User talk:Yosemitesam25

Hello, Yosemitesam25! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ww2censor (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [1] 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 [the lead section] 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 20:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey wait, do you mean doing somthing like this ? In my example I used[http://www.google.ca this]. I hope this helps.--Sunny910910 ^{(talk|Contributions|Guest)} 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, that kind of approach is not allowed. —Viriditas | Talk 16:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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)[2][3]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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia'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)

Wikipedia:Conflict of interest

Please take a look at Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia is strongly discouraged if "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia...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 separatist 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?

Yes, absolutely. Are you Mr. Conklin? —Viriditas | Talk

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)

"This says, right off the bat, that you are connected to the same "think tank" as them, which would mean you are violating the COI policy on Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)"

Hello Viriditas: To enhance readability, I've copied your statement to this "conflict of interest" area. This really intrigues me and I have many questions.

First, what "think tank"?

Second, should I recuse myself if I went to Kamehameha? Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What if I have a step-sister who is Native Hawaiian but is "anti-sovereignty" and opposed to the Akaka bill?

What about if I have blood relations with whom I am estranged and separate from personally and financially who are attorneys active in the movement? One stands to benefit from ceded lands (pro-sovereignty, anti-Akaka), and the other would not reap any financial or personal gain (pro-bono work "anti-sovereignty" and "anti-Akaka bill")

Hawai'i is so diverse and integrated that it's hard to know how to interpret the conflict of interest policy. I've been proceeding up to this point on common sense but I would like your interpretation (and others) on the specifics above. Thanks--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Grassroot Institute. Ever heard of them? —Viriditas | Talk 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned that name earlier instead of referring to it as the Native Hawaiian Study Commission. When you have time, I'd really like input from you or others regarding my other questions about conflict of interest. Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 15:52, 14 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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: I don't think I responded below to something you mentioned above so I'm adding this in *now*. You say that I have, "cited him [Mr. Comklin], word for word, from his website without giving him credit". Isn't citing someone giving them credit? I'm not sure what you mean. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC) Or maybe you don't mean "in-line citation" but that I've "quoted" Mr. Conklin. I don't think I've quoted Mr. Conklin. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 05:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In fact, you did quote Conklin's website here, and you have made arguments directly related to Mr. Conklin and Mr. Kirschel's positions. This says, right off the bat, that you are connected to the same "think tank" as them, which would mean you are violating the COI policy on Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That is not a quote. Please check again. Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 12:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and on the other issue about a conflict of interest. Is there a way to continue that discussion above instead of here? That is, in the "conflict of interest" section? This area is full and seems to be about editing? Thanks--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 12:36, 14 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia policies. For instance, when I brought to your attention the fact that Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

3RR

Please stop reverting to POV one-sided version. You've already violated the WP:3RR policy and may be blocked for it. --MPerel 07:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are inclined, please justify your reversion. You claim that I am not neutral, please provide specific points rather than simply stating a claim. Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You have three editors already finding your edits POV and one-sided. It's up to you to find consensus for your edits. In any event, please mind the 3RR policy. --MPerel 08:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I will mind the policy but you are now a party to the attempt to find common ground. Unless you provide specific informaion with respect to where and how I've violated NPOV, finding common ground will be very tough. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you have violated WP:3RR. Please self-revert or you will be reported. Mahalo. Arjuna (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

On further examination, it appears that your changes were not reverts and thus you have not violated 3RR. My apologies. However, please be advised that you are coming very close to the line. Arjuna (talk) 08:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, we're all passionate about the issues. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Mahalo for your understanding. I appreciate keeping the debate (argument?) tough but civil. Just FYI, I made additional changes today after I reverted your revert, but those changes are not reverts of your material -- I am very careful not to violate WP:3RR (though screw ups do occur to everyone occasionally). I unilaterally extend the offer to give you a warning and chance to self-revert if you go over 3RR before reporting you. You don't have to reciprocate that offer, but I won't refuse it if you do. About COI: if you are JK, just shoot me an email saying so and I will respect your desire to remain officially anonymous to other editors, and to vouch for your non-COI to them. Or (providing cover for you), if you are not JK but want to reveal to me or other others, I'm sure the same would hold. I have done this (i.e. my identity) to other editors, which is why I'm "vetted". I obviously disagree with you -- strongly -- on a lot of these issues, but I am no radical on issues of Hawaiian sovereignty (I don't even like to touch those issues frankly), and will fight to keep articles accurate and neutral, but I respect the role of someone advocating your perspective. Arjuna (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of undue weight

Hi Yosemitesam25,

I notice you've been popping up on my watchlist a lot recently in relation to edits to Hawaiian sovereignty movement, but it was only today that I got a chance to look through your work. I have to say I agree with Viriditas about your edits in that I don't believe they represent a neutral point of view. From reading through the conversation above, though, I'm a little concerned that you might not have a full grasp of what we mean by that, so I hope you'll indulge me if I try to explain it a little bit better.

Within the policy on neutral point of view is a section on undue weight, which refers to the act of providing overly detailed information on a given point of view or positioning this point of view in such a way as to make it seem more important than it is. This is not to say that articles should shy away from discussing controversies, simply that controversies should be presented in such a manner that they do not overwhelm the encyclopedic nature of the article. Neutrality is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia and must be preserved in order to build a credible encyclopedia.

That being said, I'm pleased to see that you've calmed down a bit and hope that we can work together on improving the article. --jonny-mt 08:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please use an edit summary in the future so people can tell at a glance what you've been doing. Thanks! --jonny-mt 08:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jonny-mt: Thanks, I'll look over the links. And yes, the policies seem odd, especially the part about the lead section. Why does the lead section policy call for a description of the controversies if everyone agrees that there should just be mention that a controversy exists? Are you an administrator for Wikipedia? Thanks for taking the time to help me out, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The style guideline for lead sections has a section on relative emphasis, which states that the emphasis on the contents of the lead should roughly reflect their emphasis in the body of the article. For example, if you write a well-sourced article saying that all kittens are fuzzy and cute but read a story in a small-town newspaper describing them as unstoppable killing machines, you probably wouldn't mention that in the article, let alone the lead. If there's a fairly vocal group of people protesting kittens for being unstoppable killing machines, you might give it a subsection in the article and a sentence in the lead. If there's an ongoing global controversy ("controversy" here referring to something on the level of the pro-choice/pro-life debate in the United States) as to whether they are cute or killing machines, you might dedicate a third of the article to general descriptions, a second third to the cute side, and the final third to the killing machine side.

Naturally, all of this is reliant on there being reliable sources backing up the positions. For example, I noticed in a couple of your edits you cited analysis by Bruce Fein who, notable individual though he may be, is not subject to any sort of oversight and thus cannot be considered truly neutral. In a similar vein, you would not look to Tom Cruise or Anonymous for neutral information on Scientology simply because both parties have a personal interest in the subject and thus cannot be relied on for valid information. For this reason, reasonably neutral material such as newspaper stories (the larger the better), court filings, government reports, etc. are preferred in most cases, the major exeptions being when primary sources are used to report non-controversial information or write specifically about an individual or group's opinions.

As for your question, I consider myself a relatively experienced editor with a fair grasp of policy, but I am not an administrator. --jonny-mt 08:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Jonny-mt: Thanks so much for guiding me and helping me understand.

Here is the policy on reliable sources:

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources".

Why doesn't a constitutional attorney who writes scholarly articles with careful citations and who is subject to intense scrutiny by his peers, the media, and the bar meet the standard for "reliable sources"?

Perhaps you could also help me further. The guidelines go on to say,

"In general...the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is".

The issue is reliabliity.

But you seem to add a further requirement. Are you saying or implying that all sources have to be "neutral"? Please help me out here and show me where the policy requires this.

The policy describes "questionable sources" like this:

"Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking"

The issue is reliability.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat myself. The easiest solution is for you to focus on just representing your POV within the confines of the opposition to Hawaiian sovereignty. When you are more experienced, you can begin writing for the enemy, but for now, please stick with what you know best. The problem arises when you attempt to rewrite the article in favor of the opposition POV, instead of just representing that POV in due proportion to the topic. In fact, I would suggest starting a new article altogether, titled Opposition to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. But, before you do, I would recommend learning more about NPOV, as such an article has the possibility of being nominated for deletion if it doesn't conform to policy. —Viriditas | Talk 14:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Viriditas and thank you for your suggestions. I don't really feel comfortable writing anything entitled "Opposition to the Hawaiian Sovereignty movement" and don't know how to start a new article anyway, at least not now.

Since millions, perhaps billions, of dollars are at stake in this issue, not to mention political power, (those are two reasons the topic is "controversial"), I thought it would be perfecly acceptable to "briefly describe the notable controversies" in the lead section - as allowed for and encouraged by Wikipedia policy. But that policy was not adhered to when my mention of the Native Hawaiian Study Commission was reverted, thereby unduly weighting the article.

So I'm working on re-writing the entire article in a way that will be in proportion to the controversy. By the way, you had mentioned that you were re-writing the article yourself. How did it go?

In the meantime, I would appreciate any input you might have on my post in the "conflict of interest" section. Thanks,--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Either you aren't reading what editors are saying to you, or you don't care what other editors are saying. Regardless of how much money and political power is at stake, we have policies and guidelines to help us write our articles. Your account appears to be a SPA created to force a minority POV into the article and to unfairly represent the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. I've looked at your points for inclusion, and when analyzed within the context of the article, appear to be intentionally distorting the topic to present a minor adversarial view as "fact", while at the same time, using primary sources divorced from balanced secondary commentary and analyis. If you will not listen to what other editors are telling you they see as the problem, and you continue to edit war your POV into the article, I'm afraid you will be headed down the wrong path. Please do not rewrite the article based on a minority, adversarial POV interpreted from primary sources. We do not write articles like that on Wikipedia. You are not the first person from the Grassroots Institute to try to do this. We just spent several years with JK, and it seems you have now taken his place. JK was not reported to COI because he was very careful to follow the rules and he understood how to represent POV from both sides. With the current political climate, I see that the institute appears to have changed tactics, ignoring Wikipedia policies in favor of their own. It will not be allowed. —Viriditas | Talk 21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Viriditas:

To summarize, you've referred to me as "Jere" ("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"), asked me if I know "Jere" (BTW, do you know User:JereKrischel? —Viriditas | Talk 04:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)"), asked me if I was Mr. Comklin(" Are you Mr. Conklin? —Viriditas | Talk"), asked me to consent to something called a "usercheck" ("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?"), and now assert that I am a "person from the Grassroots Institute" ("You are not the first person from the Grassroots Institute to try to do this".21:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)). You've also said, "This says, right off the bat, that you are connected to the same "think tank" as them, which would mean you are violating the COI policy on Wikipedia. —Viriditas | Talk 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)".

The COI of interest policy clearly states:

"...using COI allegations to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is frowned upon."

Wikipedia policy also asks members of the community to assume good faith:

"To assume good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. In allowing anyone to edit, we work from an assumption that most people are trying to help the project, not hurt it."

Have I ever asked you to reveal who you are, asked you to consent to a "usercheck", who you are associated with, told you that you represented an outside, conflicted organization or asked you about any potential conflicts you might have? No.

Hawai'i is integrated and diverse. Blood relations are varied and mixed. There are people of all "races" on both sides of this issue, some more than others.

I asked you earlier:

"Does this [the conflict of interest policy] mean that beneficiaries of OHA programs or Hawaiian Homes or a separatist 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?

Your response was:

"Yes, absolutely. Are you Mr. Conklin?" —Viriditas | Talk

Your position seems to be that anyone with a single drop of Hawaiian blood is conflicted and ought not to edit here. The issue is intriguing. If that is the prescription we all must follow then a beneficiary to an "affirmative action program" would recuse himself or herself from editing a page on the controversial topic of "affirmative action".

In good faith I turned to you and other members of the community with other questions about conflicts:

"...should I recuse myself if I went to Kamehameha? Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)"

"What if I have a step-sister who is Native Hawaiian but is "anti-sovereignty" and opposed to the Akaka bill?"

"What about if I have blood relations with whom I am estranged and separate from personally and financially who are attorneys active in the movement? One stands to benefit from ceded lands (pro-sovereignty, anti-Akaka), and the other would not reap any financial or personal gain (pro-bono work "anti-sovereignty" and "anti-Akaka bill")"

If you have time, I'd really like some input on those questions.

Secondly, I'm still hoping to improve the "lead " section (and, at the same time, to follow guidelines set and encouraged by Wikipedia) by "describing notable controversies". As you said, "Controversies should certainly be described".

I'm thankful for all the guidance you've provided so far and I hope we can make this article much better over time. Thanks, --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

You have been warned twice about the 3RR,[4][5] so you are aware of it. Now I am telling you to take a step back and think about why your edits are not being accepted. Four editors have asked you to take a break and discuss your material. Please do so. —Viriditas | Talk 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was carefully sourced, neutral material reverted? First, Wikipedia policy was not adhered to by not allowing controversial material to be described in the lead section. Second, it was suggested that that I build up that material in the "opposition" section. But when I did that, it was reverted even though it was carefully sourced and neutral. Please be specific rather than simply alleging NPOV. Thanks --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Please be honest. Have you actually read the policies and guidelines listed above? Your last round of edits shows a continuing inability to abide by those rules. If you are having trouble, I can help you, but you need to stop seeing everything as black and white. Ideally, we are working towards elminating an opposition section, as we tend to favor integrated sections, pro and con when applicable, but paying attention to undue weight. But, as someone who is interested in both sides of an issue, and more importantly, compromise, I made the suggestion in good faith, hoping that you would take it as an opportunity to start anew. Instead, you started down the same road, backwards. There seems to be a basic problem inherent with your writing style. Can you envision writing in a neutral manner, attributing POV's and ideas whenever possible or necessary? Start there and you will find editors accepting what you write. Why don't you use this space to add a paragraph, and I'll show you how to do it. Keep in mind, there is not just one way of doing this - there are many - and that can be confusing for new editors. —Viriditas | Talk 02:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with your most recent example "Hawai'i is not under Military Occupation". Who are you responding to here? Once you identify who you are addressing, you begin to write about this in several ways. One, you can use the integrative approach, which is difficult, but the most favored method. Find a section where a prominent group or person claims that Hawaii is under military occupation and respond to it there. The reason this is more difficult than a standalone section, is because you actually have to address the topic. Who is claiming that there are soldiers quartered in citizen's homes in Hawai'i? You write, "All adult citizens of the State of Hawai'i are free to vote for their representatives, a right which many did not have in 1893." But there was no state in 1893, so the comparison is not valid. You see how your material is problematic? This is adversarial, POV pushing, and we don't write like that on Wikipedia. I can go on, but hopefully you can get an idea of where to go with this. Start with the integrated approach because you will find it more successful in the end. In the end, what you really want to do is represent both sides, and practice writing about views you personally disagree with on the topic. First and foremost, this topic is about the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. It is not about minority, adversarial POV, but some of those views should be represented in the article in proportion to their relevance. It may also help if you find a good or featured article that is representative of a similar topic, and use it as your baseline. —Viriditas | Talk 02:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There is some sort of "edit conflict"...I think we are both using this page at the same time

If you are really trying to "integrate" sections, then why was I not allowed to add even one half of a sentence "describing notable controversies" (as per Wikipedia policy) to the lead section? If you're so concerned that half a sentence is somehow "undue weight", then please consider adding carefully sourced material to restore a perceived imbalance rather then just wholesale destruction of any semblance of balance? Surely you are more than capable. And surely a stronger case for sovereignty can be made than what's currently written.

If you want me to add "a paragpaph, and I'll show you how to do it" then fine, I appreciate the help. But I don't need an entire paragraph. Lets start with the half sentence you would not accept in the lead section. It was something like this:

"Although the Native Hawaiian Study Commission in its 1983 final report found no legal or moral grounds for compensation to Native Hawaiians, the sovereignty movement continues to seek redress from the united states for what it sees as an illegal occupation and holds the us gov responsible".

That's just a paraphrase.

So, lets start with that please. Thanks--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead section is addressed after the material that it summarizes. That's why we are working on the body of the article, first. And the material that you want to add to the lead is not only biased, its out of chronological context and neglects the controversy surrounding the very findings itself. In order to work on Wikipedia, you have to be honest about the topic, and more importantly, honest about yourself. If you aren't aren't here to improve the article, but merely to push a minority, adversarial POV, then you are on the wrong site. Now, I'm willing to work with you, but you are going to need to put your preconception and intense preoccupation with POV pushing aside for the moment. Stop bringing up an addition to the lead section that is composed of original research. It's not going in now or ever. It's acceptable to briefly touch on the dispute in the body of the article; how the original nine-member commission appointed by Carter was dismissed by Reagan, with only three from the Hawaiian community and five officials of the U.S. government. In the end, the commission was divided, with the three Hawaiian members filing a minority report. Then there is the criticism of the report itself in the senate in 1984 and 1988; in the end the NHSC made the Native Hawaiians switch their focus from monetary reparations to land and self-government instead. Your wording in the lead deliberately ignores and avoids the fact that the findings concerned compensation from the 1893 overthrow, and distorts the manner and method of the sovereignty movement in direct relation to that report, implying that they have no legal or moral basis to exist. This is original research at its worst. —Viriditas | Talk 03:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"The lead section is addressed after the material that it summarizes." -What does that mean?

Read WP:LEAD and understand it. The lead is a summary of the most important points in the article. —Viriditas | Talk 03:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"biased" - No, "integrated"

It's completely biased, grossly misrepresents the topic, and presents original research, favoring a selective, partial view of one aspect of a larger whole, and drawing a conclusion where none exists or is sourced. —Viriditas | Talk 03:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"its out of chronological context" - No, again, integrated

Read WP:LEAD and understand how we use the lead section. —Viriditas | Talk 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"neglects the controversy surrounding the very findings itself." - Are you calling for mention of anything controversial about any report cited in this and all articles? That would require huge qualifications of language..."Although the controversial NHSC in its final final report found no legal or moral grounds for compensation to Native Hawaiians, the controversial sovereignty movement continues to seek redress from the united states for what it sees as an illegal occupation - a controversial claim- and holds the us gov responsible in a controversial way".

You are continuing to demonstrate a complete and willful ignorance of Wikipedia policies and guidelines with comments such as these. We don't engage in wikilawyering, so you might want to stop that too. —Viriditas | Talk 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"push a minority, adversarial POV" - So, Rice v Cayetano, Arakaki, the fact that Akaka has not passed for 8 years, hundreds of letters on both sides to the advertiser...even given all that you charachterise "opposition" as a minority? Unfounded.

The topic is Hawaiian sovereignty movement, not opposition to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. The POV you are attempting to insert are biased, and you are deliberately skewing an encyclopedic topic. Please learn to write with NPOV in mind, fairly representing people and organizations in relation to their importance. —Viriditas | Talk 04:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Stop bringing up an addition to the lead section...It's not going in now or ever" - Why did you change your mind? You agreed earlier to abide by Wikipedia policy regarding describing notable controversies in the lead section.Also sounds like an ultimatim, generally a questionable way to reach consensus.

You aren't making sense. Core policies aren't negotiable. We don't allow violations of NPOV and we don't accept original research. My mind hasn't changed, and I never agreed to abide by your continued disregard of policy. —Viriditas | Talk 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"original research". - No, you removed the Hanifin citation in which he cites the NHSC.

I have plenty of cites for the NHSC. Why does it belong in the lead and why is Hanifin's opinon important to this article, let alone the lead section? You want to represent Hanifin's opinion in the body of the article. Fine, do it right here. Let's see what you got. You need to stop worrying about the lead section. It comes last, when the material in the article is finalized. Your use of the NHSC in the lead is biased. You are attempting to assert the movement is illegitimate as a result of the publication of the NHSC report, which is absurd on all counts. Please stop this. —Viriditas | Talk 04:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's acceptable to briefly touch on the dispute in the body of the article" - Fine. Exactly where? So far, you've said not in the lead section, put it in the opposition section. Then, not in the opposition but integrated into the lead section. Which one is it going to be?

Integration does not apply to the lead section. It applies to a section on the Native Hawaiians Study Commission. If you are committed to improving this topic, you will start with that article. Create it, develop it, and then add a discussion of the subarticle and how it relates directly to Hawaiian sovereignty to a new section in the main article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Your wording in the lead deliberately ignores" - No, how does "wording" ignore anything. If I say "that dog is black", am I ignoring cats? Try letting it stand and refuting Hanafin's/Congress' findings on the merits, citing a verifiable source.

You may be ignoring its pink toes, its brown eyes, and its white teeth. We don't refute or prove the POV of other people or organizations; we merely represent them as best as we are able in proportion to the topic. Many times we cannot represent something because the sources aren't reliable, or the topic is irrelevant, or an editor has tried to synthesize material from two disparate sources to promote a POV. So, your job is to best represent Hanafin, not for me to refute him. —Viriditas | Talk 04:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"how the original nine-member commission appointed by Carter was dismissed by Reagan, with only three from the Hawaiian community and five officials of the U.S. government". - Fine, fair enough. Cite this with a verifiable source

Not a problem, it's a matter of historical record. Like I said, expand the topic on NHSC. —Viriditas | Talk 04:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"NHSC made the Native Hawaiians switch their focus from monetary reparations to land and self-government instead." No, no report "makes" a Hawaiian do anything.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I was representing the Native Hawaiian view, which I can also source. Like I said, create the article. —Viriditas | Talk 04:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"I was representing the Native Hawaiian view"

No you're not. No Hawaiians are ever "made" to do anything by reports.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 04:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. Poor wording on my part in my rush to be as brief as possible per talk page guidelines. The NHSC process revealed a change in focus; it did not force or make anyone do anything. I was paraphrasing Melody Kapilialoha MacKenzie, in a book published by the OHA, who writes in 1991: "Unfortunately, the report of the majority commissioners now stands as an additional obstacle to congressional action on the Native Hawaiian claim. The NHSC, however did serve a useful purpose. The resulting report provided needed statistical and background information on education, health, and social welfare needs of Native Hawaiians. More importantly, the process revealed that Native Hawaiians had turned their focus from a mere monetary settlement of their claims and instead were seeking restoration of their land and their self-governing powers." MacKenzie cites Towards Reparations/Restitution, a report submitted by the OHA to the NHSC on May 13, 1982, prior to the NHSC draft report in Sept. of that year. MacKenzie's footnote states, "restoring self-governance and a land base are cited as two of the principles for reparations and restitution." —Viriditas | Talk 05:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Full protection of Hawaiian sovereignty movement

Given that the edit warring started up again, I submitted a request for page protection that was subsequently granted. The article is fully protected for five days, which means that only administrators can edit it (and they will only do so per request and to remove potentially libelous material). I suggest we use this time to try and come to an understanding about what is and is not NPOV and hash out a positive path going forward. --jonny-mt 05:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Overthrow article

I found your recent edit to the "Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom" article rather problematic, but agree that the claim needed a citation (it had one before but it was stripped out in an edit war last year). Next time you find a statement that you feel needs citation, please add "" (note the coding) rather than simply stripping out material. Mahalo. Arjuna (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My regrets, but you've been reported for violation of 3RR on the Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom article. Arjuna (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about the Overthrow article should continue on that article's talk page. Please do not use my talk page for this purpose. Arjuna (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi JK! Arjuna (talk) 22:45, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but I think it is you that needs to demonstrate that your view is NPOV. Frankly, this seems quite a Herculean task. The consensus view that I have put forth is the NPOV. Aloha. Arjuna (talk) 02:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

COI tag and Hawaii state flag

Please do not remove the COI tag from articles. Neutrality issues are implicit in the tag. Also, please stop removing the Hawaii state flag from a Hawaii template. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 06:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: COI. Please see the talk page on the overthrow article. I offered to answer COI questions but that offer was rejected as an "unacceptable attitude". RE: flag. The articles are about the State of Hawai'i, a part of the United States. Therefore, the United States flag is appropriate. Regards,--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 14:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the status of Hawaiʻi, but given that the template refers to a topic about the state of Hawaiʻi rather than the United States as a whole, the state flag is more appropriate and illustrative. This is best illustrated by the individual state templates (Template:Alabama, Template:Kentucky, etc.) --jonny-mt 16:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

There are very strong grounds to believe that Yosemitesam is being disingenuous. Given his familiarity with the controversies and sensitivities of this political issue, it seems obvious that this was a lame statement against the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. S/he knew exactly what he was doing, and as such, removal of the image borders on vandalism. I do not go around making facile accusations in this respect, but this is -- no pun intended -- a bit of a red flag. Arjuna (talk) 19:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

"I do not go around making facile accusations in this respect". Actually, you've built up quite a history of exactly that. The latest was when you accused me of having a COI and then rejected my offer to answer COI questions, describing the offer as an "unacceptable attitude". Before that it was something to do with 3RR, something I wouldn't care to "report" anyone for. Now you're presuming to speak for an entire racial separatist movement while laying claim to a flag that never represented a Hawaiian only government. You want to display the Hawai'i State flag? Fine, an overwhelming majority -94%- of voters were in favor of Statehood. You want to burn the U.S. flag because you think supporting the U.S is the same as being against Hawaiians? Fine, burn the flag. This is your right under the Constitution as it should be. You want to continue name calling and launching grenades? Fine, I'll burn it off in the mountains. But my 2 cents is that you may want to take it a little slower here and ease up just a bit. Viriditas reminded me of that at the start.--Yosemitesam25 (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

WHAT are you on about? I'm not a supporter of Hawaiian sovereignty, and not only have I never professed to "speak for" them, but in fact I disagree with them rather strongly. So you are way off base in lots of respects. I am simply interested in accuracy and NPOV and don't like someone vandalizing an article / template. It's most unfortunate for you that your credibility has reached zero, and if you don't like it, that's no one's fault but your own. Btw, I quite like the American flag, and in the future I'll not even feel the need to defend myself from such laughable accusations. But I hope you feel better after your little rant. Arjuna (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

My apologies if I've offended you in any way. I read WP:FLAG, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOT#LINK before I changed the template. The changes I made seemed consistent with the policies. As I understand it, even templates are subject to WP:NPOV as well as WP:SOAP and WP:NOT#LINK. As far as I know, all of the links in the template are available elsewhere in the article. So they are unecessary and redundant. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring

Yosemite, we seem to be stuck in a rut. I have submitted (and been granted) multiple protection requests in relation to your edit warring on Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Hawaiian sovereignty movement. When these requests are granted, you sit back for five days, don't engage in discussion, and then return to edit warring to try and get the version you like.

This constant edit warring just gets us right back where we started, and I think we're all getting a little tired of it. So I am asking you this as a fellow editor--please take it to the talk page. Make a proposal outlining what you want to remove and why. If you feel some sources are unbalanced, explain why. If you feel there is too much information on a given topic in an article, explain what it is and why it needs to go (take a look at Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement for a good exchange between User:Viriditas and I). Believe it or not, we are capable of exploring multiple viewpoints--we just don't react well when they're rammed down our throats.

I'm asking you this not only because I want a neutral, well-written article on these topics but also because the next step is to have the articles protected for however long it takes to resolve the dispute and take this to dispute resolution. And I don't know about you, but I have other plans for how I'd like to spend my time on Wikipedia. --jonny-mt 01:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I second jonny-mt's comments. Yosemitesam should be aware by now that his/her edits do not have appear to have any consensus at all. I would add this: simply posting one's unilateral justification for whatever changes one wishes to make on that article's talk page is thoroughly insufficient. I and others have deconstructed and refuted Yosemite's previous edit rationales; faced with this s/he seems to have simply tried to declare everyone else "in violation" of NPOV, UNDUE, and whatever other tidbits s/he was able to misinterpret from the Wikipedia guidelines. Yosemite's edits are highly tendentious, and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia. I hope for a fundamental change in attitude on YS's part but hope other editors will pardon my skepticism. Arjuna (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I note that User:Jossi has also echoed these sentiments on Talk:Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom. In the meantime, though, I've started a couple of discussions there and on Template talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement and would appreciate your input. --jonny-mt 07:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks jonny and Arjuna. For the time being, I added some sourced opinions from Hanifin and Fein rather than reverting. I'd like to go into more detail on the talk page about how we can improve the article but won't be able to do that until tomorrow. For the moment, please let my additions stand. But briefly, I would suggest adding a section (perhaps at the bottom of the article) entitled "moral and legal implication of the overthrow" or something to that effect. That way, the reader could focus on the facts and circumstances of the actual overthrow first (which seems to be the primary focus) and then, with some idea of what actually occured, would then review the viewpoints with respect to morality/legality. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 07:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, but the word "morality" is a bit troubling--given the various ethical/moral systems that exist in the world, I think it'd be more or less impossible to write about that in a neutral way. I can agree with a section on legal implications, of course, but once again I think that we'd be better served by sticking to facts as much as possible. For example, rather than present arguments by various scholars, we might be better served by talking about any court cases that are related to the overthrow. I believe one of the Hawaiian Independence people submitted a petition to the Hague and the court presented some limited opinions in its move to dismiss--something like that would be equally informative and wouldn't result in the veritable minefield we've been running through over the past month or so. Once that's established, we can begin to build and expand.

But all this can be worked out on the article talk pages :) --jonny-mt 08:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can talk it out on the talk page. But briefly, as Pat Hanifin says, this is a case where moral rights cannot be entirely divorced from legal rights. If no one has stolen anything which you had a legal right to, then you have no moral right to compensation for theft. If there were a legal right to stolen land, Hawaiians and/or native Hawaiians could have sued the U.S. government and won years ago. This claim is before Congress rather than the courts because there is no legal remedy for the alleged moral wrong. --Yosemitesam25 (talk) 08:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR violation

You have violated 3RR on [Overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom‎] and will be reported. Arjuna (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)