focus also includes redress from the United States for the 1893 overthrow of Queen Lili'uokalani, and for what is seen as a prolonged military occupation...". The idea that Hawai'i has been under military rule for 115 years is a startling "fact". Moreover, by using "is seen", the author teases the reader into thinking that there is some factual basis or undisputed consensus for the allegation that "the military" is "occupying" Hawai'i. It's undisputed fact that in Hawai'i there are no troops quartered in houses and no threat of military action against the citizenry. If the author disputes this, a proper source ought to be cited. If it's merely an opinion, then according to lead section guidelines ("...the relative emphasis given to information in the lead will be reflected in the rest of the text), it ought to be balanced. In all fairness, the cited Native Hawaiian Study Commission Report ought to remain in the lead section, (as a "summary of important points"), not buried in obscurity elsewhere in the text.
Finally, my additions to the lead section clarify the claims of Hawaiian "sovereignty" advocates as recommended by the guidelines.("It should ...summarize the most important points"). For example, the line, "Most of these plans would restrict voting and holding office to an exclusive, hereditary group", concisely summarizes content found elsewhere in the text. If you dispute that line, then you would dispute most of what follows.
In conclusion, please refrain from "undoing" my additions. Thank you.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Your POV is interfering with your understanding of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. You are not following the NPOV policy, nor are you approaching this issue with any type of clear thinking. You write, "Pat Hanifin...ought not to be labeled as an opponent of Hawaiian "sovereignty". But, that is exactly what he is (and how he has been characterized by others) and his POV is only appropriate in that context. As long as you fail to follow the NPOV guidelines, your additions will be undone. The lead section is not the appropriate place to add your POV. If you have a particular topic that you wish to expand upon, please do so, but this article is most clearly not about the opposition to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, or selective criticism that you have chosen to add from primary source documents. —Viriditas | Talk 07:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Please provide sources for the quotes from Governor Cayetano and Governor Lingle. Also, please provide justification for characterizing these quotes as "apologies". Otherwise, they will be deleted as non-compliant with the neutral POV policy.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Unsourced quotes require citations. Please add a cite needed tag. —Viriditas | Talk 07:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
{{helpme}} I'm looking for help in cleaning up citations. Specifically, how to provide a link by a name other than the web page address. Thanks. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CITE, I would've helped explain it to you but I'm bad at citing too. Feel free to readd the
{{helpme}}if you can't find what you need.--Sunny910910 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)- Hey wait, do you mean doing somthing like this ? In my example I used
. I hope this helps.--Sunny910910 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Hey wait, do you mean doing somthing like this ? In my example I used
Thanks Sunny, I'll try that. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Please provide citations for: "As most groups are focused on some manner of international legal solution, many (but not all) proposed structures are based on the kingdom that existed in 1893, the logical basis being that the undoing of the illegalities of the 1893 invasion might legally necessitate a return to the pre-overthrow government that existed before 1893." Please provide a verifiable source of 1) That a court of law has found the overthrow to be "illegal" 2) That there was an "invasion". These are loaded terms and exceptional claims requiring further clarification. Thank you. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't a clue why you are asking me to provide citations, but I would love to help you. Please remember, you are the one who added disputed material to this article - not me. —Viriditas | Talk 07:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Viriditas: I was not asking you to do anything. The message was to anyone reading this page. It does appear as if someone has now added "citations" but they are just links to Lingle's and Cayetano's wikipedia pages and are not reliable, verifiable sources for the "direct quotes". So if anyone could update with a proper citation I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Viriditas: I just noticed you somehow added an entire section below with a point by point analysis. Very cool. I'm not sure how to add another new section for a response so I'll either read up on it or simply edit the new section with my responses. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's no analysis. Just standard Misplaced Pages guidelines and policies regarding sourcing, NPOV, and original research. You are of course welcome to develop a section of the article based on reliable sources, but you still cannot use the lead section to lend undue weight to critics and adversaries. Your best bet is to to just add references to the material below so I can check it out. So far, you've only attributed a known adversary of the sovereignty movement, and you've attempted to frame the entire article with his perspective. On Misplaced Pages, that kind of approach is not allowed. —Viriditas | Talk 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 04:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Removing unsourced POV and undue weight
You added the following unsourced POV to the lead section of an encyclopedia article about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement:
The various factions split over how to define the group that will be treated better than everyone else
This is biased language that represents your personal POV and has no place in either the lead section or in the article. If you wish to find an author that you can attribute this opinion to, by all means find one, preferably in a secondary source. Then, add it to the appropriate section about opposition. I would like to remind you again, this article is not about criticism or opposition, but those views should be represented in line with NPOV and undue weight.
Most of these plans would restrict voting and holding office to an exclusive, hereditary group. Other definitions add political criteria to the racial criteria. One plan extends the privileged class to include persons of other races who pass a test of political correctness defined by members of the racial elite. Another proposal defines a hereditary aristocracy consisting of all the descendants of the citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893. That excludes the descendants of the Asian immigrants who constituted most of the Kingdom's population in 1893 but who were not citizens. It also excludes everyone whose family arrived later.
You were asked to provide sources for this POV statement. Why haven't you?
02/12/08 Hello Viriditas: I re-inserted the second blockquote mentioned above and provided a secondary source via an in-line citation. To the extent that it represents a point of view, it represents the point of view of the sovereignty movement, not the opposition. Also, it provides the general reader with a quick overview of how sovereignty would work in Hawai'i. The author was a native born Hawaiian, and a graduate of Saint Louis (Honolulu), Notre Dame (1977 magna cum laude), Harvard Law School (cum laude 1980), and Harvards John F Kennedy School of Government. He was also an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii.More about him can be found here --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Please point out any percieved bias here by refuting the merits of the statement rather than by attacking him. For instance, you might attempt to demonstrate that sovereignty advocates want nothing of the sort of sovereignty described. If so, please cite a source and describe how they define sovereignty, if not in the way offered in the text. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Although the Native Hawaiian Study Commission of the United States Congress in its 1983 final report (pg. 27, pgs. 333-348)found no historical, legal, or moral obligation for the U.S. government to provide reparations, assistance, or group rights to Native Hawaiians, the movement continues to view both the overthrow and annexation as illegal, and holds the U.S. government responsible for these actions.
The text above originally represented the Hawaiian position. With your additions, the lead now represents the opinion of Hanifin, an opponent of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. This is undue weight. This article is not about the opponents or the critics of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. While such views are acceptable for inclusion in the appropriate place, your distortion of the article with opinions from opponents is not acceptable.
02/12/08 Hello Viriditas and anyone else reading this: The disputed text is consistent with Misplaced Pages's guidance with respect to creating a "lead section". Specifically: "It should establish context, summarize the most important points, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describe its notable controversies, if there are any". Your continual reversions remove any mention of controversy except to note that there is a controversy. That violates Misplaced Pages's policy of describing notable controversies in the lead section. Secondly, the lead section is exactly the place to include the text because it makes repeated mention of "redress" and "reparations". Excluding the text at the outset and burying it elsewhere in the article would lend undue weight to the POV that claims of reparations are credible, pending, and imminent - even though Congress settled the matter long ago. Excluding it deprives the reader of knowledge that directly relates to the issue. Finally, the text clearly briefly describes because it is is only half a sentence in length. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
In reaching its decision, the court wrote that "the ancestral inquiry mandated by the State is forbidden by the Fifteenth Amendment for the further reason that the use of racial classifications is corruptive of the whole legal order democratic elections seek to preserve....Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality".
Again, this is another selective quote from a primary source document. Unless you can show how this directly relates to a neutral, secondary source, your selection of this quote appears to be based on your own personal POV.
Of further concern is the implication that claims for hereditary political power are connected to land claims. Proponents of sovereignty assume that if they can show that American presence at the time of the 1893 Revolution was unjust then it automatically follows that the United States owes enormous reparations in cash and land to Hawaiians. There were three kinds of land in 1893: private lands, Crown lands, and Government lands. No private lands were seized as a result of the 1893 Revolution. Crown lands in 1893 belonged not to any individual or to any group of individuals but to the “office” of the Sovereign. In 1893, The Government of the Republic of Hawai'i provided explicitly that the former Crown lands were Government lands. The Crown lands in 1893 were the last remnant of lands seized by Lili'uokalani's royal predecessor Kamehameha I in aggressive warfare. People who believe that title to the land today is invalid because it is founded on conquest may be hard put to explain why Lili'uokalani's claim was not equally invalid. The Hawaiian Kingdom Government lands in 1893 were controlled ultimately by the Legislature. Private individuals had no powers, rights or privileges to use government land without Government authorization or to decide how it was to be used. If Hawaiians had any rights or powers regarding Government land, they had only the political right and power to participate in controlling the Government. Legally, the land belonging to the Hawaiian Government in 1898 has passed to the U.S. Government and back to the State of Hawai'i.
You added the above unsourced text to the Backlash section. This is problematic since you claim to represent opinions as fact. —Viriditas | Talk 07:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest
Please take a look at Misplaced Pages's conflict of interest guideline. I have recently noticed that you have repeated the same words that Kenneth R. Conklin has written on his web pages. It's also an interesting coincidence that you chose the username "Yosemitesam" considering the long beard that both Yosemite Sam and Conklin wear, which is not exactly common in Hawaii. I will assume for the moment that you are not Conklin and merely picked up the same information from his articles, but you should be aware of the COI guideline in case you have any relationship to the anti-Hawaiian sovereignty movement. —Viriditas | Talk 08:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the link. After reviewing the policy, I've concluded that there is no need to recuse myself from editing these pages. However, one section stood out as particularly problematic: editing Misplaced Pages is strongly discouraged if "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Misplaced Pages...by being a stakeholder ...of an organisation about which you are writing". Does this mean that beneficiaries of OHA programs or Hawaiian Homes or a seperatist movement seeking to acquire land and money from the United States or the State of Hawai'i for the exclusive group "Hawaiians" or "native Hawaiians" ought to recuse themselves from editing these pages?
That's hilarious - the links to Yosemite Sam and Mr. Conklin. LOL
- It does look like him, does it not? :) —Viriditas | Talk 17:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is a resemblance... --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Controversial edits
You need to use the talk page to discuss your edits before reverting. The editor who adds material has the responsibility to defend that material after they have been reverted. I suggest you read the policies and guidelines regarding NPOV before continuing to edit war your POV into the article. You write, "Please talk out recent reversions on the merits on my talk page." That's not how it works. You added back in the same material, material you were asked to provide secondary sources for, and material you were asked to consider changing after considering Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy with regards to undue weight. You continue to try and frame this article in terms of its opposition which is neither neutral or acceptable. Since you are the editor who introduced this material, it is your job to defend it. It is not my job to defend my reversion of your material, which I have already shown is biased and lacking neutral secondary sources. —Viriditas | Talk 20:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I did use the talk page to discuss my edits before reverting. Perhaps you missed them. Again, being new to Misplaced Pages, rather than creating a new section,(which I'm unfamiliar with) I simply inserted comments in the section above. I wrote the date 02/12/08 right before my responses. Please read them as they provide more than enough justification for my edits.
When you say I've created a single purpose account I don't know what you mean. What other kinds of accounts are there? I am one person with one account.
Do you agree that Misplaced Pages policy calls for a lead section to "briefly describe its notable controversies"? Describing notable controversies is different than simply noting that there is a controversy.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- This account you created is a WP:SPA, and you have not answered yes or no as to whether you are Mr. Conklin. You have made the same arguments as Conklin, and you have even cited him, word for word, from his website without giving him credit. So I will rephrase the question: Are you Mr. Conklin, or are you employed by or working for in any capacity, contract or otherwise, an official group or organization that is related to this issue? I will again remind you of WP:COI. Your edits, so far, are totally unacceptable and will not be allowed to continue. —Viriditas | Talk 02:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Viriditas: Thank you for the link to the SPA section. Here are a few things that I found: 1) Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time. 2)If a new user immediately participates in a discussion without an edit history in the area... or simply a user who has seen something of interest (a template such as AFD or an article), and wishes to contribute. For this reason, statements regarding motives are not recommended without an examination of the user's edit history. The term should be used descriptively and should not be read pejoratively unless a specific non-neutral agenda is clearly established. Users should be informed of relevant policies and content guidelines in a civil and courteous manner, especially if a tag will be applied to their comment.
Regarding 1) I've mentioned to you and all readers that I am a newcomer to Misplaced Pages. I did try to edit another article before I found this one but my additions were removed because I didn't know how to find or cite a source. You'll see it (I think) at the very top of this page. When I started making edits, I didn't even know there was a talk page. I was just scolling around when I saw your first comments and then figured out how to respond. You and someone named "Sunny" have provided me with help that I appreciate. I appreciate your courtesy. Early on you asked me if I was one Mr. Kirschel and then if I was one Mr. Conklin. I hope we can focus on the content and not the person. I'd be happy to credit Mr. Kirshel or Mr. Comklin or anyone I've inadvertantly quoted or plagarised. I read so much on this topic that when I start to write it flows out like it went in. Can you point out where I've quoted Mr. Comklin? Please rest assured I am acting in good faith and with the best intentions. Regarding 2) I am simply a user who has seen something of interest and wishes to contribute. I've read Kuykendall's trilogy, Shoal of Time, Broken Trust, Ka Po'e Kahiko, Hanifin, Sullivan, Crawford, Fein, Abercrombie, Kanahele, Koani foundation...the list goes on and on...and like most people, I have friends and acquaintances with whom I discuss and debate these issues. Sometimes I do think I ought to widen my interests but I guess I just like focusing on a "single purpose".
The guidelines clearly state that the term SPA should be used descriptivly unless a non-neutral agenda is established. You've mentioned a few times that I do not have a neutral point of view. Naturally, this topic itself is controversial and people are bound to have different opinions. Please point out specific edits that are unacceptable and cite how and why they conflict with Misplaced Pages policies. For instance, when I brought to your attention the fact that Misplaced Pages policy calls for describing notable controversies in the lead section, we agreed upon doing just that. Just alleging that I do not have a neutral point of view might not be productive. I need to know how any contribution I make will do a disservice to a reader expecting to be informed about a controversial issue in a non-biased way(unless there is some other standard that ought to apply).
It's worth mentioning again that you never questioned the veracity or verifiability of my additions to the lead section. In fact, when I quoted Hanifin,
"Other definitions add political criteria to the racial criteria. One plan extends the privileged class to include persons of other races who pass a test of political correctness defined by members of the racial elite. Another proposal defines a hereditary aristocracy consisting of all the descendants of the citizens of the Hawaiian Kingdom in 1893. That excludes the descendants of the Asian immigrants who constituted most of the Kingdom's population in 1893 but who were not citizens. It also excludes everyone whose family arrived later. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs"
your objection was not the content or the truth of the statement but who wrote it. In fact, these are the very ends sought by the "sovereignty movement" so it would seem logical to put it as plainly and simply as he did. Instead of refuting the content, you seemed to prefer alleging that Hanifin was an opponent of "sovereignty". When I mentioned that his position is pro sovereignty but that he objected to something "extra" in the "name" of sovereignty, it evidently did little to assuage your concern.
Thank you for once again raising the issue of COI. This time you are reminding me of the importance of any financial conflict of interest I may have that would cause me to recuse myself from contributing on this topic. There is nothing in the conflict of interest policy, including any financial interest, that would cause me to recuse myself. Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- And if I request a checkuser to determine whether your edits are coming from the same account as Mr. Kirschel, you will have no objection? The rest of your points are absurd. Hanifin is not a proponent of Hawaiian sovereignty, and you insult my intelligence by insisting on that ridiculous point. If you can't discuss issues based on reality, then I'm afraid we have nothing to talk about. —Viriditas | Talk 04:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I object to a checkuser. Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Conspirators
I am at a loss understanding this edit. Why did you change "conspirators" to "Hawaiian denizens", and write in the edit summary, "no verifiable source for direct quotation"? The inline text said it was the "actual wording of the resolution", so I went and checked "S.J.Res.19". Library of Congress. Retrieved 2008-02-12. It says the following:
- Whereas, on January 14, 1893, John L. Stevens (hereafter referred to in this Resolution as the `United States Minister'), the United States Minister assigned to the sovereign and independent Kingdom of Hawaii conspired with a small group of non-Hawaiian residents of the Kingdom of Hawaii, including citizens of the United States, to overthrow the indigenous and lawful Government of Hawaii;
- Whereas, in pursuance of the conspiracy to overthrow the Government of Hawaii, the United States Minister and the naval representatives of the United States caused armed naval forces of the United States to invade the sovereign Hawaiian nation on January 16, 1893, and to position themselves near the Hawaiian Government buildings and the Iolani Palace to intimidate Queen Liliuokalani and her Government;
- Whereas the United States Minister thereupon extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawaii and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law;
- Whereas, in a message to Congress on December 18, 1893, President Grover Cleveland reported fully and accurately on the illegal acts of the conspirators, described such acts as an `act of war, committed with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress', and acknowledged that by such acts the government of a peaceful and friendly people was overthrown;
So while I think there is room for improvement, your change of "conspirators" to "Hawaiian denizens" is baffling. —Viriditas | Talk 20:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There was no footnote or reference that I saw. I was looking for a footnote or reference linking to the text of the Resolution imediately following the word "conspirators", since it was contained in quotation marks and thus appeared to be a direct quote requiring a reference.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- Did you take the time to look for a footnote? If your purpose on Misplaced Pages is only to write from a minority, controversial POV, you will find your time here cut very short. —Viriditas | Talk 02:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Viriditas: Yes, I looked and would have followed the link to read it for myself. Maybe it was "in-line text" and not a footnote? In any case, I appreciate your correction and your wording has been verified and restored. Thank you.
Oh, by the way, I'd still like to hear from you or anyone with respect to the lead section. I'd like to include wording that complies with Misplaced Pages policy to "briefly describe notable controversies". Because the policy explicitly states that notable controversies ought to be described, I think it's only fair that at least some of my prior text be restored. Thanks in advance. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 02:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- It's not my wording; in fact I have not written a single word of the article in question. However, due to your incessant POV warring, I am now rewriting the entire article to comply with Misplaced Pages policies. Controversies should certainly be described, but you seem to have missed the part about undue weight. As I have previously suggested, you will be far more successful editing the opposition section to represent your POV, rather than rewriting the entire article to represent one POV. I can't stress this enough. —Viriditas | Talk 02:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello Viriditas: I'm glad that we agree that the policy expressly calls for a description of notable controversies in the lead section and that you'll be editing towards that end. Clearly, the policy is a good one.
- Jere, you know very well that I can have your account shut down. Now, either start playing by the rules or I will bring you to the COI noticeboard. It's your decision. —Viriditas | Talk 03:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)