Talk:Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa/Archive 1

Spelling of palace name
The name of the palace is spelled in three ways in the article: Iolani, Iolani, and ‘Iolani. The ʻIolani Palace article uses the second of these. Should this be the one preferred in this article? Maproom (talk) 08:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I corrected it. Sometimes editors including me at times opt to be lazy.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Throne incident
The issue is not as cut and dry and definitely not debunked. I've seen the photograph of her sitting on the chair (the one posted in the magazine) online before (if I remember correctly she was wearing a darkish dress and her feet were pointing to the right; it was a sketchy site as well though) but I can't seem to find it online anymore.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The wording in the recently removed material inserted by User:Bekahaole is definitely problematic because a photograph of her sitting on the throne was never published (the published photo was of her sitting on a chair) although her sitting on the throne in another photograph seems to have its sources. Pang's article states: "The president of the Friends for more than 25 years, she resigned the post, as well as her position on the board, in 1998 in the wake of a furor that erupted after she sat on a royal throne while posing for Life magazine." The confusion seems to lay in the fact there are two photographs as stated by Susan Kreifels in this 1998 article Palace dispute could be seat of the problem - Jim Bartels, who quit Iolani Palace, and Abigail Kawananakoa were at odds on her sitting on the throne, one of her sitting in a palace chair ("Benson instead took a photo of Kawananakoa sitting on a nearby chair.") and one of her sitting on the throne ("Benson then took photos of her sitting on the throne."). The one of her sitting on the throne was never published ("Magazine editors chose in the end to run the picture of her sitting on the chair near the throne.").

Islands Magazine Jun 2003 states: "It happened in 1998, when Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawananakoa, a descendant of Hawaiian royalty (but never a queen), decided to pose on the damask throne for a LIFE magazine photographer. When she did, a tiny tear opened on the delicate fabric."

Docked below is a paragraph of removed information added by User:Vtropic in 2013 with no source. It seems interesting but unusable since we don't have his or her source. [Un-sourced BLP issue removed]


 * Whatever. Show an actual image of her sitting on the throne or just show the life magazine image or this is a BLP issue. What is that? It is where information is being propagated without a proper source. This is your baby KAVEBAER, you need to provide the sources that demonstrate that this figure did what they were accused of. I don't care what you think of them. You do need to provide a source that confirms this person is guilty of the accusation. As a living person...you need to provide that or stop now.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't plan to insert anything above in the article. The information has always been added by other users; I merely point out where they are possibly getting the source from. I am perfectly fine with these articles being stubs with actual verifiable and neutral facts. I merely restore the 1998 date (from a version you were completely fine with eight months ago) which undeniably is the date her presidency ended. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're removal of the 1998 date (which unlike the rationale has no BLP issues absolutely whatsoever) which is clearly stated in the source ("The president of the Friends for more than 25 years, she resigned the post, as well as her position on the board, in 1998 in the wake of a furor that erupted after she sat on a royal throne while posing for Life magazine." - Pang, Gordon Y.K. (2007-10-04). "Heiress pays to stop party at Hawaii palace". Honolulu Advertiser. Retrieved 2010-03-25.) used in the paragraph shows clear sign of edit-warring. You are reverting my edits for the sole reason because they are my edits; this has been one of many problems all along which is one of the main reasons I have never wanted to collaborated with you. I done with this. You can edit this however you like.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your last edit because you were just reverting the article to a certain point that was not needed.


 * As far as the incident mentioned above...it actually states an accusation that is then questioned as not happening, this is another big issue. By the way, we are not allowed to post BLP issues on even the talk page so I am removing the unsourced claims above.


 * I revert some things you add on other articles that are unconstructive and keep many more. Some I alter slightly and some I don't touch at all. An example of that is the Kekūanāoʻa article that we edited the other day. Some were unconstructive edits and some were not. I do not revert you simply on sight. I have never done that and will never do that.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, again, the Life Magazine issue did not publish an image of Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa sitting on the throne. The caption in the information received via e-mail clearly states she is sitting in front of the two thrones. There is no content in the issue that even discusses the incident.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I requested that source to find that image. I know full well that I will only find the first photograph and not the second unpublished one of her sitting on the throne from her session with Benson because of Susan Kreifels' interview with Benson..."Benson instead took a photo of Kawananakoa sitting on a nearby chair."..."Benson then took photos of her sitting on the throne."..."Magazine editors chose in the end to run the picture of her sitting on the chair near the throne.". --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Docking sources


Post 1998 mentioning

KAVEBEAR, I am requesting that, since you have made it clear you are not going to be adding the information that you stop further addition of mentions on the subject here on the talk page. Doing so is argumentative now and serves little purpose but disruption adding bare urls with copyrighted content that do not speak directly to the issues that have been challenged. A lot of allegations and denials make this as contentious as it gets. Should we request administrative attention here at this point?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless if or if I edit this article. I don't believe I am violating any policies by posting sources on talk pages. My intent in adding these sources are not to be argumentative but to provide access to sources to the issue for third-party users in the future who may want to expand on this topic as I have done before on Talk:Kamehameha I and Talk:Kekūanāoʻa...Yes, please request administrative attention. I want to see what a third party person has to say about this. Can you make the request for administrative attention? You made a claim that this is a BLP violation. I am curious to know if it is a BLP issue. Also I don't know if posting snippets on talk pages constitute as a copyright issue either since I am neither calling it my own or publishing it on the main article page as my or Wikipedia's own work. If the snippets do violate wiki policy for copyright infringement, the snippets can be removed but the titles and links should not be (I don't think linking sources violates any policies.) because they offer the available sources talking about the issue. Besides an administrator, there is also Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to neutrally address this issue. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Adding copyrighted material in mass may indeed be a copyright issue regardless of were it is placed. You are actually adding only a link with copy pasted portions from the source and doing so as a general discussion of the topic and not trying to improve the article. You have outright claimed you are not adding the content to the article and no one has requested you to add sources or material. Once again you miss the point. Whether or not the subject did or did not sit on the throne and damage it, the sources (all of them) appear to be weak in that many of them state facts that are neither accurate, or make allegations to both parties that have been denied. Yes, at this point admin might be a good idea to alert of the situation.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For all I know, I am also in violation of some guideline and policy. Perhaps can enlighten us both on this issue?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may simply not understand Wikipedia policy in regards to biographies of Living persons and may be used to writing about figures that are historic in nature and not living today.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I'm pretty sure this is not breaching any policy. I am familiar with the policies on BLP even if I haven't wrote any. Let see what an administration thinks because most of your comments have been "I think this is a violation" base on your own reading on the policies. I pretty sure I don't need someone to request me to add source, for me to add sources, so I don't understand that logic. Adding sources definitely has potential to improve the article since again even if I don't edit; they can serve other users in the editing process in improving the article and writing a neutral, well-cited summary of the incident in the future within the bounds of BLP policies. Adding the unsourced contribution by User:Vtropic may have been a BLP issue (I am still not sure) but I opted not to reinstate it after you removed it because of that possibility that it might be a violation. Looking at the article's main body history, most of the recent additions of details of the incidences have been added by other users.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As for the sources, I haven't seen any sources about the allegations being denied (the details of the incident may be disputed of course since it is news reporting; but when it comes down to the question of if or if she did not sit on the throne for a photograph - there was no denial on her part or the part of any other party) so you will need to enlighten me on your statement right there. I think the allegation denials you are talking about are the subject's and Bartel's reactions to the incidence and the aftermath which was never a point that I've been arguing at all. My entire point has been: had she sat on the throne (yes or no) which the sources said she did. Also, the first bulleted source cites a direct quote from the subject stating "...I was still sitting on the throne..." [Disclaimer: No intention to take this quote out of context only meant to pinpoint the important words. Readers can look at the source themselves (above) and see the full quotation and article for their own judgement].--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * From Copying text from other sources which is not a guideline or policy but an information page:

While you clearly link to the source, it is contentious as to whether so many snippets in one post constitutes a violation but it has been considered such before. Perhaps that has changed?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed snippets for the time being. Although, I don't know if this constitute "extensive copying" also given that I did attribute the link and sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * First, let me say thank you for that. It shows good faith and that is important to me. It demonstrates collaborative editing and is vital to understand because of your past misuse of copy pasting public domain text into articles against policy, and brought up by at least one other editor. It is not mistrust, but concern that your past contributions in this particular regard do not support your interpretation of this policy.


 * Now...could you remind me why you are discussing this subject again?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Read my opening paragraph. "The issue is not as cut and dry and definitely not debunked." Stuff about removed material of other user "although her sitting on the throne in another photograph seems to have its sources" [linked all above]. Then I talk about two sources (Pang and Kreifels) and stuff from removed contents that may have some idea about the issue. I wasn't even addressing you in the paragraph. Then you come in and state that I had no sources basically despite my previous explanation and quotation of the two sources (Pang and Kreifels) in the sentences before, and then demand that I show you a picture that I know and the sources (Kreifels) know does not exist because it was never published or released. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I am still confused why my edits adding in the 1998 end year of her term as president without the reason was removed despite it being clearly not a BLP violation and being in the sources already citing the paragraph (Pang). The problem is that Wiki article currently informs the reader when she begin as a president but no information about when she stopped. If you think my version was not acceptable, find a way to edit it so the reader knows she is not the current president anymore which is the logical assumption if all the article offers is the year she started without informing the reader the end year of her term. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Dalai Lama
Her meeting with the Dalai Lama in Iolani Palace should be added here sometime in the future.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

True. And how about some facts like how she funded the Merrie monarch when they were able to. And how she was just genuinely giving and had a big heart! Rissa DeCosta (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Heir
''Kawananakoa never married and has no biological children. Her claim to the House of Kawānanakoa would legally pass to her first-cousin-once removed, Prince Quentin Kawānanakoa who was groomed by his father Edward to accept this position,{cite web |url= http://www.royalark.net/Hawaii/hawaii4.htm |title=The Kamehameha Dynasty Genealogy (Page 4)|author=Christopher Buyers |accessdate= 2010-03-25 |work= Royal Ark web site }} but her chosen heir is her adoptive son Prince David Kalākaua Kawānanakoa.''

I am removing this until we get more definitive prove/source. Prince David Kalākaua Kawānanakoa is either an unknown person or Quentin Kawānanakoa's older brother aka the nephew that sat with her at the 125th anniversary of King Kalākaua's coronation shown here. No source other than royal ark mentions an adoptive son or for that matter that the claims of a royal headship/line still continues. It seems to me the last semblance of a strong claim of heirship died with Abigail's uncle David Kalākaua Kawānanakoa. And except for Princess Abigail herself who hangs on to the title and is respected by the Hawaiian community for her charity work, the rest of the Kawananakoa family are pretty low-key about their royal descent. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This article needs to be examined more closely for POV and original research.--Maleko Mela (talk) 01:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK...a year later. No, the heir to the Kawānanakoa claim to the throne of the Kingdom of Hawaii is legally that of Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa by almost all tradition as the adopted daughter of the legal claimant (again...to the Kawānanakoa line, as legal heir to the claim) Her NATURAL grandmother. This is not to say the claim to the throne is the only legal claim, but that Abigail has the legal right to claim all rights of her grandmother which legally bypasses Quentin Kawānanakoa and any other claim of other family members to inherit from her grandmothers estate unless specified by a will or other instrument.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Abigail Campbell Kawānanakoa married into the Kawananakoa family and adopted the subject of this article when she was a widow. The grandmother had no claim to the throne. The bulk of the property came from the non-royal Campbell side and claim to the throne came from Prince David Kawananakoa's position as a prince (granted only for life in Kalakaua's reign) and his position on the line of succession of the proposed 1893 constitution of the queen. The members of the Kawananakoa family have never actually made active claims to the throne except for the informal use of royal titles and the idea of a split between the family or that there is even a head of the house comes from a lot of second handed sources. Wikipedia likes the idea of assigning terms such as pretenders to a lot of descendants of former monarchies who don't claim anything in modern times. Debating legality of who is heir to the throne is controversial, the Kawananakoa never were official heirs according to the last official constitution of the monarchy. Liliuokalani liked Prince David (claim made in The Betrayal of Liliuokalani: Last Queen of Hawaii) but she grew to dislike his brother Kuhio largely because of the legal fight over her property; she also only gave a few hundred dollars in her will to the three Kawananakoa children and I don't think the queen intended there to be anyone to inherit her claim to the defunct throne. The Kawananakoa's are the only direct, legitimate descendants of an officially titled member of the royal family during the monarchy and the closest living, legitimate relatives of Queen Liliuokalani and her siblings. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There is actually a surprisingly large percentage of the Native Hawaiians today who are quick to judge her physical haole appearance and denounce her relation to the family and say she is not Hawaiian and just an adopted member of the family without understanding that she was adopted by her biological grandmother. Despite her appearance, she is more than one quarter Hawaiian (the discrepancy lies in how much European ancestry her g-g-grandfather John Maipinepine Bright had).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Also relation to the Liliuokalani. She is not the great grand niece of the queen despite what Robert Craig says. She is the great grand niece of Queen Kapiolani and King Kalakaua (this is often reported in Hawaiian news when she is mentioned). But by blood, Kalakaua and Liliuokalani were second cousins to David Kawananakoa and his brothers sharing a common great-grandmother Kamokuiki.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit was due to what I perceived to be wording that almost looked like it was a claim that she was adopted and not a blood family member. She is. The discussion from 2015 had to do with content that had been and might still be in the article itself about claims to the throne supposedly going to others within the Kawananakoa family. I am not attempting to discuss the subject in general but you do bring up factual points about the succession of the throne passing David Kawananakoa as he was named heir along with Liliuokalani who, obviously survived to be the next in line as she was senior heir as being a blood sister of Kalakaua and Kawananakoa was actually not a blood son but hanai adopted. When Kalakaua died the constitution named his heirs and when Liliuokalani took the throne that constitution was never officially replaced however, If I am not mistaken, the Kawananakoa claim as heirs is because David Kawananakoa was named in her unratified constitution and since the Kingdom was overthrown I believe the Kawananakoa argument is that the constitution that would have named them, was the intended legal constitution of Liliuokalani. Of course there are other claims from other documents and situations that are, perhaps just as strong or maybe even stronger. The problem is...there isn't a lot of third party sources that discuss this at length or with any real accuracy of information.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Wish list

 * Better image requested at flickr. Or from anyone.
 * book sources
 * Journal and scholarly sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I added two more images without sunglasses, but that's all I have:


 * There seem to be no images at flickr with a suitable license. Best, --ThT (talk) 16:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Citizenship
In the LEAD, WP generally describes subjects of BLPs by their citizenship. Given the subject was born in the Territory of Hawaii, is Hawaii accurate as her citizenship? She was born in 1926, and Hawaii did not become a state until over three decades later. Citizens of the Territory of Hawaii then became American citizens. Given she lived over 2/3 of her life as an American citizen, would it be more accurate to describe her as such? My suggestion would be "Hawaiian-born American horse breeder and philanthropist". Any thoughts appreciated! --Kbabej (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The Hawaii Organic Act, which Congress passed in 1900 to establish the Hawaii territorial government, included a section declaring residents of Hawaii to be both "citizens of the United States and citizens of the Territory of Hawaii." Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Aoi, do you happen to know if that stayed in effect after the annexation? If you don't know off the top of your head, I can research it! Not asking you to do my research for me. :) --Kbabej (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The Hawaiian Organic Act came after annexation. Hawaiians were given US citizenship during the territorial period. On the original point, though, calling her American princess might be a bit odd. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no such nation as Hawaii and so it seems bizarre to call her a citizen of a nation that has no sovereignty or international recognition. Indeed, "American princess" is weird so we'd need to reconcile that, but her nationality and citizenship have clearly been with the United States. Elizium23 (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:FIRSTBIO, there doesn't seem to be a requirement that the lead include a subject's nationality. The guideline simply says to state "[c]ontext (location, nationality, etc.) for the activities that made the person notable." I'd be fine just omitting the nationality altogether and just stating that she was a member of the House of Kawānanakoa/descendant of Prince David Kawānanakoa, who was an heir to the throne of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Aoi (青い) (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with that approach; anyone who knows Hawaii will naturally realize she has been American for decades, and we can just sidestep awkwardness. Elizium23 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That was my initial thought, but readers from non-US countries may not know the state names, or that it was annexed. As it is written, if I did not know the history of the Territory of Hawaii, the lead doesn't mention her being American (which she was) at all and I would have no context as to her nationality. --Kbabej (talk) 23:31, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you need it? Wikipedia says we don't. Elizium23 (talk) 23:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't "need" it. I think it's just a benefit to our readers. As for FIRSTBIO that was linked above, it suggests nationality as being included, and most all BLPs include nationality or citizenship for context. I think it's just good practice. --Kbabej (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it so much a benefit to our readers that we are considering calling her an "American princess"? Isn't the latter a little more confusing? I can't imagine how many readers who understand the English of this article and don't know what Hawaii is. And that minority can certainly click a simple Wikilink and find out what Hawaii is. And there is nothing to prevent us from placing a brief passage that explains how Hawaii gained statehood during her lifetime and she gained citizenship commensurate with the state's membership in the Union. It's all just too much for us to explain in the lede sentence. Elizium23 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "There is no such nation as Hawaii" That seems to be a bias on your part. There is by definition of both Native Hawaiians and the United States Government a current Hawaiian nation. A constitutional convention was convened by the Department of the Interior for the purpose of establishing delegates to begin a dialogue between the Nation of Hawaii and the US and attempt to define them as Native Indians under the US constitution. So no ..... or,er yes? :)--Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright Mark, you caught me; that's a huge gaffe on my part. I didn't even consider their status as a sovereign tribe as much as the Navajo on the mainland. Thanks for the reality check. Elizium23 (talk) 11:36, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the lede section is still rather confusing as to nationalities. It discusses her honorific as "Princess" with reference to the indigeneous Hawaiian nation and then contrasts that with her lack of office in the state government of Hawaii, which is of course separate and distinct from the nation and royalty we just mentioned. Why do we need to mention her lack of state office at all? I think instead we could use an explanation of why the Hawaiian royal family has no power of rule in the modern state. I don't know of any other state in the US where a woman who holds public office is known as "Princess". Elizium23 (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (Edit onflict) That appears to be the true issue.... defining a nation of people, more literate and educated than any other nation on earth (or sources say) at that time, as a dependent nation of the U.S.. A Supreme Court block seems to make this a notable issue but.... perhaps not one for discussion at length on this page.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "I think the lede section is still rather confusing as to nationalities." Could you elaborate on the importance of this?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It has been suggested that some readers in English may not be aware that Hawaii is member of the United States, but I would also suggest that many more readers are not particularly aware of its very recent history as a sovereign kingdom and how that transition went over locally. I think it's difficult to adequately fill people in about a complex political situation in the lede section, so perhaps it's better if we didn't try to qualify her "Princess" honorific so much there but instead placed it in the article body.
 * (As an aside, a personal experience: one of my first interactions with an encyclopedia was the World Book's article on Hawaii. The set had belonged to my mother and the edition was so old that Hawaii and Alaska were not listed as States of the Union. So I was fascinated to read about the Kingdom of Hawaii from a historical perspective in a reference work.) Elizium23 (talk) 07:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "It has been suggested that some readers in English may not be aware that Hawaii is member of the United States" Really? The discussion doesn't seem long enough to establish that English readers are so unaware. Do you have diffs?--Mark Miller (talk) 07:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "readers from non-US countries may not know the state names, or that it was annexed". Elizium23 (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An aside for me is that Wikipedia takes it's name from the Hawaiian Language, but you seem to not understand that. My own knowledge of Hawaii comes from my experience on Wikipedia and learning how to properly research and source a claim. But we are not so far apart as editors. I just ask to cut through the long debate. What do you think the lede and article need in this regard? --Mark Miller (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Elizium23, I wonder if one editor's comment and opinion constitutes a consensus of editors? Should we not consider all of Kbabej's post and further comment, along with others for any dispute resolution? I only want to understand all objections, if there be any.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I just came up with a compromise proposal. Hopefully @Kbabej can come on board with this. Let's call her "Native American" for the sake of the lede sentence. This encompasses her ethnicity, citizenship, nationality, etc. Also her notability. As long as this is a PC and accurate description, I think it's the best of both worlds, literally. Elizium23 (talk) 09:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you mean “Indigenous Hawaiian”? I haven’t heard of indigenous Hawaiians referred to as Native American before. I’d be fine with Native Hawaiians or Indigenous Hawaiian, although the current lead sentence seems appropriate to me citizenship wise (“…born in the Territory of Hawaii and sometimes called Kekau, was a member of the formal Hawaiian Royal Family from the House of Kawānanakoa.”) I think philanthropist and horse breeder should be added —per LEAD. Kbabej (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I do not mean Indigenous Hawaiian. That is ethnicity, not nationality/citizenship. As I said before, there is no sovereign nation of Hawaii. (There is a fight for recognition and sovereignty but it hasn't any traction.) If it is inaccurate or improper to call Hawaiians as "Native Americans" for some dumb reason then I guess we're back at Square 1. Elizium23 (talk) 09:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I see the part of the issue here and now suggest Request for comment. I don't know where this derailed into a: "dumb reason", but we also have such resources as the Dispute Resolution Notice Board (as a former active member, I would not take an active part in any dispute but give my initial thoughts and leave the discussion to others) I would rather we skip insults and figure out your further objections and how that fits within a consensus. --Mark Miller (talk) 12:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Elizium23 what are your further concerns? Perhaps we can all find common ground.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elizium23, I'm not trying to be difficult or combative; I just don't agree with the suggestions. The Native American article on WP points out that Native Hawaiians are not considered Native Americans. Quote: "Indigenous peoples of the United States who are not listed as American Indian or Alaska Native include Native Hawaiians, Samoan Americans, and the Chamorro people. The US Census groups these peoples as "Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islanders"." (emphasis mine) I think we need to be accurate with descriptions, and lumping non-white ethnic minority groups together isn't accurate or helpful. --Kbabej (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above, and add that the US Constitution is very specific about that, which is why the U.S. is keen on trying to define Hawaiians as Native American. Currently, Native Hawaiians are not defined as such. I have already sourced all of this if you need that help Elizium23, but I would hope you can look into this yourself. It is all on Wikipedia and well sourced. --Mark Miller (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * An RfC could be helpful. I also think a variation of my first suggestion could work: "A Territory of Hawaii-born American horse breeder and philanthropist." --Kbabej (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the issue of citizenship has a strong and current consensus. I do not believe there need be any RFC at this time.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Break
Is the Lede being discussed before the body of the article is even established?--Mark Miller (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Additional happenings
Widow donated $750,000. $500,000 to the Friends of ʻIolani Palace for palace maintenance and establishment of a Kawānanakoa Legacy Room and $250,00 through the Hawaiʻi Community Foundation which will use the funds for ʻIolani Palace and other charitable purposes. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

LGBT identification
Hello, this article places Kawānanakoa in two "LGBT" categories, although no mention at all is made in the article body about her sexuality or orientation. There is a mention of her marrying a non-notable person named Veronica. This Veronica is mentioned with feminine pronouns in WP:RS. But where is the identification by Abigail of her sexual orientation? WP:EGRS and WP:CATV demand an explicit identification of such; simply the fact of her marriage to a putative woman is not enough (per WP:OR). Elizium23 (talk) 19:49, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the above being entirely accurate as there is no actual claim made in the article. It is well known that the subject of the article had a same sex partner and officially married a few years ago. I would think that enough for a category, but you are free to remove it if you feel strongly about it. It can always be re-added if more information is found. --Mark Miller (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK so I looked into this and I think you are mistaken since the subject is no longer a living person and has been confirmed dead by reliable sources. Recently dead can still be covered by the policy by a consensus of editors, that has not occurred as yet, so I do not believe WP:EGRS applies.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:05, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CATV: "Categorization of articles must be verifiable" and "The defining characteristics of an article's topic are central to categorizing the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to[1] in describing the topic". Kawānanakoa has been in the news for years over issues with her estate regarding her partner and is regularly described as in a same-sex relationship so WP:CATV is satisfied.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, even if we apply WP:EGRS, it states: "such categories should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the orientation in question, and the subject's sexual orientation is relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." A public confirmation has been made by the subject that they were married to their longtime partner. It is relevant to their public life since it was the basis for trustees taking over her estate long before her death and well covered in reliable sources. While I do question the removal of the categories I didn't put them in and have no plans to re-add unless well expanded on. I am in no hurry.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock.
 * Surely you would be able to substantiate the categories with mentions in the article and reference to reliable secondary sources. There is currently no mention of her sexuality, much less self-identification, or its relation to her notability. Elizium23 (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock.
 * Elizium23, guidelines do not specify mention in the article, just that reliable sources mention it and a specific confirmation be made. Marriage to your 20 year, same-sex partner by a judge, and well known for his direct support of "gay" marriage is enough confirmation for Wikipedia. I support the return of the categories and still intend to edit the article with sourced content. As I said. I am in no hurry. Why are you?--Mark Miller (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:CATV says: Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the Uncited category template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate or if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category. Elizium23 (talk) 20:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The article contains sourced content indicating the subject was in a same-sex marriage, which is by any reasonable interpretation self-identifying as LGBT. Your proposal to the contrary is not a reasonable interpretation of the relevant guidelines.--Trystan (talk) 19:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
 * In an effort to bring the article into compliance with WP:CATV and WP:EGRS, I added an explicit designation of the same-sex nature of her marriage, but @Trilobite with extra cheese disagrees with this; therefore we have two categories with no support in the article text. Elizium23 (talk) 16:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It is clear from the article's pronoun use that both the subject and her spouse are women, making it also clear that the marriage is a same-sex one. It is inappropriate and unnecessary to belabor that fact.--Trystan (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems you're doing WP:OR on this. WP:EGRS says differently. Now I'm having difficulty finding any citation that brings up her sexuality directly. The citation for her same-sex marriage ceremony won't even say it was same-sex in the same paragraph. It definitely does not describe her sexuality. Elizium23 (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

And yet you've just made a blatantly WP:POINTy [edit] to insert a statement that the subject is openly gay. That she is LGBT can be inferred from her being in a same-sex marriage, but not whether she is specifically lesbian or bisexual.--Trystan (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Why are you adamantly opposed to adding sources and documentation of this? Elizium23 (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not. If you have a reliable source of the subject specifically saying "I identify as a lesbian" or similar, I would happily support adding that content to the article. What I adamantly oppose is your proposal that someone in a same-sex marriage can't be reasonably inferred to be publicly identifying as LGBT, because it could be some sort of sham marriage. That simply isn't a realistic or workable standard. But best let the RFC run its course now.--Trystan (talk) 17:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CATLGBT adding LGBT categories to an article about a deceased person can only be done if there is a consensus among reliable sources supporting it, i.e. it cannot be done based only on marrying a person of the same sex, since the marriage could very well be just a hassle-free way of transferring wealth to a person who isn't biologically related (especially when someone who is 90 years old marries someone who is well over 30 years younger...). And since there must be consensus among reliable sources having just one source isn't enough, there must be enough of them to show a consensus. - Tom  &check;  &#124; Thomas.W talk 21:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Blocked sock.
 * And you're as wrong as you possible can be: ever heard of friendship? Women spending lots of time together, and even living together, is often because of being close friends, so you cannot automatically assume that they have a sexual relationship. When I was young I shared a flat with a close male friend of mine, and we did lots of things together, but I can assure that both of us were, and still are, 100% straight, so spending lots of time together, and even living together, should never be seen as an indication of sexual orientation. And marriage is also often for reasons other than sexual orientation/attraction. So you cannot add LGBT categories unless you have multiple reliable sources for it. - Tom  &check;  &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

why did you hat this discussion rather than moving it? Elizium23 (talk) 22:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

RFC
Is it necessary to mention Kawānanakoa's sexuality in the article to support the LGBT categories? Is it necessary for a reliable source to support the identification of that sexuality? Elizium23 (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Per WP:EGRS, categorization as LGBT requires public self-identification with the orientation in question, according to reliable sources. By any reasonable interpretation, a person publicly entering into a same-sex marriage is publicly identifying as LGBT (though not more specifically than that, such as lesbian or bisexual). Similarly, if someone presents as a woman and uses she/her pronouns, we don't require a quote of her specifically saying "I am a woman" to include her in categories of women. The article makes clear that both the subject and her spouse are women, thus it can be inferred that the subject is LGBT.--Trystan (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion.--Trystan (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elizium23, is your RFC question including categories? Because I saw on the article the LGBT categories were removed. Those should absolutely be included, but it looks as if the question you're asking is "should the prose of the article mention the subject's sexuality". Is that accurate? --Kbabej (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessary - being in a same-sex/gender marriage constitutes identification as LGBT (namely, as gay or lesbian, or bisexual) and is more than sufficient to categorize such a person as LGBT. Crossroads -talk- 23:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. There's no reason why the categories can't stand on their own. The subject was in a same-sex marriage and therefore obviously meets the LGBT identification requirement. There's no speculation happening; it's just the facts. --Kbabej (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (summoned by the bot) No, the fact that she married a woman is sufficient for inclusion in these categories. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please note: Not even mentioning it in the article is enough to add LGBT categories, the mention must also be reliably sourced, since per WP:CATLGBT adding LGBT categories to an article about a deceased person can only be done if there is a consensus among reliable sources supporting it, i.e. it cannot be done based only on marrying a person of the same sex, since the marriage could very well be just a hassle-free way of transferring wealth to a person who isn't biologically related (especially when someone who is 90 years old marries someone who is well over 30 years younger...). And since there must be consensus among reliable sources having just one source isn't enough, there must be enough of them to show a consensus. - Tom  &check;  &#124; Thomas.W talk 22:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. We are not adding an LGBT category to an article about a deceased person&mdash;this article has been in an LGBT category since her marriage in 2017, while she was very much alive. Further, the WP:CATLGBT says, Historically, LGBT people often did not come out in the way that they commonly do today, so a person's own self-identification is, in many cases, impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP, and follows with examples of people who died in 1616, 1900, and 1943, respectively. That standard is not analogous here&mdash;we're talking about a woman who died less than a month ago, who lived in a state where same sex marriage was legal for 9 years at the time of her death. However, that said, if there are sources that support this, then I don't see why the sources shouldn't be in the article. If one is needed, the Associated Press's obituary states quite plainly: She was engaged briefly to a man, but most of her long-term relationships were with women. Aoi (青い) (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely do not include her in such categories at the moment The subject passed away recently enough that BLP still applies and WP:BLPCAT is clear that we require self-identification and neither of which have been met here. Being in a same sex marriage is clearly not sufficient since people have done such things while rejecting identification as LGBT and it's not our place to judge such things. Perhaps 2 years from now we could consider whether sources have clearly concluded she is LGBT despite never publicly self-identifying as such perhaps even based on private self-identification. Not much point worrying much about that until it happens. Note that we can include all relevant information such as her marriage and relationship history in the article without including her in cats that do not meet our requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have placed a notice of this discussion at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, though I think it should be mentioned in the article anyways since there are very obvious reliable sources covering it. Editors trying to tendentiously claim otherwise about a same-sex relationship not being LGBT should be ignored. Silver  seren C 20:24, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No – The individual has implicitly self-identified as LGBT by having a same-sex marriage. Also, no reliable sources have been provided which would lead to doubt about the individual being identified as LGBT. The linked article states:
 * "A Jewish judge officiated at a Hawaiian princess’s lesbian wedding, as heiress Abigail Kawananakoa finally wed her life-long partner Veronica Gail Worth."
 * This is a strong enough quote that the individual can be categorized as LGBT. --Guest2625 (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Not necessary. I think the categories don't need this. Fad Ariff (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not necessary. Per WP:CATV, It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. The verified fact of her same-sex marriage is sufficiently clear for the reader to confirm why she was placed in these categories. The only other reason I could see to dispute “LGBT” is if we want to go down the rabbit hole of (scarequotes) “logical or scientific” sexuality vs open community identity (i.e. the distinction between LGBT and GSM). Not a conversation for this page. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Do not include her in such categories at the moment adding LGBT categories to an article about a deceased person can only be done if there is a consensus among reliable sources supporting it, i.e. it cannot be done based only on marrying a person of the same sex, since the marriage could very well be just a hassle-free way of transferring wealth to a person who isn't biologically related (especially when someone who is 90 years old marries someone who is well over 30 years younger...). And since there must be consensus among reliable sources having just one source isn't enough, there must be enough of them to show a consensus per Thomas.W. The situation might resolve in time with better sourcing, but at present we simply don't know and have no reason to think that the . Rather the opposite appears to be the case since the subject - for whatever reason - made no public comment during their lifetime. Pincrete (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone publicly identifies as LGBT during their lifetime, then dies, I don't think WP:CATLGBT supports dropping them out of LGBT categories. The wording about needing a verified consensus for historical persons is clearly for individuals who did not come out and are therefore "impossible to verify by the same standards that would be applicable to a contemporary BLP."
 * The relevant determination here is therefore whether entering into a same-sex marriage satisfies publicly identifying as LGBT. In considering that question, I think it would be best to avoid repeating speculation that the age difference in this particular marriage is somehow evidence it "could very well be just a hassle-free way of transferring wealth."--Trystan (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The age difference is simply given as one possible explanation for the marriage. The absence of reliably knowing her sexuality is simply that - we don't know and are not entitled to speculate. This applies whether the person is alive or dead. It is obviously very possible that she was LGB, but by no means certain. Oscar Wilde married Constance Wilde - what does that prove? The situations are not wholly comparable of course, but the fact that this women married another woman is to be recorded, but may not prove anything. Pincrete (talk) 10:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Slight problem with line of succession
yes, it is true about the reason of adoption but I think there needs to be an important note worth knowing. she was adopted by Abigail Campbell Kawananakoa....not Prince Kawananakoa himself. she was of Kaukau ali'i lineage and the fact that she was the one who went to hanai Princess kekau means that she in actuality broke that line of succession. if it was Prince Kawananakoa himself, then sure, nothing would be worth noting about however, that is not the case.

I will not make edits to the article on this so that there are no disputes but this is just a note to realize. but yes, she is still a princess of high rank. 808Poiboy (talk) 19:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the idea is that all family members hold some semblance of rights/notoriety as descendant of Prince Kawananakoa and that Kekau was considered somewhat closer to the senior generation because she was adopted by his widow and her grandmother. No one is arguing that the right to the throne came from Princess Abigail Campbell Kawananakoa's side of the family. And at least within the Kawananakoa family itself, there is no conflict over who is head or first in a hypothetical line of succession. Most of the family live pretty private lives compared to the generations of Prince and Princess David Kawananakoa and his three children. Kekau had been a more public-facing member of that family in the modern time because of her philanthropy and wealth from the Campbell Estate, which she got a larger share of compared to her Kawananakoa cousins since she was consider legally adoptive daughter of her grandmother. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:12, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * indeed indeed, but, it is something to have worth knowing. depending on who you get hanai by, that can either strengthen or weaken your mana. looking that it was Abigail Campbell and not kawananakoa who hanaied her, that could mean a very big difference in the right to succession. sadly because of this fact, as strong as her geneology was, I think this would of ruined her right as next ruler O Hawai'i Nei.
 * but as always, she is ali'i, an ali'i nui. we must honor that. Aloha no na ali'i. 808Poiboy (talk) 05:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)