Talk:Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Heir[edit]

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.[citation needed]

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)

Dalai Lama[edit]

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)

Spelling of palace name[edit]

The name of the palace is spelled in three ways in the article: Iolani, ʻIolani, 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)

Article about what Bill Maioho and others said[edit]

Wish list[edit]

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

Throne incident[edit]

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)

Docking sources[edit]

Url links to newspaper articles speaking about incident with snippets and quotes -
To prevent possible violation in copying text below, please read article yourself.

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 Wikipedia: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 SlimVirgin 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)

Can I copy text into a user page or talk page in order to work on it?
No. While your user page and talk page may include brief quotations from copyrighted text, Wikipedia cannot host extensive copying of non-compatible copyrighted material anywhere, not even in talk or user pages, not even temporarily.

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)