text:
Talk:Hawaiian sovereignty movement/Archive 1

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 22 Jul 2004 and 19 Aug 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Please add new archivals to Talk:Hawaiian_sovereignty_movement/Archive02. Thank you. IslandGyrl 20:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Does anyone have information about the Aloha Aina Party? I would also love some information about the criticisms of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement.  I'm not quite familiar with the specific objections.  --Jerry Farinas 22:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti-sovereignty positions (Conklin, Twigg-Smith)
For detailed analysis and rebuttal of claims by the hawaiian sovereignty movement, check out some writings by Conklin.

Many of the impressions people have about hawaiian sovereignty are based on fairly skewed interpretations of history, and Conklin goes into detail on many of these points. Conklin is definitely trying to press a point of course, but if you want someone who is critical, he's the place to go. My suggestion is to read everything you can from both sides. Another interesting link with a more academic historical critique is Hawaiian Sovereignty - Do the facts matter?. His whole book can be downloaded for free.

--JereKrischel

 * As diligent and fair Wikipedians, though, we ought to mention that the author of Hawaiian Sovereignty—Do the facts matter? is Thurston Twigg-Smith, the grandson of Lorrin A. Thurston, a leader of the overthrow. That would have a bearing on whether his perspective on the matter can be taken as purely historical and academic. The book's plaintive title suggests exasperation, a sense of being victimized even. For many years, in the post-war heyday of the Big Five, Twigg-Smith as owner of the Honolulu Advertiser was one of the most influential people in the Islands. Interesting slant, but know where it's coming from.

 * --IslandGyrl

 * IslandGyrl has an excellent point on the geneaology on Thurston Twigg-Smith (which he clearly acknowledges in his book), but I would venture to say that he does a fair job of clearly presenting that which he has historical evidence to call fact, and that which is clearly in the realm of supposition (on both sides). I'm also sure that the family histories of some of the pro-sovereignty movement activists also call into question their objectivity.  Also interesting to note that despite Twigg-Smith's ownership of the Honolulu Advertiser, the newspaper's editorial board has been very pro-sovereignty.  I would see that as evidence that despite his ancestry, he works hard to be fair.  Have you read his book?

 * --JereKrischel

 * Accordin' ta this here Wikipedia thing (click on the "owner" link), the Advertiser was sold to Gannett in 1992, so I'd think that the paper's policies and Mr Twigg-Smith's would have been unrelated since then. --IslandGyrl

 * Another excellent point IslandGyrl. Unfortunately the Honolulu Advertiser only has articles from 1999 on available online, so we can't state one way or the other what the editorial opinion pages held when Twigg-Smith owned the paper without looking at hardcopies.  The Wikipedia article does mention that under Twigg-Smith the Honolulu Advertiser became less conservative (pro Big-5) and more progressive though...quote from the article:

 * With the coupling of Chaplin and Twigg-Smith, the Honolulu Advertiser shifted its political slant from a staunchly conservative pro-Big Five newspaper to become a more moderate, racially progressive newspaper.

 * ...it would be interesting to look at the op-eds from before he sold the paper, and see if we could find an influence one way or another. That being said, have you had a chance to read his book?  It seems clear that you don't agree with him on some of the issues, but I would guess that you might appreciate his tone in his book.  My shallow impression of his motivation is that he feels defensive, and isn't trying to oppress anyone.  He seems genuinely hurt by the allegations that his grandfather "stole" something from the native hawaiians (I believe he mentions an anecdote about some young part-hawaiian child confronting him with that accusation).  Since the crown lands were ceded to the U.S. and given back to the State Of Hawaii once we got statehood, not appropriated by his grandfather for his own personal benefit, I give some credence to his point of view.  Perhaps there is some other evidence of greed and ill-gotten gain I'm not aware of though.

 * --JereKrischel

 * Excuse me if I don't answer your question about having read the book or not. It's a legitimate question, but I feel it's important we avoid personalizing disagreement in any way.

 * It is part of our calling as Wikipedians to cultivate the ability to approach all the different sides and personages of a subject sympathetically, so to the extent I come across as being somehow personally hostile to Mr Twigg-Smith, to that extent I fall off the surfboard into the drink.

 * In the context of the Hawaiian Renaissance, variations in the Advertiser's slant are a very minor sidelight. For decades the discourse was in terms of two players, "haole and status-quo Hawaiian / Big Five / Republican" versus "Asian / 442nd regiment / Democrat". The Hawaiian revival sees itself as the reappearance of the third (and actually the first, the original) player. In an action movie, they'd be the guy who was beat up and left for dead in the swamp staggering back into the cabin—his cabin—where the two "buddies" who were supposed to be "protecting" him are divvying up the loot.

 * It's not about Mr Twigg-Smith or any of the Hawaiian activists personally. It's about how the whole Hawaiian language and history thing was made invisible, except as a decorative factor for tourism or for furthering North American missionary ends (e.g. the Polynesian Cultural Center is owned and operated by the Mormon church). I myself didn't know any of this stuff about Hawaiʻi, in spite of having grown up there. As a child I was taught the Hawaiian people welcomed the overthrow and annexation. When statehood was proposed, they didn't say, "You get to vote whether you want to be a state or whether you want to be an independent country." It was, "Become a state (come up on deck with the passengers) or stay a territory (stay in the hold as military cargo)." Little was said about the Hawaiians wanting to get off the boat entirely and go back to having a ship of state of their own.

 * When I heard about the discovery of the petitions showing over 90 percent opposition to annexation, I thought: "The people were against it? Well, heck, now just how did the schools, media, church, military, all the institutions manage to minimize awareness of that key fact? It's like not knowing that when the Dalai Lama was deposed in 1959, Tibetans were like, not pleased. Did I grow up in East Germany or what?"
 * --IslandGyrl 12:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Aloha IslandGyrl, and thank you for your comments. As a side note, I've taken to reading some of the discussion boards on the Honolulu Advertiser website, and they are terribly poisoned by vitriol, and this infinitely more civilized exchange here gives me hope for the future.

 * I apologize if it appeared I was trying to personalize our disagreement in any negative way. I am interested in your personal point of view - both the anecdotes you describe about your experiences learning about hawaiian culture as well as your reactions, as one more sympathetic to the pro-royalists, to Thurston's prose, style and tone in his attempt at collecting history.  I truly believe that it is only by putting ourselves in the shoes of others that we can hope to understand their perspectives, and your personal perspective is one I would like to better understand.

 * My anecdote about learning hawaiian history is similar to yours, but goes in the opposite direction. When I was growing up, I was constantly told about how bad the haoles were, and how bad the missionaries were, and how great Kalakaua and Liliuokalani were, and how tragic it was that the monarchy was overthrown.  We would sing songs about King Kamehameha the great in gradeschool, celebrating his bloody conquest of the islands without giving much thought to the feelings of the men, women and children thrown off the pali (or the part the haoles played in providing kamehameha with weaponry).  It was not until much later in life that I learned that  haoles were close advisors and members of the kingdom from the very beginning, that Queen Kaahumanu herself destroyed the ancient hawaiian religion and replaced with christianity, and that both Kalakaua and Liliuokalani spent vast sums of money on the trappings of european royalty, driving the Kingdom into millions of dollars of debt (which was taken on by the U.S. after annexation).  The shock of discovering that there was another side to the story seems similar to your reaction to the 90% opposition to annexation - although I found a reference you might find interesting on that:

 * According to the kingdom’s 1890 census, there were 48,107 citizens, including 40,622 being pure or part aboriginal Hawaiian. The petition opposing annexation had 21,269 signatures. Another petition supporting restoration of the monarchy had over 17,000 signatures, but this one has not been recovered so how much overlap there may have been is unknown.

 * --excerpted from

 * Not quite 90%, but certainly a strong sentiment against annexation. Claims and counter claims of how valid the petition was fly back and forth, and I've heard arguments both ways about the popular sentiment at the time.  As with all history, much is left to interpretation.

 * Personally, the hardest thing for me to understand about the hawaiian sovereignty movements is the racial exclusivity. As a mixed breed myself, I've always been very proud of hawaii's long history of integration.  The fact that the Kingdom of Hawaii was only 20% kanaka maoli in 1893 leads me to believe that any restoration should keep the same racial proportions.  And once I get to that point, and realize that today we have about the same proportions, I can't make the leap to say that what has happened to us since then in Hawaii wasn't for the best.  If we went back to the constitution in place during 1893, and restored the monarchy, our people of asian descent wouldn't be allowed to vote.  And only males would be allowed to vote.  And Bumpy would be King.  I know people feel strongly about the issue, but I don't understand why these issues don't seem to bother them the way they bother me.

 * Anyway, thank you again for your discussion IslandGyrl. I am fairly new to this wikipedia thing, and if you are any indication of the average wikipedian, I'm very impressed.

 * --JereKrischel

 * You're very welcome, JereKrischel. I'm sure anyone who has delved into web forums would know what you mean about vitriol. And whatever else we may disagree about, I think you were right to cut "few current Hawaiian residents would argue that the overthrow of the monarchy was just" at this point in time; after all, "few" is pretty strong unless proof is forthcoming.

 * Above, you write, "The fact that the Kingdom of Hawaii was only 20% kanaka maoli in 1893 …". Seeing that, I ask,"But is that actually a fact?" For instance, the chart on page 113 of my old water-stained Atlas of Hawaii (2nd ed. 1983), Univ. of Hawaiʻi Press, shows around 40% "Hawaiian" (presumably meaning full-blood) with an additional 10% "Part-Hawaiian" in 1893.

 * But as I've been trying to point out here and elsewhere, that's going to be the dilemma with all Hawaiʻi-related historical topics: one quickly finds out that folks with different perspectives don't even agree on a basic set of facts. How to proceed without nickel-and-diming ourselves to death over every detail?

 * This is a very good point...I've noticed a tendency during the argument to throw factual discrepancies around without regard to whether or not the discrepancy alters the argument. For example, although Queen Kaahumanu officially destroyed the native hawaiian religion, does that fact change anything about the argument that the missionaries destroyed hawaiian culture?  Can they still be held culpable, even if their path to victory was through one very powerful alii instead of force of arms?  And in the case of 20% versus 40% (or 50%) hawaiian, does that change anything about the claim that the kingdom of hawaii was multi-ethnic and multi-cultural at the time of the overthrow?

 * I think more than agreeing on a basic set of facts, we should also be discussing how those disputed facts may or may not have a bearing on the dispute. I think we need to identify those crucial disputed facts where a different fact leads to a different conclusion (e.g., my opinion of the kalakauas as being spendthrifts rests on the financial facts cited by Twigg-Smith, and if they were in fact thrifty monarchs I would have to alter my conclusions).  Maybe then we can discover the core differences between the positions and have some hope of addressing them.

 * I guess maybe the question could be put this way - what would make you change your mind? If you learned that the administrators of the republic killed the children of the opposition, would you become more pro-sovereignty?  If you learned that the leaders of the revolution had hawaiian blood, would you become more anti-sovereignty?  My local npr station (kpcc.org) actually has a really neat section where they challenge your point of view on a given topic with 5 facts.  They challenge both points of view, so if you identify yourself as pro-X, they'll ask, "What if you knew this anti-X fact?  Would it change your mind?".  It's quite an amazing exercise.

 * Thank you again for the discussion. --JereKrischel

 * No amount of detail adjustments at the level of fact is likely to budge folks unless something addresses the problem that fundamental legal and moral principles appear to have been violated. The Apology Resolution did address that, if it accomplished nothing else.
 * --IslandGyrl 02:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It seems arguable that the Apology Resolution has been thoroughly discredited by Bruce Fein and others, and only served to muddy the waters with a very limited view of the historical record (PDF file (592 KB): Hawaii Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand). The very sad fact is that the Apology Resolution is now being hailed as unvarnished truth by pro-sovereignty folks, and with their strong reliance on such a shaky set of assertions they risk losing all of their credibility.  By focusing on a legalistic argument, we arrive at the point of tossing 'facts' back and forth to undermine the other side without addressing their real greivances.

 * I guess it may help if we can identify the legal and moral principles in question. I've always felt by attaching themselves to 1893, the hawaiian-activists to themselves disfavor.  By 1893, things had already gone terribly wrong.  And arguing for a monarchy when you already have democracy seems anachronistic.  Perhaps the Great Mahele would be a good place to see great legal and moral fault.  Or perhaps Kamehameha the Great's reliance on haole advisors and weaponry, and the generous gifts of land handed out by the monarchy to outsiders.  Of course, once we start blaming the native-hawaiian monarchy, there are few people still around we can hold accountable.  But even then, if we had some sort of Truth Commission, and acknowledged the economic damage done to kanaka maoli by the alii, perhaps we could find some healing.

 * But I have a question - are we really motivated by legal and moral principles, or is that a facade for the true motivation of economics? If native hawaiians had kept hold of their lands during the Great Mahele, and in this day and age were amongst the richest people living in Hawaii, would this still be an issue?  Would rich hawaiians want a return to monarchy?  Would rich hawaiians want a return to racial purity and isolation?  It seems that hawaiian sovereignty is the flag around which people who are 'have-nots' have gathered.  And the fatal flaw I see there is that native hawaiians do not have a monopoly on poverty.  My aunt in waianae is as local as they come, and as poor as they come, but she's pure portuguese.  She deserves good health care, affordable housing and decent wages just as much as the 95% haole 5% hawaiian guy living in kahala with kids in Kamehameha school.

 * And there I think we have work to do. Ancient Hawaii was a place of haves and have-nots.  Modern Hawaii, although now multi-racial and lacking the strict kapu laws of the past, still has the same problem.  It is not an invention of the white man, and it does not victimize only the native.  But it is an incredibly important issue, and one that must be ultimately addressed without regard to ancestry.

 * --JereKrischel

Wholesale change?
Aloha all, I notice there's a wholesale change in the article on or around 8/16/04. Can someone shed some light as to why that is? KeithH 06:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um, that was me. Should I have put something up on the talk page about it? I left messages for Gerald Farinas, who wrote the original article, and he never replied.

His page was extremely abstract, said little about current people, movements, events, and gave the impression that Native Hawaiians were solidly united in a disciplined pro-sovereignty movement that wanted actual independence for Hawai'i. That may be what Gerald believes, but it's not a valid presentation of the welter of viewpoints among Native Hawaiians. (Which I've been observing, in some cases from the inside, for twenty years.)

I also strongly objected to his treatment of Wilcox (whom I regard as a self-seeking demagogue) and to the inclusion of Wilcox and the Home Rule party in a article on the current political situation. That's another attempt to give a historical pedigree and an impression of unity.

I spun those articles off, set up a link to them, and have been meaning to give another view of Wilcox, when I get a round tuit.

Gerald is a good writer and a great Wikipedian, but he has a strong POV when it comes to Hawaiian issues. I'm trying to open things up and give a little nuance and detail. Zora 08:03, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Hi Zora, thanks for the explanation (and yes, I think such a major rewrite would have warranted a more detailed explanation here, but that's water under the bridge now). One thing I do notice is that Gerald's version read more like a history article, and your version focuses more on the present.  I honestly think there's room for a historical and present-day view, with corrections for factual accuracy.  After all, the movement wouldn't be where it is today if it weren't for the efforts of those that came before.  The Hawaiian sovereignty movement may be all the over the map as you say, but one common thread is that it seeks self-determination in some form for Native Hawaiians(not necessarily full independence).  At least that's the way I see it, correct me if I'm wrong as you're probably better versed in the "movement" than I am.

 * After all, what's not in dispute is, if Queen Liliuokalani hadn't been deposed, there'd be no sovereignty movement, whether it seeks independence, nation-within-nation, or what have you. And a discussion of the history of regaining sovereignty is certainly germane.

 * In any case, I think it's worth it to reach some common understanding. You both are very good writers and editors, and I'd hate to see bad feelings over this.  I'll gladly help in anyway I can.  KeithH 01:58, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I question the legitimacy of taking Wilcox or the Home Rule Party as part of the Hawaiian sovereignty movement. The term came into use only in the 1980s, I believe. How can someone be said to "belong" to something that came into existence after he/she was born? That's why I categorized the historical parts of the article as "a history of resistance to Western domination", or whatever the words were that I used. If you asked the Home Rule party if they were resisting outside domination, they would have said YES.

I find it fascinating yet pernicious that people identify so closely with their biological or ideological ancestors that they completely lose sight of historical differences. Native Hawaiians who feel any injury to people 200 years dead as a personal insult, or assume that their ancestors would have felt exactly the same way about things as they do. I imagine that if you actually could use a time machine to plunk such a person down in a Hawaiian village of 300 years ago, that person would be as disoriented by cultural differences as if you'd dumped him/her into a English village of 300 years ago. It might be even worse because unexpected and ideologically unwelcome.

Anyway ... if you have anything to contribute to the page, please do. I never DID answer the request for more info re the Aloha Aina party. And I realize that as I type this that there's no info about the Hawaiian renaissance, or a link to that, and nothing about Kahana valley, "no can eat golf balls", and other popular resistance movements of the recent past.

As for ho'oponopono with Gerald: Gerald has good reason to be mad at me, I think. When I first read the sovereignty page, I remembered the Native Hawaiian page I'd read recently and thought, wrongly, that THAT was the sovereignty page and that Gerald had completely wiped it out. I left a stiff note for him, to which he replied that he would NEVER do such a thing. I discovered my error and apologized abjectly, but I think I hurt him deeply. He might also be upset that I reacted so strongly to wossername, Lilikea?, and edited her inaccuracies out of existence, at which point she left in a huff. He had been welcoming her, as another Hawaiian voice, and might have thought I was too hard on her.

If you can achieve a meeting of the minds, that would be nice, but I don't expect it, and I can't really blame Gerald for feeling distant. Zora 07:02, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I've been meaning to reply but with it being election season, I've been busy staffing the campaign I'm administering.

 * (1) I am not upset about the changes made to the Hawaiian sovereignty movement page. I think many of the criticisms made were valid.  Though I wish the historical topics I wrote about weren't just totally wiped out but instead revised in such a way as to accomodate the nuances you felt were needed.  Keith pointed out something of my Wikipedia writing style that I didn't think anyone actually noticed.  I do have a tendency to write somewhat abstractly, like most encyclopedic articles I've encountered, and not focus so much on analyses — not to say that there isn't room for any.  Your version tends to read like a collegiate thesis, not so much an encylopedic article — especially in the introductory paragraph.  I have to admit there was information lacking of the present-day sovereignty positions but I was hoping someone would add those in instead of having the entire article gutted and stripped just as I had hoped that someone would edit the sections I had already to weed out POV and mistakes, etc.

 * (2) I was never upset at you over the Ilikea episodes. In fact I had a lot of concerns and frustrations over the edits she made to articles.  --Gerald Farinas 18:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hawaiian Kingdom
I'm surprised that Zora hasn't done anything to include Keanu Sai and his expertise in international law. There was nothing said about Prof. Boyle's criticism regarding Public Law 103-150 either.

http://hawaiiankingdom.org

Keanu Sai's page
I'm really impressed at whoever did a whole paragraph section on Keanu's page. That's not what I expected, but really am impressed by the details. Maika'!

Problems with accuracy
"Thanks to efforts by the Hawaiian sovereignty movement to raise awareness, few current Hawaiian residents would argue that the overthrow of the monarchy was just."

I think one of the larger problems with the sovereignty movement is that it makes claims and generalizations without regard to details.

For an alternate view of the overthrow (much more detailed, and perhaps more accurate), see this site:

http://www.hawaiimatters.com/book.html

Many current Hawaiian residents I know, of all races including native hawaiian (kanaka maoli), do argue that the overthrow of the monarchy was just, that Liliuokalani and Kalakaua were spendthrift despots, and that the right of a people to move from a monarchy to a republic was inherent. Unless it can be shown with real data that a majority of Hawaiians, after being exposed to both views of history (pro and anti-sovereignty) feel that the overthrow was unjust, I think the above statement prejudges the issue, and should be removed.

--JereKrischel

 * Thank you Thurston. I've heard another 'Oiwi say that your book makes you really think about it.  But to be honest, I guess you are in the crowd that seems to be the group of people who luckily sees it your way.  I know of others who are not from Hawai'i who have learned about the facts and were very surprised and do not agree with your take on the illegal actions your grandfather and the others have done.  We all understand why they did it, but that does not make it "just". --66.214.138.3 13:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't sign my earlier post...and I'm not Thurston. I've found that the "facts" learned by people not from Hawai'i are often skewed in the direction of whoever was doing the telling. I think it's particularly divisive and insulting to members of a mixed race family to expect one set of kids to have certain rights, but their cousins who might not have the right kind of blood are supposed to have a lesser claim to justice. All that being said, I think the sovereignty movement loses sympathy when it focuses on 1893...the reign of all the Kamehamehas was terribly devastating to the kanaka maoli population (although we celebrate his victory over his enemies at the Pali, throwing people over a cliff is pretty brutal - not to mention the Great Mahele fiasco), and much sympathy for the plight of the commoners versus the ali'i can be made, but the movement from a monarchy to a republic to a territory to a state of the union seems to be a foward progression. It is "just" to overthrow a despot. It was not "just" (although perhaps inevitable) for disease to ravage an entire population group. It was "just" for missionaries to help preserve culture by developing an alphabet for hawaiian. I was not "just" for missionaries to force christianity upon any native population. The story of hawaii is a mixed bag to be sure, but to think that the suffering of the kanaka maoli gives them a right to racial exclusivity is antithetical to the aloha spirit that they shared with the world.

--JereKrischel

Religion and spirituality play a big role in the sovereignty movement. Think old Hawaii = Judea 2000+ years ago, with the United States as Rome, think Diaspora, and wandering in the wilderness, and now there's a dream called Israel. Or maybe think Lord of the Rings / Return of the King (and Kingdom). "All was lost, but now a generation is come that shall right the wrongs and reclaim the roots for all their kids and great-great-...-grand-kids." A touch of Hawaiian Zionism is in the air, as it were.

I think what tendency toward exclusion does exist comes from a perception somewhat like Israeli attitudes, in 1948 and now... "When the chips are down, who can we trust besides ourselves to really fight for our survival as a people? Gentiles / non-Hawaiians all have a proven record of being perfectly willing to sit on their hands while we disappear."

Folks see their proud and sacred lineage as on the brink of demographic extinction—(mutter mutter facing genocide mutter mutter). They're being pushed into the sea, all the health statistics are bad, homeless folks are being thrown off beaches (mutter mutter in their own country mutter mutter)... It's seen as a matter of absolute life and death (both physical and spiritual) for their community.

Also, how much bigger can a double standard be than we Americans denigrating the Hawaiian monarchy while being economically and politically joined at the waist with the truly despotic House of Saud?

--IslandGyrl

 * Excellent point on the House of Saud. I don't think I've ever understood the devil's bargains we've made in the middle east, and the legacy of the British Mandate plagues us to this day.  Although I must say comparing the monarchy of Liliuokalani (aspiring despot, spendthrift) to the house of Saud (actual despot, spendthrift and active oppressor) is probably unfair to Liliuokalani.

 * That being said, I have to say, being a gen-Xer, I have never understood the moral rationale behind Zionism. Especially after being born and raised in Hawaii, the entire idea of racial purity or racial destiny seems quaint to me.  Although I certainly have family living in waianae that are being pushed into the sea, with bad health statistics, being thrown off beaches, they're all pure portuguese.  And truth be told, if we were to use weighted measures (1/8 hawaiian blood, 7/8 chinese blood in poverty counts more as an impoverished chinese than hawaiian), I'm not sure if the statistics would be as dire.  That seems to be a problem when collecting demographic statistics in a multi-racial society like hawaii - everybody wants you to count only for the bucket that proves their point.

 * I think although they have used the imagery of Zionism, most of the complaint is economic rather than religous. Most people would find the indigenous kapu laws barbaric (I wonder how many female hawaiian-activists avoid eating coconuts and bananas, or eating with the opposite sex).  And although outside influence can be argued, Queen Kaahumanu herself was the primary force in the destruction of the old heeiaus and kapu laws.

 * Another quite ironic point is that the Hawaiian Renaissance instigated by Hokulea in the '70s was actually founded by a haole Ben Finney. Most of the religion and spirituality now being embraced as "native" hawaiian is actually of modern invention, and has only a token similarity to the ancient laws and customs.  Seen from that perspective (i.e., that their "traditions" are mostly modern inventions), it seems even less like the biblical claims of the jews.  It would be akin to New Age Wiccans claiming rights to Salem, Massachusetts.  Or 'Jews for Jesus' claiming rights to Bethlehem.

 * It seems to me that the biggest success of native hawaiians has been the fact that they refused to isolate themselves from the big scary world that "discovered" them. They are in my estimation the most truly color-blind society ever in the history of the planet.  Although their contact with westerners had its share of negatives, their blood now runs through the veins of hundreds of thousands of others, mixed in harmony.  They never saw themselves as superior to anyone else, and it seems they never saw themselves as different than anyone else.  So for us now, a hundred years after an era when hawaiian royalty regularly married haoles, to advocate for racial purity, for racial 'preservation'...it seems like a giant step backward.

 * Thank you again for the interesting and challenging thoughts. It is my hope that I've been able to express a differing POV without being disrepectful.  Any 'facts' I'm using to butress my points may be debatable, but I hope that my vision of a mixed-race future for hawaii (and the world for that matter) stands on it's own.

 * --JereKrischel

Hey, I found what must be your website, Once upon a krischel? So all this stuff is old hat to you, actually, at least from a certain perspective. There needs to be articles on Bruce Fein and folks on his side of the sovereignty issue. --IslandGyrl 11:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yeah, I save my emotional rants for my own blog...:) Originally it was for ultrasound pictures, then when Terry Schiavo came along I ranted about that.  My interest in the sovereignty movements all really started for me on 7/19, when I read some CNN article on the Akaka Bill.  I had always dismissed the sovereignty movements as fringe when I was growing up in hawaii (a typical response by many I think, the unspoken question being who gets to be the commoner and who gets to be the alii), but it seems that in the blink of an eye they've become quite powerful and influential.  It frightens me quite a bit actually, and I think that's what drove me to the wikipedia - we can't hope to make a positive difference unless we understand what motivates the sovereignty movements.  It's sort of like the response many democrats have had to the meteoric rise of the far right religous conservatives - 20 years ago, nobody cared about the folk who wanted to keep gays in the closet and evolution out of the schools - but now they've gotten to pick the president and both houses of congress for two terms...and it looks like they're also about to corner the market on the supreme court.  I can hardly imagine what it would be like for my family still in hawaii when they start having people blood tested for who is hawaiian, when the cousins on one side of my family live under one set of laws, and the cousins on the other side live under another.  What will it be like for married couples, where one is part hawaiian, and the other one isn't?  Will the kapu laws come back?  Will taxes go up?  Will property be 'stolen' back?  Will the orientals lose all their rights again?  Since nobody has really put forward any straw man scenarios for us to debate, I'm very wary when it's claimed that I shouldn't worry and that nothing important will change.

 * --JereKrischel


text:
User talk:Thestorylord

Hi. I noticed you posted a copyrighted picture in the Beeramid article. Unfortunately, because we operate under a Free Documentation License, we can not display copyrighted materials unless the use qualifies as a fair use. If this is a photograph you have taken, you must release it under the GFDL in order for it to be displayed here. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 20:47, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I've taken care of it - when you upload a picture, you can put in the description, and that will tag it as one that has been released under the appropriate license. You can also do that with a picture that has already been uploaded, as with any other article. -- BD2412  talk 04:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Thestorylord


text:
User talk:Ehoxha

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

title: User talk:Ehoxha


text:
Peter Manning

Peter Manning FRSA (born 17 July 1956) is a British conductor and violinist.

Biography
Manning was born in Manchester on 17 July 1956. His conducting career includes work with the Royal Philharmonic Chamber Orchestra, the Edsberg Chamber Orchestra, BBC Symphony Orchestra, Odense Symphony Orchestra, Musica Vitae and the Soloists of The Royal Opera House. He is currently (2015) Concertmaster of The Royal Opera House and Artistic Director of Musica Vitae, Sweden, The Soloists of The Royal Opera House and guest Conductor Dallas Opera Texas USA. He is also Artistic Director of Manning Camerata, the classical group for the 21st century which he started in 2005 to create innovative events that are centred on music and invigorate other disciplines.

Manning first began to play the violin when he was five. He attended Chetham's School of Music and studied in this country with Yossi Zivoni, with Josef Gingold in the US and with Nathan Milstein. He won all the major string prizes at the Royal Northern College of Music and graduated with distinction in performance. Major scholarships from the Royal Society of Arts, the Martin Musical Scholarship, the Harold Craxton Memorial Trust and Indiana University enabled him to continue his studies. Before leaving for the US he was prize winner in the Anderson International Violin Competition and first prize winner and gold medallist in the Royal Overseas League Competition.

He was appointed as Professor of the Violin at the Royal Northern College of Music in 1981, a post he relinquished in 1983 when he was invited to become Leader of the London Philharmonic. After gaining great experience working with conductors such as Sir Georg Solti, Klaus Tennstedt, Sir Simon Rattle, Bernard Haitink and Evgeny Svetlanov, Peter left the Orchestra to form the Britten String Quartet and to concentrate on his solo career.

Manning founded the Britten Quartet in 1986 which established an international reputation and discography, making, during its ten years, over 20 recordings. The Britten Quartet was the first British Quartet to be offered an exclusive EMI contract and recorded a substantial 20 disc discography including works by Beethoven, Schubert, Schnittke, Ravel, Verdi, Brahms, Cherubini, Janáček, Tippett, Prokofieff, Britten and Vaughan Williams.

Manning made his Royal Festival Hall debut with the Philharmonia in a live radio broadcast. Since then he has appeared with the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, the Hallé, the Ulster, the London Mozart Players, the London Philharmonic, the Philharmonia, the BBC Concert Orchestra, the Scottish Chamber Orchestra, BBC Scottish, the Hong Kong Philharmonic and the Royal Philharmonic, the Oulu Chamber Orchestra and the Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra.

Manning has toured France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Scandinavia, the Far East, the US, South America and Russia with appearances at major venues. He is the recipient of the German Recording Industry's Schallplattenpreis.

Manning has a wide-ranging repertory and is active in orchestrating arrangements and the commissioning of new works for choreography and theatre. He is published by Universal Edition Vienna and Schott London and in addition to his Schnittke arrangements for orchestra he has recently had his arrangements of Tippet String Quartets for Orchestra published.

Manning is a fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and the Royal Northern College of Music, an honorary member of the Royal College of Music and a trustee of the Campaign for the Arts. In 2013 he was appointed joint Professor of new work at the University of Edinburgh and the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland to develop new work for the Edinburgh International festivals and established the Oxygen festival.

He appeared as a violinist in the film adaptation of Frederick Forsyth's novel The Fourth Protocol.

title: Peter Manning


text:
Kalesija

Kalesija (Калесија) is a town and municipality located in the Tuzla Canton of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, an entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is located in northeastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, east of Tuzla. As of 2013, the town has a population of 2,039 inhabitants, while the municipality has 33,053 inhabitants.

History
The Atik Mosque in Vukovije Gornje was built at the end of the 16th century.

Yugoslav Wars
On 2 May 1992 Kalesija was one of the first Bosnian towns to be caught in the initial Serbian offensive. On 11 May 1992, Kalesija and the territory east of the river Bjeljevac except for the settlements of Zukići and Jajić were placed under occupation.

On 23 May 1992, Kalesija was retaken by Bosnian forces.

The aftermath of the occupation included ethnic cleansing, population displacement, many people being taken to camps, the destruction of Kalesija villages, the destruction of religious buildings and industrial plants.

The Dayton Agreement appointed a new administrative arrangement of Bosnia and Herzegovina. 71 km2 (26.1%) of the territory of the municipality Kalesija was ceded to Republika Srpska, becoming the municipality of Osmaci.

1971
The 1971 Yugoslav census showed that Kalesija had 32,577 inhabitants, made up of:
 * 24,771 Bosniaks - (76.03%)
 * 7,606 Serbs - (23.34%)
 * 40 Croats - (0.12%)
 * 23 Yugoslavs - (0.07%)
 * 137 others - (0.44%)

1991
In the 1991 census, the municipality of Kalesija had 41,795 inhabitants:
 * 33,226 Bosniaks (79.5%)
 * 7,669 Serbs (18.4%)
 * 33 Croats (0.1%)
 * 270 Yugoslavs (0.6%)
 * 597 others (0.4%)

2013
In the 2013 census, the municipality of Kalesija had 33,053 inhabitants:
 * 32,227 Bosniaks (97,5%)
 * 254 Serbs (0,76%)
 * 20 Croats (0,06%)
 * 552 others (1,67%)

Settlements
The municipality consists of 28 settlements:

 * Brezik, population 51
 * Bulatovci, population 302
 * Dubnica, population 788
 * Gojčin, population 421
 * Hrasno Donje, population 1,022
 * Hrasno Gornje, population 627
 * Jeginov Lug, population 143
 * Jelovo Brdo, population 489
 * Kalesija Grad, population 2,039
 * Kalesija Selo, population 2,222
 * Kikači, population 1,804
 * Lipovice, population 1,158
 * Memići, population 1,453
 * Miljanovci, population 1,918
 * Osmaci, uninhabited
 * Petrovice, population 2,460
 * Prnjavor, population 1,515
 * Rainci Donji, population 2,268
 * Rainci Gornji, population 1,924
 * Sarači, population 470
 * Seljublje, population 923
 * Staro Selo, population 22
 * Tojšići, population 2,484
 * Vukovije Donje, population 2,874
 * Vukovije Gornje, population 2,511
 * Zelina, population 103
 * Zolje, population 823
 * Zukići, population 239

Education
In the area of the Kalesija municipality there are six elementary schools. They are located in Kalesija, Rainci Gornji, Gojčin, Memići, Vukovije and Tojšići.

title: Kalesija


text:
User talk:Unf

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Unf, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:48

title: User talk:Unf


text:
User talk:Nosmo Reyes

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Nosmo Reyes, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:48

Other Usernames?
Do you edit articles under any other usernames? Hipocrite - « Talk » 17:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Your concerns about John and I
Dear Nosmo, After reading your list of your concerns about John and I over at the ZappaZ nomination board, at first I had the mistaken impression that poor John had recently been dragged into court by Rawat & Co. as if for some reason it was a crime for him to be organized. :-) I just visited the ex-premie.org site to see if this were so, and gladly, apparently not.  I am also not quite certain what you mean by my 'run-ins' with Scientologists in Clearwater, unless you are referring to their attempt to infiltrate the Quaker church that I was a member of, and my successful move to block this infiltration effort.  I would like to hear more about this if you don't mind.  If you have any questions for me Nosmo, I would be happy to reply to any email you might want to send me via my Wiki account.

 * Sincerely,

 * -Scott P. 04:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

PS: I also posted a copy of this note to the ZappaZ nomination board.

Regarding whether or not the ex-premie site is an 'organization'...
Dear Nosmo, You seem to be very concerned as to whether or not the ex-premie site is an 'organization'. I don't quite understand why this concerns you so much, but I will try to answer your questions about this here. John is absolutely correct about the fact that a formal or legal organization has never been associated with this website. However, according to the dictionary definition, an informal organization has always been associated with it. The dictionary defines an organization as a group of persons organized for some end or work. By that definition, whenever any two people agree to cooperate together towards a common goal, an informal organization exists. The common goal of this website has always been to publish the truth about Mr. Prem Rawat, whether positive or negative, and I think that it is a reasonable assumption that most who have participated in that website have probably agreed with that goal. So according to the informal dictionary sense of the word, yes we have had two or more people agree to work together towards a common goal, and therefore, yes an informal type of organization has always been associated with this website. That is the type of organization I was referring to. The type that John referred to was a formal or legally recognized organization. If you still remain unclear about all of this, please let me know and I, or possibly John, would be happy to explain further for you here, or otherwise try to assist you with better understanding some of these things. Thank you for your interest in the ex-premie.org website.

 * Sincerely,

 * Scott P. 01:07, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:Nosmo Reyes


text:
User talk:Eric Sellars

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Eric Sellars, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:48

Recent pages patrol
If you'll pardon me mentioning what you may already know, when you reverted vandalism at Ebola you missed that what you reverted was only the latest of 3 consecutive vandal edits to the page. When dealing with vandalism it is unfortunately necessary to check the page history to see how many edits you have to go back. Lavateraguy 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of North Mesquite High School for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article North Mesquite High School is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/North Mesquite High School until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheMesquito (talk) 05:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

title: User talk:Eric Sellars


text:
Talk:Student television station

Could we perhaps put up a disambiguation page for Student television and have it point to both this article and the article that is currently there - the article for the student channel at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I'm new to wiki and unfamiliar how to do so exactly. Corey.spring 20:57, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Student television station


text:
User talk:TjeerdAukes

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, TjeerdAukes, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:49

title: User talk:TjeerdAukes


text:
User talk:Jack Simpson

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, Jack Simpson, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:49

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Jack Simpson

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. A tag has been placed on User:Jack Simpson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Minorax «¦talk¦» 06:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Jckspk.jpg

The file File:Jckspk.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Unused personal photo. Out of scope."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax «¦talk¦» 07:03, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jack Simpson


text:
Tan Siew Sin

Tun Tan Siew Sin (21 May 1916 – 17 March 1988) was a Malaysian politician who served as the Minister of Commerce and Industry, Minister of Finance, and 3rd President of the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA, formerly Malayan Chinese Association), a major component party of Alliance and later Barisan Nasional (BN) coalitions. In his term as the Minister of Finance, a new Malaysian currency, Malaysian Ringgit was introduced. He is the longest-serving Minister of Finance by serving in the position for 15 years.

Early life
The only son of Malaysian statesman and MCA founder Tan Cheng Lock, Tan Siew Sin was born on 21 May 1916 in Malacca. He was of Baba heritage and did not speak Mandarin. He was educated at Malacca High School in Malacca and then at Raffles College in Singapore. Before then, he was also sent by his father to a Girls School, that is Syudaim Girls School which is now the Methodist High School.

In 1935, he felt ill and was diagnosed as having tuberculosis. He fully recovered after an operation in Switzerland for treatment. Three years later, he moved on to his higher education in the field of law in England. He never completed his legal studies. Fearing an outbreak of war in Europe, in July 1939 Tun Tan Cheng Lock ordered him and his two sisters to leave London and return to Malacca. On Sept 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, an event that marked the start of World War II. For this reason, He studied only one year of law. He returned from London to take over the family's plantation business in 1939.

Political career
Tan Siew Sin was elected a Member of Parliament for Malacca in 1955. He joined the Malaysian cabinet first as minister of trade and industry, and later became the finance minister in 1959. He then took over as president of the MCA in November 1961, and held on to both positions until 1974. Tan was appointed the Deputy Chairman of the Alliance in 1964. He led his party to victory in the 1964 General Election, winning 27 of the 33 parliamentary seats contested.

Tan however came under criticism for not pushing for the recognition of Mandarin as an official language and the establishment of a Mandarin language university. In March 1968, Tan proposed setting up the Tunku Abdul Rahman College for Chinese youths who would otherwise be denied an opportunity to tertiary education. The college was formally set up on February 24, 1969. Under Tan's stewardship, the MCA also set up Koperasi Serbaguna Malaysia (KSM), an initiative of MCA Youth based on the cooperative principle.

In the 1969 general election, MCA lost more than half its seats to the new, mainly Chinese Malaysian, opposition parties Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Gerakan Rakyat Malaysia (Gerakan). Tan considered taking the party out of the Alliance but decided against it. In order to regain Chinese support, Tan attempted to broaden the appeal of the party previously seen as a party of the taukeh (tou jia, rich men), and invited professionals to join the party. Other initiatives included the Chinese Unity Movement and the Perak Task Force to help built support in New Villages in Perak. In 1973, Tan Siew Sin requested a position as Deputy Prime Minister in the cabinet reshuffle following the death of Tun Dr. Ismail, but this was refused by Tun Abdul Razak, which angered Tan. Tan retired from politics on 8 April 1974 after undergoing lung surgery. After his resignation he became a financial advisor to the government on economic issues.

Business career
After his retirement from politics, Tan was nominated chairman of Sime Darby by Tun Hussein Onn. He was also the chairman of United Malacca Rubber Estates, and sat on the boards of a number of companies, including Unitac, Siemens, Pacific Bank, Highlands & Lowlands, and Guardian Royal Exchange Assurance.

Death
Tan Siew Sin died on 17 March 1988 in Kuala Lumpur, and was buried in the family burial ground in Malacca.

His widow, Catherine Lim Cheng Neo, whom he married on 8 February 1947 was an active campaigner for family planning. They had three daughters.

In Kuala Lumpur, there is a street, Jalan Tun Tan Siew Sin (formerly Jalan Silang) which was renamed after him in 2003. At Tunku Abdul Rahman University College 's Main Campus in Kuala Lumpur there is a new building named after him, known as "Bangunan Tun Tan Siew Sin".

Honours of Malaysia

 * 🇲🇾 Malaysia :
 * Malaysian Commemorative Medal ribbon.gif Recipient of the Malaysian Commemorative Medal (Gold) (PPM) (1965)
 * Order of Loyalty to the Crown of Malaysia - SSM.svg Grand Commander of the Order of Loyalty to the Crown of Malaysia (SSM) – Tun (1967)
 * Selangor :
 * MY-SEL Order of the Crown of Selangor - Knight Grand Commander - SPMS.svg Knight Grand Commander of the Order of the Crown of Selangor (SPMS) – Dato' Seri (1985)

title: Tan Siew Sin


text: Template:South African cricket seasons

title: Template:South African cricket seasons


text:
Sabellius

Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) was a third-century priest and theologian who most likely taught in Rome, but may have been a North African from Libya. Basil and others call him a Libyan from Pentapolis, but this seems to rest on the fact that Pentapolis was a place where the teachings of Sabellius thrived, according to Dionysius of Alexandria, c. 260. What is known of Sabellius is drawn mostly from the polemical writings of his opponents.

History
The Catholic Encyclopedia writes: "It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian and Hippolytus to have misrepresented the opinions of their opponents, but it cannot be proved that Cleomenes was not a follower of the heretical Noetus, and that Sabellius did not issue from his school; further, it is not obvious that Tertullian would attack Callistus under a nickname."

Sabellius' opposition to the idea of the Trinity led to his excommunication as a heretic by Callixtus in AD 220. Wace and Bunsen have both suggested that Calixtus' action was motivated more by a desire for unity rather than by conviction.

Theology
Sabellius taught that God was single and indivisible, with Father, Son, and Holy Spirit being three modes or manifestations of one divine Person.

Modalism
This understanding has been called Sabellianism or modalistic monarchianism. A Sabellian modalist would say that the One God successively revealed Himself to man throughout time as the Father in Creation; the Son in Redemption; and the Spirit in Sanctification and Regeneration. (Because of this focus on God's revelation of himself to man, Modalism is often confused with economic Trinitarianism).

 * The suggestion of development and change within the Godhead was seen as contradicting the concept of impassibility.
 * It also stood in contrast to the position of distinct persons existing within a single godhead by representing Father, Son and Spirit as different “modes” (hence the term "modalism"), “aspects” or “faces”, “roles”, "masks" (persona in Latin) that God presented successively to the world.
 * More importantly it stood against the Trinitarian teaching that "God was one God in Father" rather than One in the Father's essence only.

It has been noted also that the Greek term "homoousios", which Athanasius of Alexandria favored, was actually a term that was reported to be put forth and favored also by Sabellius, and was a term that many followers of Athanasius took issue with and were uneasy about. Their objection to the term "homoousios" was that it was considered to be "un-Scriptural, suspicious, and of a Sabellian tendency." Athanasius, however, used the term differently than Sabellius, affirming oneness of the Divine Essence while maintaining the distinctions between the Divine Persons.

The term "homoousios" was accepted, however, at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., using the Athanasian formula and doctrine, of the Father and Son being distinct persons, though co-eternal, co-equal, and con-substantial. The objections to using the term were addressed by clarifying that it was not being used in the Sabellian sense of oneness of Person, but rather to denote oneness of Essence while affirming the distinctions of the Persons or "hypostases".

Persona
According to Epiphanius of Salamis, Sabellius used the sun's characteristics as an analogy of God's nature. Just as the sun has "three powers" (warmth, light, and circular form), so God has three aspects: the warming power answers to the Holy Spirit; the illuminating power, to the Son; and the form or figure, to the Father. Sabellius used the term "prosopa" which is Greek for "faces" to describe how the person of God has three faces, this idea is found in 2 Corinthians 4:6 "...God’s glory displayed in the face (prosopon - singular form of prosopa) of Christ.

God in essence
Johann Lorenz von Mosheim, in his book - The State of Christianity during the first 320 years - translated and published in English in 1851, described Sabellius' views. On page 217, Von Mosheim explains that different people had different views of what Sabellius taught: “The majority say: He taught that the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, are only three names of the one God.”

Others denied that, claiming that Sabellius taught that "the Son is a divine virtue that descended from the Father upon the man Christ," which is similar to what the Socinians taught. As from the last paragraph on page 217, Von Mosheim explains his own understanding of what Sabellius taught. He wrote: Reason and Scripture teach God to be “a perfectly simple unity.” To prevent the teaching of “a plurality of Gods,” Sabellius denied “the distinction of persons in the divine nature.” (p217/218) But while Sabellius maintained that there was but one divine person, “he still believed the distinction of Father, Son, and holy Spirit, described in the Scriptures, to be a real distinction, and not a mere appellative or nominal one” (p218).

“Although Sabellius made a distinction between the Father and the Son, yet he would not admit that the Son was a divine person, begotten by the Father” (p218).

“Sabellius ... did not confound the Son and holy Spirit with the Father, but clearly discriminated the two former from the latter” (p218).

“Sabellius held to a Trinity” (p218) (The purpose of this statement seems to be to confirm that there are real distinctions between the Father, Son and holy Spirit.)

"Sabellius, therefore, believed that, as a man is but one person, and yet in his one person three things may be discriminated … the body, the soul, and the spirit, so, also, although there is but one undivided person in God, yet in that person, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit can be discriminated, not in thought only, but they must be really discriminated and kept distinct." (p219-220)

“As Sabellius held to the simple unity of the person and nature of God, and yet supposed the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to differ really from each other, and not to be three names of the one God, acting in different ways; we are obliged to believe, that he considered the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, as being three portions of the divine nature, severed, as it were, from God, and differing from each other, yet not subsisting as three persons, but all dependent on the one individual divine nature.” (p220) On page 221 and later, Von Mosheim mentions that "the ancients sometimes speak as if they would represent Sabellius to believe that the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, differ from each other only as three modes of acting." He continues to show examples of how Epiphanius, Basil the Great and Theodoret contradict themselves in this regard.

Non-Trinitarian
The Teachings of Sabellius were most vigorously opposed by Tertullian in North Africa and Hippolytus in Rome, who both proposed a hierarchical trinity of subordinate persons. Tertullian is reported to have given Sabellius' doctrine the name Patripassianism, meaning ‘the father suffered’, since Sabellius made no true distinction of persons between the Father and the Son. The term is from the Latin words pater for "father", and passus from the verb "to suffer", because it implied that the Father suffered on the cross. Tertullian coined the term in his work Adversus Praxeas, ChapterI: "By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father." This charge he applied to Sabellius as well. This is a distortion of Sabellius' teaching according to Clissold, who quotes scholars who have appealed to Epiphanius' writings. Epiphanius (died 403) says that in his time Sabellians were still numerous in Mesopotamia and Rome - a fact confirmed by an inscription discovered at Rome in 1742, evidently erected by Sabellian Christians.

Modern movements
Although there are some doctrinal characteristics shared by a modern group called Oneness Pentecostals with those of Sabellius, the former do not teach the exact doctrine of Dispensational Modalism as purportedly taught by Sabellius. Some consider this, however, an unfounded assertion, as we have no writings of Sabellius to definitively prove for one way or another.

So it cannot be certain whether Sabellius taught a dispensational Modalism or taught what is known today as the Oneness Pentecostal theology since all we have of his teaching comes through the writing of his enemies. All of his original works were destroyed. For example, the doctrines that were purportedly believed by the Templars have recently been shown to be falsifications. The following excerpts demonstrate some of the known doctrinal characteristics of ancient Sabellians which may compare with the doctrines in the modern Oneness movement. Both movements hold that the Biblical God is one Person, not Three. And that Father, Son, and Spirit are different aspects or manifestations of that one Person, and not three distinct persons.

Sabellianism was doctrine adhered to by a sect of the Montanists. The Montanists are the same sect that Tertullian himself was a member of when he wrote (the anti-Sabellian) Against Praxeas. Apparently then, there were both Trinitarian and modalist participants in the Monatism which was later condemned. Cyprian wrote of Sabellians "How, when God the Father is not known-nay, is even blasphemed-can they who among the heretics are said to be baptized in the name of Christ only, be judged to have obtained the remission of sins?" In 225 AD Hippolytus spoke of them saying "Some of them assent to the heresy of the Noetians, affirming the Father Himself is the Son." Victorinus had this to say of them "Some had doubts about the baptism of those who appeared to recognize the same Father with the Son with us, yet who received the new prophets."

It is reported that some Sabellians experienced glossolalia (speaking in tongues) and baptized in the "shorter formula" because of their denial of the Trinity. Sabellians were referred to by the following Church fathers: Dionysius (c.200-265 AD) wrote "Those baptized in the name of three persons...though baptized by heretics...shall not be rebaptized. But those converted from other heresies shall be perfected by the baptism of the Holy Church." "Sabellius...blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa." "Jesus commands them to baptize into the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-not into a unipersonal God."

Sabellianism teaching of Modalism and singular name baptism was also accompanied by glossolalia and prophecy among the above-mentioned sect of Montanists. In 225 AD Tertullian speaks of "those who would deserve the excellent gifts of the spirit-and who...by means of the Holy Spirit would obtain the gift of language, wisdom, and knowledge." However, none of these practices were the source of controversy concerning the Sabellians - - it was simply their Christology which proved most offensive. In any case, unlike many others deemed as heretics, the Sabellians were never excommunicated from the Church at large. One hundred years later, the Deacon Arius would compare Bishop Alexander to Sabellius, in effect accusing Alexander and Athanasius of reviving an old heresy, that at the very least had Sabellian leanings.

title: Sabellius


text:
User talk:Corey.spring

cleaned up

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Newsvine favicon.png)
Thanks for uploading Image:Newsvine favicon.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 23:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Buckeye TV Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Buckeye TV Logo.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Unspecified source for Image:Buckeye TV Logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Buckeye TV Logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self-no-disclaimers tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following [ this link]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Buckeye TV Logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Buckeye TV Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam in StoryCorps
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on StoryCorps, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because StoryCorps is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting StoryCorps, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

title: User talk:Corey.spring


text:
User talk:B Navarro

Welcome from Brian0918

Hello, B Navarro, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes () to produce your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Topical index.

Again, welcome! — BRIAN 0918 • 2005-08-19 20:50

title: User talk:B Navarro


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JP Holding

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was '''Keep. Though I will move it to J. P. Holding'''. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

JP Holding
Just one of thousands who are using the Internet to spread his religious views. Dunc|☺ 20:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep No harm done here, keep it!
 * Keep. A verified author who has been featured on the nationally syndicated "Bible Answer Man" Broadcast of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) hosted by Hank Hannegraff (one of the largest broadcasts of it's kind in North America). He further has 6 publications with CRI including a recent book critiquing The Davinci Code. See CRI's website.--Nicodemus75 22:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - his views may be objectionable, but we can write a factual, verifiable and neutral article about that. Trollderella 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to have a reasonable presence. I do suggest a move to J. P. Holding in accordance with naming conventions. David | Talk 23:39, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nicodemus75 and Trollderella. -- DS1953 00:51, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, as above. --Agamemnon2 14:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Very popular apologist. Notable for his published books and articles. Has been very influential in popular apologetics. Has a very large reader base on the internet in particular. -- User:Gilbertggoose 22:00, August 22, 2005 (CST)
 * Delete. For the purpose of an Encyclopedia a biographical entry ought to be about a person of historical interest, academic significance, or be a contributor of new ideas or fresh perspectives in a given field. This apologist could not at this stage in history be identified as a major contributor, a seminal thinker who has produced new ideas or perspectives, or be ranked as an important popular writer. Once his career nears its end then it would be possible to make a mature assessment of his contributions. One way of contemplating which pop apologists deserve mention in Wikipedia is to consider their career and training. This apologist does not have any theological training, in contrast to other popular apologists such as Josh McDowell. This apologist only holds credentials in library science, and thus the output of his work can be measured in a few ways. One is by the originality of his work at a pop level - does this apologist rank as someone who has lucidly summarised the work of academic apologists and hence made their work more accessible to a non academic reader? Another test is to consider the comprehensive nature and understanding of the apologist when writing on a given topic. A good illustration of this is the article he wrote against the atheist Richard Packham. Packham, a lawyer, had written a critical piece on John Montgomery's legal apologetic. The apologist's article was lacking in proper background research, and this was reflected in the content of the article. For example, the apologist dismissed Montgomery's legal apologetic but was unaware of the fact that in the history of apologetics more than 120 apologists have engaged in legal apologetics. It is a school of thought in the history of the field, which has only just started to be recognised in its own right. While the apologist is entitled to dislike legal apologetics, the substance of this particular article was not at a standard that could be rated as properly researched or making a significant, valuable contribution to a specific debate. The apologist's output on the Mormons is likewise not of sufficient quality or depth to be deemed a vital or important contribution that improves on comparable publications in the subject. While this apologist has had a strong web-presence, this factor by itself does not establish significance, mere prolixity of words or pop traffic to the site is not a good indicator of importance. As one who has taught the subject at a tertiary level, I have not included this apologist in course references. This is not prejudice but on the grounds that he would not be rated as important enough to merit inclusion for a course bibliography, whereas pop apologists like Strobel and McDowell would be included. This latter comment is not to devalue his efforts or dismiss his website. It might be noted that in the Wiki article "apologetics" his website is listed as an external link. In my opinion that is sufficient presence for this apologist at this time in Wikipedia. User: philjohnson 9.42 am August 24 2005.
 * strong keep I believe Holding's work the Impossible faith is very noteworthy. I also thought his Exodus/Scythian argument was noteworthy.  To give one more example of work I think is notable of JP Holding, I think his commentary on resurrection accounts which discusses the ANE cultural aspects was very helpful in regards to this issue.  In addition, I believe Holding covers many topics that are often offered by skeptics but which I believe are not often covered by other apologists such as the "copycat Christ" argument.    Also, I believe Holding offers a useful service to the Christian community in having a very large library of articles on various Bible verses many of which I have found helpful.

In regards to the Packham commentary I would say that I did not entirely agree with Holding's essay on Packham although I agreed on some points. I do think Western legal standard apologetics have their place for example. Also, Holding did say that Montgomery made some legitimate points. However, I don't think that Packham really deserved a rebuttal essay given his legal commentary although I am glad some Christians with legal backgrounds have responded either directly or indirectly. To give one example, Packham didn't cover the obvious argument for the pro resurrection testimony in regards to the exception to the hearsay rule from a legal standpoint -namely "statements against interest" given in this code (Cal.Ev.Code §1230; F.R.E. 804(b)(3).). Packham's rebuttal to someone who critiqued his essay just mentions this issue but does not comment on it very much and Packham currently offers a dead link to the statute!

I personally think Packham's work was sloppy, ill thought out, and did not cover the major issues. Part of the reason is that I think his heart was not in it and I suggest looking at Packham's career as a lawyer to decide if this was the case.

In addition, I think you dwelled entirely too much on his Packham essay and did not cite and did not comment on Holding's more well known essays like the "Impossible Faith". I only addressed the Packham essay to show it was not very notable and Holding's quick dismissal of it was not a tragedy. In short, I think it was an exclusion fallacy you were practicing. Also, you claim Holding's commentary on the Mormon religion was not quality work but you did not say why. Given your comments on legal apologetics, I think you should have practiced the principle that the burden of proof is upon the claimant.

In short, even Babe Ruth missed few pitches so I think your dwelling on the Packham essay was insufficiently gracious. I don't think I was being unfair to the Packham essay but I will let each person decide for themselves in this matter based on a review of the legal apologetics that have been written.  ken 19:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Brief rejoinder: The comments above made on the article where Mr Holding replied to Packham, and hence dealt with Montgomery's legal apologetic, was concentrated on as an illustration of the difficulties that can beset a popular apologist when tackling a technical subject that it would be prudent to leave to those with juridical credentials. I indicated to Mr Holding in an e-mail shortly after his article was published that his position was vulnerable from inside the history of Christian apologetics given that at least 120 legal apologists have published material in defence of the faith. The Montgomery legal apologetic has been defended in a special issue of Global Journal of Classical Theology (2002), and one of the essays there provides bibliographical data on at least 90 legal apologists.

I offered the remarks made on the previous day about the legal apologetic article as one tangible example that could be considered by a Wiki panel in deciding whether to delete or improve on the existing entry about Mr Holding. In submitting the prior post I believed that it was inappropriate to make a protracted presentation of difficulties that can be pointed to in other items (such as the material on the LDS).

My initial post indicated in passing that I have taught apologetics at a tertiary level. I also happen to be extensively published with books and articles, and have been a practitioner since 1978, but I do not believe that an article about my work should appear in Wiki. But whether my personal commitment is that of a Christian or not, has no bearing on the merits of an article about Mr Holding as an apologist in Wikipedia. I indicated on the discussion page that I was not making comments to support his non-Christian critics. In light of the fact that I briefly identified my worldview (and hence potential bias in Mr Holding's favour), and simultaneously avoided ad hominem commentary about Mr Holding, a final comment on the above rejoinder is warranted. I believe that the following remarks made above violate the Wiki netiquette, as well as being gratuitous and offensive: "Perhaps Mr. Packham gave you lessons on how to present a convincing case in this matter." user; philjohnson25 August 2005 11.19 am.

Brief comment on rejoinder You made many statements that legal apologetics are valid. I agreed with you that they have their place. Now given your many comments about legal apologetics it seems to me that it is fair that you follow judicial standards and if you make claims about JP Holding that you have the courtesy to support them or refrain from making them. It seemed to me you want the privilidge of making a critical claim without the attendant responsibility of supporting that claim in regards to Holding's Mormon commentary. I suggest you retract the claim and apologize for not supporting it or support it. I certainly hope you do not believe that critics are immune from criticism or that critics should not support their claims. Now I agree that my comment was overly pointed and sarcastic. It just appeared to me that you needed to be knocked off your high horse though. I would remind you that criticism without supporting that criticism is easy but nobody ever built a monument to a critic who did not support his criticism.

ken 17:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.