Talk:Kalākaua

Needs a copy edit
maybe you and I should go over this whole article, section by section, before the GAC proceeds. I guess it's been more than a year since I really looked at this. At that point, I think we had a consistent flow, content and sourcing. There have been considerable changes since then. I just ran through a newer section that, as written, was hard for me to keep up with. Parts of it didn't make sense to me as written. Really obvious errors in grammar and spelling, and not encyclopedic in style. Introduction of new names and not necessarily clear who they are. I haven't checked the sourcing on that one section. Can we put the GAC temporarily on hold and take a few days to go through this, section by section, to make sure it's up to standards and consistent throughout? — Maile (talk) 13:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah that’s not an issue. We can go over this and give it a copyedit first. I’ve asked the nominator to hold. KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Also, consistency in sourcing style needs to be gone over before we release this back to GAC.  — Maile  (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you mean inconsistency be gone. I have converted all book sources to Harvard reference style footnotes except court cases and newspapers. Can you add two sentences or around there about the two state funerals? I have included where he was buried. I also made a copyedit request that can help further improve the writing once we are done with our runover. KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a regional thing, but "be gone over" pretty much means, "have a look at" or "proofread". I'll add the state funerals wording for you. — Maile (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I see you have been working on the Opium license section. That is the section I believe needs work. First of all, I'm not sure it's good to quote an entire note that was sent to the king.  Part of it, maybe, but I really don't see why this quote should even be in there.  The whole section is too large.  Balance is another factor as we go up the review ladder. That subsection is larger than is the smaller section on the king's signing of the constitution.  Should the Opium section overwhelm the main topic of the section?  You and I have both edited this down, but it still reads like almost a first-person account of someone relating the history of this guy Aki.  And nothing I've read in this laborious account indicates to me why Aki deserves such an amount of space in this article.  I suggest we eliminate the quote altogether, refine the prose to encyclopedic, and reduce Aki's mention to where he is not the central character almost overwhelming Kalakaua himself.— Maile  (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree it should be whittle down to the essential to prevent undue weight since it is one episode of his long reign. Ideally, the main focus in that section should be the constitution not an overemphasis of the scandal that led to it. Any extraneous content should be moved to Tong Kee. Do you want to go ahead with that? -KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:55, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * OK. Just wanted to make sure we discussed it here first.  Thanks. — Maile  (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've put it back to where it was the last time I painstakingly edited that section. Everything was already in place, appropriately sourced, made sense, and had the correct links to everything.  The rewrite was done without any discussion on this talk page, somewhat rambling, included much that was not necessary, and left out pertinent details.  It's encyclopedic now. — Maile  (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, I made a comparison with last year's version as I left it, and the version we just replaced. It looked like the editor left much of what I had written in place, added new sub sections, and replaced the main section's lead paragraph about Dole's account of the Bayonet Constitution with that rambling tale about Aki.  Dole's account is more appropriate here.  — Maile  (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I nominated this article for A-class review on the military history wikiproject. I don't think it is anywhere near feature quality but maybe A-class is not far out of reach. KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree. The more eyes on this, the better. — Maile  (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I returned much of it. While I am sure Maile feels it was a ramble I disagree enough to return it and attempt a good faith condensing. But we may need more discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s undue weight. Three paragraphs deal with Aki when a few sentence summary is enough given the existence of articles on Tong Kee and Junius Kaae. The Aki incident was not the sole cause of the coup which is the impression given the undue weight. Just to name a few, the Hawaiian League had issues with the king’s association with Gibson and Spreckels, his spending, his cabinet choices, his meddling in local elections in favor of royalist candidates and the leagues own ambitions to rid themselves of an absolute monarch. The article should ideally only focus on 1. The causes of the coup with the Aki scandal being one of many, 2. The coup itself and the Hawaiian league’s involvement, 3. The ramifications of the coup and constitutional change. Also currently multiple paragraphs in Forced constitution and Hawaiian League are duplicates KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You bring up excellent points. But as a GA article we want as broad a scope as possible. Reducing the Aki issue to sentence is cutting out way too much sourced content however, I also agree that a GA article needs to be concise and use brevity. As a biography of the Kalakaua, this article needs to deal with what the sources claim about the figure even if they are uncomfortable. I want to thank you for your patience with my contributions and for that and many other reasons I want to make sure there is no duplication of content. I have removed much from the initial re-addition to take into consideration all of yours and the other editor's objections. I became too sick yesterday to get to the computer but will endeavor to double check the issues you bring up and make changes where they can to support your concerns as much as possible. There is also a reference that has been lost and I ned to remove the claim or add a new source and will make sure to deal with that as soon as possible. I haven't read through the rest of the article but congratulations to you both on raising it to GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe I have reduced the referenced text down to a very minimal amount that keeps the full heart of the original contribution with brevity and in a concise manner. Thank you for your patience. If you do not object to the section as edited and trimmed down and there is no other objection, I have no other major issues for this to move forward for A class review.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I condensed it further. It needs to be copyedited and check further. Revert if you disagree with my edits. As for the review, I have no time to work on any heavy editing on Wikipedia at this time because of the real world, so I’m declining to participate in it at the moment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I can live with those edits. They seem reasonable and still maintain the original information. I disagree that it "needs" further copyediting. Could you be more specific about your concerns or do you mean it might still be copy edited depending on other input? I certainly wouldn't mind seeing 's input. If you are too busy perhaps one of us can put forward the nomination unless you would like to wait until you can participate in full? I can hold off if you prefer.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Missing bits
Just listing some missing parts of his biography for later expansion
 * Expansion of pre-1873 career
 * Expansion of 1860 trip with Prince Lot
 * Marriage with Kapiolani
 * A ton of info on her at her death and funeral at newspapers.com
 * June 1899
 * July 1899
 * "In The Fullness of Years" is one of the most touching and loving obits I've seen of anybody. I don't know anything about Austin's Hawaiian Weekly, but they certainly adored Kapiolani. — Maile  (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "In The Fullness of Years" is one of the most touching and loving obits I've seen of anybody. I don't know anything about Austin's Hawaiian Weekly, but they certainly adored Kapiolani. — Maile  (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Relationship with Robert Louis Stevenson
 * pp. 45-46: TO KALAKAUA poem written in Honolulu Feb 3, 1889
 * pp. 45-46: TO KALAKAUA poem written in Honolulu Feb 3, 1889


 * Inclusion of his motto Hoʻoulu Lāhui
 * Expansion of reign 1887–1890, post Bayonet

KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Jonathan Austin arrives in San Francisco to tell his story.
 * "Kalakaua's Ministry Driven to the Wall."
 * "New Political Advisers Chosen — Charges Against Ex-Foreign Minister Austin. All Quiet at the Capital"
 * "New Political Advisers Chosen — Charges Against Ex-Foreign Minister Austin. All Quiet at the Capital"


 * "The American Treaty the Cause of the Trouble"
 * "Consul Sewall Takes Formal Possession of Pago Pago. Ex-Minister Ashford Accuses His Hawaiian Colleagues of Conspiring to Overthrow the Government."
 * "Consul Sewall Takes Formal Possession of Pago Pago. Ex-Minister Ashford Accuses His Hawaiian Colleagues of Conspiring to Overthrow the Government."

Added above references. — Maile (talk) 14:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Bayonet constitution
There was a huge contribution that was pertinent to this section that was fully referenced with reliable sources. Since it was removed without discussion as undue I felt that it should be returned per policy - WP:BURDEN however, that does not mean the section could not use some trimming for brevity and a discussion of what might be undue weight or not needed in such detail. But the amount removed was excessive. Let's discuss.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Reading above mention about the section but not sure if there is a real discussion of removal. The section was not perfect but was detailed and sourced. Not entirely clear on the reasoning for removal from above.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC) See above.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Clear reasoning or not, good faith is accepted and the section has been trimmed to reduce any perception of undue weight using very brief text that has been edited to be as concise as possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

A class nomination
The nomination has bee withdrawn. Please allow me a small amount of time to fix one issue and continue to address concerns of the nominator as quickly as possible so that this may return to its nomination through Project Military History. Thank you!

I hope the nomination can move forward now. Mahalo for allowing me time to trim for brevity.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Universal male suffrage
Docking this here since I don’t know where to put it in the article just yet without creating a new section in the article. But in his first year as King, an amendment (originally created during Lunalilo’s reign) to bring back universal male suffrage was ratified during his 1874 legislative session. The kingdom had universal male suffrage from 1874 to 1887 before the Bayonet Constitution. (Kuykendall 1967, pp. 189-190) KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)