Talk:Liliʻuokalani/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Queen's death, etc. etc.

@KAVEBEAR: Why you would like access to Newspapers.com through Wikipedia (if you don't already). They have Hawaii newspapers that go back to the 19th Century. Saw your post at the Reference desk.

"Death Comes to Hawaii's Queen in Quiet Calm of Sabbath Morning". Honolulu, HI: Honolulu Star Bulletin. November 12, 1917. p. 2. Retrieved September 26, 2016 – via Newspapers.com. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Much, much coverage, pages, on her death, written in such beautiful prose:

"Death came to Hawaii's queen, Liliuokalani, at 8:30 o'clock Sunday morning – a quiet, pleasant Sunday morning as calm and peaceful as was the end of her eventful life.

"After a night in which she sank steadily into the shadowed valley, Liliuokalani's faintly beating heart was still, and the only queen who has ruled over a constituted court in territory now American has passed from the scene of her joys and sorrow, her days of power and her days of impotence.

"The coming of death was almost imperceptible, so weak had been the queen for many hours, so slender the thread of life to which she still clung with amazing vitality. Not the slightest semblance of a struggle marked the final moment of earthly dissolution. Those gathered at the bedside in the queen's chamber felt rather than saw the passing of her spirit.

"At the moment of her death the royal "kahilis", or tall, plumy standards emblematic of royalty were waving with graceful rhythm above her still form, as they had waved for hours."

And it goes on for pages, excellent coverage. Apparently, she was ill for several months and had lost use of her legs. She also probably had alzheimer's, because it says for 3 years before her death, she didn't even recognize where she was. The formal announcement of her death is in this issue. This is so well written, that it really puts the reader in that place and time, to be able to feel what Hawaii was feeling at their loss.

There is otherwise a great deal of Honolulu newspaper coverage on Lilliuokalani available through Newspaper. com The oldest I came up with was 1877, the order of procession for the funeral of Leleiohoku II.

"Order of Procession for the Funeral of His Late Royal Highness, Prince Wm. Pitt Leleiohoku Kalahoʻolewa". Honolulu, HI: The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. April 21, 1877. p. 2. Retrieved September 12, 2016 – via Newspapers.com. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

So, that's another option for you. — Maile (talk)

Oh I know. I've been using Chronicle of America but I just haven't had the chance to read through all the newspaper surrounding her death. I made the post for extra help in research. I find a second pair of eyes always help find something I can't otherwise find.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Born "Liliʻu Kamakaeha"

Could we change the sentence that she was born "Liliʻu Loloku Walania Kamakaʻeha"? I don't know if this is the intention, but I don't think she was named anything until Kinau gave her entire full set of names of Liliʻu Loloku Walania Kamakaʻeha and the current paragraph makes it sound like she was just named Liliʻu Kamakaʻeha at the moment of birth and the other names were an after thought since it comes before the last few sentences recounting and explaining the meaning of the names. Rayson's book says: "She was born on September 2, 1838, and was named Liliu Kamaka'eha. She was also given the names Loloku and Walania." So she wasn't even using "Liliʻu Kamakaeha" as a stand alone. I am also going to have to go back and clean that because it seems we already have that same book either in a different edition or something.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

"She/He was born" is a common use. It does not actually mean a name was chosen before or after but we would really need citations for the above full name. From what I understand and see as generally accepted is that her original name was Liliʻu Kamakaeha and a Christian name was given at her baptism. Other names would follow but we do have a copy of Kamehameha III naming of her in his official document, making her eligible to the throne as Lydia Kamakaeha so it at least makes sense and follows chronology, is sourced and seems to be supported by our other sources. At least for the moment I am not sure when the longer name would apply but we should really look into it.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok fine I am just going to put my input on hold for now. But I don't understand why we would need citations for the full name above as you suggested. It's already cited. Check citation [8][9][10]. I discussed this before with other editors already, please check the talk page archive. This full name "Liliʻu Loloku Walania Kamakaʻeha" is fully cited already to Allen's biography of her and other books. Allen explains in detail the circumstance of her naming in full detail including the event with Kinau and Chamberlain's baptism of her. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I may have been unclear. It is not that I do not believe the name is accurate or citable. I am sure it is...but exactly when it is applicable is the very question. In other words...is it the name you feel is her very last known legal name, or is the name you feel she had with the greatest length? Or, is it the name you feel should be as her birth name? Her birth name is pretty well established in a majority of the sources and her name prior to being named Crown Princess was entirely different. There were her legal names at the time...and the name she used when composing music. there is also a last minute change to her name near the time of her death that became very controversial and was part of a court decision. To be honest the entire situation with her name may well deserve an entire section or subsection of it's own.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Her given names prior to her baptism by Chamberlain as given by Kinau.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you will have to be more precise for me to reply in full but again, her birth name is known, sourced and has a majority of sources agreeing as well as legal documents that show her Christian name was her legal name at the time she was made eligible for the throne. I am not sure what you are saying above but if you feel that a single source is superior to all others and should be the overriding source used...I don't think Wikipedia policy supports that. I may also be incorrect in that assessment so I can only say that we are here to simply summarize the sources and determine what is academic consensus so that we may come to a consensus here as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I am not going down this rabbit hole again. Too much time wasted...I encourage you to read the existing sources I've included in the references and further readings (they are good that I know). For example, Allen's biography of her chronicles her life from birth to death. And is definitely a well researched piece that in my opinion has not been surpassed by any other publications directly about the queen's life in recent time. It's only ten dollars on Amazon. I am going to check it out again since I haven't read it in two years so lot of it is slipping my mind. Also Sarah Vowell's book although not directly about Liliuokalani is a great read or listen. I have also heard great things about Lost Kingdom: Hawaii's Last Queen, the Sugar Kings and America's First Imperial Adventure another expansive piece including all the events.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey, you're preaching to the choir when discussing Vowell but I removed it (after I added it) only because it had no page numbers and....I am unwilling to use it as verification. If it is not used, it will be removed. If it is used and has no page number...how is it to be verified or do you feel we should insist on the reader going through the entire book to find any reference? I am not discounting any source but I am also unwilling to give undue weight to a single source.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Offline sources are perfectly within policy; see Wikipedia:Offline sources. Wikipedia is not written base on solely what is available on the internet. For example, ff I choose to use Vowell as a source one day which I reserve the full right to do; Google Book not having a user friendly version is no excuse for me not to use it and nothing within policy oppose this. Another example if I go to the Hawaii State Archives tomorrow and quote an obscure diary entry of the Queen not found online. It is not my fault that the source is not available on the internet. That is not how research works. We most certainly can and should insist on the reader going through the entire book to find any reference. Offline and online source as long as they can be found either with a link or in a library are perfectly legitimate sources. We are not here to spoon feed readers with attributable and accessible sources within a click of their mouse....After reading your comment above again I don't think you are challenging offline sources which got me in the argumentative mode again. I misread and apologize for terseness of the comment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Brainstorming of possible Featured Topic

There are not a lot of existing Featured topics, but I think Lilioukalani should be one of them. The entire Royal family and lineage, while worthy, would be too broad and too much work. We could brainstorm in this thread about which articles should be included in a try for FT.

• List of compositions and works by Liliuokalani – this would have to be brought to Featured list. To do that, you don't need an article for all the red links, but probably take the red links out. The lead would need to be expanded. I've taken four lists to FL status, one of which is List of songs written by Audie Murphy as a comparison.

Any other ideas? — Maile (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Aloha ʻOe and Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen comes to mind as easier pages to expand upon as well at the moment. One reason I may be pessimistic about the prospect of getting this article to FA is that the overthrow part is really difficult to write properly given the historical opinions develop over the years. It literally is always the elephant in the room for me since I've started editing Hawaiian related topics. At this point I myself don't have access to most sources since I graduate college in May and so I am relying on ordering books from Amazon if necessary or finding them in my local library. There is a good deal of the works I have read at this point. I agree that learning more is the key first steps to research. I too have a high interest in the figure since I first read her autobiography in 2008; Hawaii's Story started my interest in Hawaiian history and Polynesian history in general.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, then here's one way to go. Get the supporting articles in shape first (GA or FA). Leave the more difficult ones to the last, because the supporting articles can be helpful to clarify sourcing and the narrative. By the time the supporting articles are in shape, Liliuokalani should be a matter of putting all the peripheral issues in perspective to tell her story at FA level. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Many of the supporting articles have had a good deal of work on them already so it might make things more difficult if we try to re-write what has become a good consensus. One part of the overthrow has a solid consensus and was a very long discussion on the article United States. I would hate to see that consensus effected by a too much of a change in narrative.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we all have good personal reasons for wanting to understand and write about this figure. For me, it is no secret that a good deal of my Wikipedia research has effected my family in a good way. Not just the information but the contacts with people made through the experience. Myself, I knew next to nothing only a few years ago. I was contributing to other history articles. I love ancient Rome and always thought I would find information about my Italian side on Wikipedia or in research, but it was the Hawaiian history where I find that sort of link.

I have been trying very hard to make my way through much of the older sources to understand where the "stories" came from of different events that are so off and how to best tackle that very issue on Wikipedia. As with any history there are different versions but there is a way to cut through all or most of the inaccurate accounts by reading more contemporary sources along with the very seriously researched older ones. There is no perfect history book, no perfect account, but that doesn't mean that in their total sum, all of the available sources can't help make it clearer.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's too broad of a scope for what I meant. That would be like trying to use Texas as a supporting document for anything and anybody connected with the state. By "supporting articles", I am simply referring to those articles that could possibly be included in a Featured Topic of Liliuokalani, or Hawaii-related articles directly tied to her reign. The United States would not be specifically about Hawaii. We have to narrow down what we consider supporting articles, something we can manage on improvement. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not what I mean. I would hate to see the article Texas effected by a change in the supporting articles narrative. Basically, there is a single line in the United States article that refers to "Pro-American" forces overthrowing the Kingdom. That very discussion came from part of the article on the overthrow that was expanded by using another supporting article that we got to FA. So, I am actually agreeing with you in more than principle, but am hoping any change to the narrative be agreed on. It has been difficult to get and maintain a consensus but as articles become GA and FA I believe we try to respect their direction with little major changes afterwards. United States is GA and Ford Island is FA. My worry is having the narrative become too different that it might effect consensus on these articles, that's all. But that is just an example and not exactly the articles that might be effected.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Ooooohhhh...so you mean the basic information should coordinate across the articles. You don't want a contradictory narrative. — Maile (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea if possible, to have similar narratives across the connected articles that we are striving towards higher ratings. It may be more of a WikiProject concern than anything else. Not all articles that are related contain the same narrative but only because the consensus in some articles are just impossible to change for whatever reason like Historicity of Jesus. Other articles seem to coordinate the basic information so that contradicting contents have explanation to the reader. So many articles are linked together. I tend to try and work on almost everything that I may even link to if there are issues with that article when I visit it. So, with that in mind I know we need to work on other articles and I think it is something that may touch and reach other editors as well as articles. So...I will always keep aloha forefront in my actions and contributions with the project.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea, if this is something others agree with, that perhaps this article be the anchor article to a series of related articles such as has been done with articles like Mitt Romney and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a series I helped in small part to coordinate. It might be something helpful to the reader and to us as editors researching and writing on these subjects.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I like this idea especially concerning the overthrow since it is a sensitive topic that could impede expansion. We have plenty of vandalism on related articles...But we need to be aware of scope and importance as well of the related articles being compared. What is said in one sentence on the United States article might need a few sentences to explain here and something specific like the Kū’ē Petitions made need less explanation here. Please don't mind my fact-checking. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I lean towards agreeing with that as such can be mentioned (Kū’ē Petitions) on this article in less detail while still giving it the attention this subject may need for broad coverage and without getting into to detail that would be off topic.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Expanding on...

There is a lot of stuff that has been well documented and should be mentioned with links to other articles as we expand. One of those things I am hoping to expand on is her travels to England, and her two visits to the US. Liliuokalani makes mention of her visit to Sacramento and how she visited with the contemporaries of the time such as the Crocker family and viewing their art collection that she denotes has since been donated to the city of Sacramento. It might be interesting to see if this leads to anything else but might at least be interesting to mention as the Bishop Museum seems to have such a similar history. Is it possible there may be more information to these parts of the biography without going to far into details.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for FA monarch article example

There are many FA articles that we might want to look at including as an inspiration and study of FA articles, even on a western monarch. But I have a suggestion. Perhaps, as a western monarch example of an FA Wikipedia article, we could look at Charles I of England. While I did not assist in getting it to the FA rating, I did review and pass the article to GA listing. The editors have done a really superior job that I have looked to as example of what I should work towards. The editor User:DrKay has also been very helpful in suggestions that helped me to raise Charles Kanaina to GA.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dr J. Chris O'Day

• "Lure of Far Hawaii Suggests Closer Association". Portland, OR: The Oregon Daily Journal. February 11, 1917. p. 12. Retrieved September 28, 2016 – via Newspapers.com. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

Just a curious item. Has anyone ever hear of Dr. J. Chris O'Day of Portland, OR? According to the above 1917 newspaper item, he was Liliuokalani's personal physician 1908–1910. Note that the newspaper refers to her as "Queen Lil". I've noticed this in other old mainland newspaper items of that time period. The Americanization of Liliuokalani, I guess. — Maile (talk) 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I've never heard of him. But he is mentioned as John Christopher O'Day (as her and Prince Kuhio's physician) in Hawaii Medical Journal and Inter-island Nurses' Bulletin and All about Hawaii (1945). I find searching newspapers in general from Hawaii and Mainland at that time to rather interesting. For example, newspapers in 1907 covered the talk of a marriage with her and Alexander Ariipaea Salmon, a Tahitian prince.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I've decided for the moment, to concentrate my research on her final years, more on the personal side than the governmental. And since that's a work in progress, what I add in that section doesn't have to stay that way. I'm mentioning names of people like her doctor and her personal secretary just because. We can streamline this section later. But I'm trying to get things in some sort of chronological order there, so we can put the pieces together. If that makes sense. — Maile (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Maile66 Chronicling America is a great resource that does not require subscriptions. I think most of all the newspapers you've used can be found here. From my research from a while back, a lot of stuff happened during her latter years. Her lawsuits and attempts to reclaim the crown lands, the lawsuit over her trust with Prince Kuhio, other lawsuits from other royals like Theresa Laanui, her relation with her hanai children, and the ceremonial roles she played during this period as the former queen. I also think Joseph O. Carter and then Curtis P. Iaukea became her secretary/agent after Helehule, but I need to double check the time period of this. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR Thank you for the Chronicling America link. Most helpful. Yes, I've just been looking through the Iaukea book on Questia. I can see where we might be splitting off parts of this time period into separate articles. And forward we go... — Maile (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I noticed we started sectioning the bit about Buddhism as a legacy. I was wondering if we might be able to write a religion section about her religious beliefs. Liliuokalani was an interesting woman In that respect since she attended Calvinist, Anglican and even Catholic services during her later year and was baptized as a Mormon in the 1900s.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think if well sourced it would be a good addition. There were some religious controversies as well if I am not mistaken.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference formatting for reviews

Later down the line when we prepare to submit this article for a review, we might consider how we are doing multiple references for a given place. On my first FAC, one admin asked that references be bundled, so he wouldn't have to keep clicking back and forth to read every reference for one sentence or section. There's no real requirement on that for reviews, but I could see how it would be beneficial as a lot of articles end up with hundreds of inline citations. It changed the way I reference and, hopefully, results in a less cluttered look on what I do. A couple of examples how I achieved that are List of Alamo defenders and Margaret Lea Houston. There are different ways to handle that, but how I referenced the end of the sentence "...Liliʻuokalani had been suffering from a cancer on the right side of her neck for the previous 18 months." is one way. It's so iffy to get people to review an article, and you never know who might not even bother because they see to many citations. Just something to think about. Either direction, we probably should end up with a consistent style by the time we submit this for review. — Maile (talk) 12:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Maile I know what you mean. I've been told in my article writing not to overcite. I personally think we need to condense the source material as much as we can. For example. We don't need three citations for her being regents. I had a conversation with Mark Miller but he does not seem receptive to trusting one source over another. I think when writing history and when writing articles you have to know which are the more reliable sources and only include works that are scholarly sound. Using other royal feature article as comparison, the references only includes a handle of reliable sources about the subject matter or the history surrounding them. Information found in World Monarchies and Dynasties or a touris guide book with a few pages about Liliuokalani (this for example, in my opinion should be removed and replaced with citations found in the denser more well researched sources such as Kuykendall or Allen. The references listed in Queen Victoria and King Charles I's articles are all almost about the subjects' or events in their lives. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I admit to citation glut at times. The reason for it, whether it be me or someone else, is that at many of the review processes other than FAC, reviewers start insisting on citations throughout a paragraph or sentence. Not all editors are willing to comply. However, I figure you can spend a lot of time arguing with a reviewer or you can just stick the citation in and save yourself a lot of aggravation. The path of least resistance to just get through the moment. And because of that, I've developed instincts about where in a given sentence or paragraph such an occurrence might happen on a review. You've been through the same processes I have, and you've surely seen reviewers who get confused if the article and source don't match on words. So, given that culture, an editor ends up sticking in multiple citations because, for instance, one citation might mention a specific date, where the additional citation might a location, or any variation thereof. — Maile (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree but hopefully that is something we can fix by the time the review starts. For the time being, I am going to take a few days off of heavy editing/expansion since i want to read the sources more closely first.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

User:KAVEBEAR stated; "I had a conversation with Mark Miller but he does not seem receptive to trusting one source over another. I think when writing history and when writing articles you have to know which are the more reliable sources and only include works that are scholarly sound. Using other royal feature article as comparison, the references only includes a handle of reliable sources about the subject matter or the history surrounding them. Information found in World Monarchies and Dynasties or a touris guide book".

Your summary of what I think is the very problem. Please stop discussing what you believe I think. KB, not trusting one source over another is the very basis of understanding a history and is something we, as editors must decide with a consensus based on the context of the source, the author, the publisher and the wortk itself. But you just seem to want to "demonize" using terms that have no basis in Wikipedia policy. A "tourist" publication...is still a publication and I see you even using Aloha Airlines magazine for sourcing on another article so...I don't know what you are concerned with exactly. What I do not trust...is your ability to define a reliable source per our guidelines or your ability to misunderstand the terms and titles except as you understand them through your own reading. Please try to understand there is a basis for what I support or oppose and it is based on common understanding in todays academic circles using Wikipedia policy to summarize.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

By the way, "World Monarchies and Dynasties" is a history book about world monarchies and is not a tourist publication. It is a history book published by Routledge.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Never said it was; notice the or in my comment. It is a generalist history book with two pages about the queen. And when you compare it to a 600+ book by Kuykendall of which a few hundred are about Liliuokalani and her reign. Pages are not the difference here; it is only used as a rough measure of how much research the author has put into the subject. But short scholarly journal articles can be sometimes more well researched than books containing pages of footnotes and citation. We can use google scholars to see which sources are cited most by other reliable works [1] and [2]. And we can research who the authors themselves. Kuykendall has an article and many people has written about him. John Middleton seems to be a Yale compiling editor for the work; I can't find anything about him with a basic google search. These are my ways (I am positive I am not the only one) in accessing what sources to trust more than another. This is something we disagree on. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

"It is a generalist history book with two pages about the queen. And when you compare it to a 600+ book by Kuykendall..."'. That is your bias, your opinion. Please set that aside and read further on how to determine sources at Wikipedia. It has no bearing on any argument. It is absolutely clear you have a unique and clear bias towards a single author. That however, is not an argument for excluding sources just because one editor feels it does not compare to their favorite (who they just like) source. This is not a disagreement. This is where you lack understanding of how we, as editors determine weight...not exclusion of one source for the other to only include that authors version or knowledge. If two sources contradict each other we include both as long as neither is fringe theory and to the weight proportionate to academia. "Kuykendall has an article and many people has written about him. John Middleton seems to be a Yale compiling editor for the work; I can't find anything about him with a basic google search. These are my ways (I am positive I am not the only one) in accessing what sources to trust more than another." No sir. Sorry but is not a matter of trust. That is your bias or opinion and is outside the argument. If you can't find anything to demonstrate the author or editor (and there are many sources in this article using editors and not author) is not an expert on the subject or has experience in the field, we do not resort to outside issues of trust. Be careful with what you say about authors as living people. There are limits. But even if dead, their arrest records or claims of title etc.. are not the basis for determining if an author is acceptable as a source.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

History documentaries

Do we know if history documentaries are considered reliable sources? Hawaii's Last Queen by PBS and Conquest of Hawaii by the History Channel in particular contained many historic commentaries by experts (Osorio, Bartels, Peterson) that are not otherwise found in written sources. If not maybe we can also include them in the external link area for the general public.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Those are bootlegs, so we probably don't want those versions under External Links. Hawaii's Last Queen says right across it that it's the PBS American Experience, Hawaii's Last Queen program. Conquest of Hawaii is a bootleg of the program run on The History Channel, and has that logo right across it. — Maile (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh I understand they are bootlegs. I was just using the youtube links so it can be accessed here. After looking at just a few entries here on the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard it seems the general consensus is not to use history documentaries. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you removed them. The guidelines on history documentaries aside, I think bootlegs are copyright violations so some bot out there somewhere would have probably zapped them off eventually. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. Removed.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Published sources do actually include documentaries. I would have to verify such a claim that our noticeboard has made any kind of a consensus. It cannot override the overall consensus of the broader community however, but that is not an unusual sort of thing and could be a more recent community discussion. But the guideline on copyright is very clear. YouTube videos may not be linked to Wikipedia if they violate copyright laws. All links must be from the established copyright owner to link on an article or external link. Our guideline for using audio and video may be found at; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Definition of published as: "audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources". Referencing the video source can be found at; Wikipedia:Videos as references.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Legacy section

I think we need to condense the material in the namesakes department and make it into a paragraph much like the one on Queen Victoria's article. Also I think there are certain insignificant ones we might want to leave out because it's not our job to to list off everything named after the queen. It's probably not even all of them. There are multiple streets and avenues in different Hawaiian towns named after her as well.. We may want to list off the important ones (the gardens, the center, the church, the school, some of the streets etc) and end it with other places...without naming them. One significant fact we can add is that in 1901, Hawaiian Home Rule legislature wanted to name Maui County, Liliuokalani County (Race, Power, and the Dilemma of Democracy: Hawaiʻi's First Territorial Legislature, 1901, see above).

Also we should look into the role Liliuokalani has become in recent years as a symbol for Hawaiian sovereignty and culture revival. For example here is a note from the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Regents for October 19, 2001 when UH Manoa was discussing the naming of the student center: "As the last Hawaiian monarch, Queen Lili'uokalani symbolizes an important link to traditional Hawaiian culture and society. Her influence is well understood, widely respected and has been a strong motivating factor in the widespread emergence of Hawaiian culture and the values embodied in it." There also must be a lot we can write about the 1993 centennial of the overthrow in relation to her and also the yearly annual commemoration of her overthrow and her birthday for example.

Also would her musical legacy (the composition section) be better as a stand alone section or condensed and subsumed into the legacy section? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"I think we need to condense the material in the namesakes department and make it into a paragraph much like the one on Queen Victoria's article"

I disagree. In this case it may not be a needed step to rewrite the list as prose. Also, these are examples, not full lists. Trying to determine what is notable is our goal and not what is "insignificant".--Mark Miller (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@KAVEBEAR and Mark Miller:I'm a bit neutral on whether the namesakes are a list or prose, as I've seen it both ways at FAC. Agree it should be limited. If we were to list absolutely everything that carries her name in Hawaii alone, it would be a separate article. I believe the Hawaiian Home Rule legislature proposal is more important in the Legacy section than a a sports event named after her. I agree completely about including her as a symbol for Hawaiian sovereignty and culture revival. And I think it's a must to mention the yearly annual commemoration of her overthrow and her birthday.— Maile (talk) 12:19, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

As for her music, I think it should be a separate section since Hawaii today considers her and her brothers and sisters as the patrons of Hawaiian music. I think we cannot overestimate how much that gift of music means to Hawaii as an art form, as cultural and spiritual heritage, and as tourism. There must be some reference somewhere that little kids in mainland schools learn Aloha ʻOe about the same time they are taught other American standards.— Maile (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree in large part to Maile66 that we simply can't make a full list. That is for sure. A sports event compared to Hawaiian Home Rule legislature proposal is certainly not as notable however...my trip to Hawaii demonstrated how serious sports I. That arena is freaking huge. These types of events may have more local history than overall history to Liluokalani herself. I also agree that we need to maintain a separate music section, but we can't fail to mention her specific musical legacy that expands past the islands. Perhaps the music listings and history can be split between the two sections. I would suggest it possible that "Music" could be a subsection of the Legacy" section.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Aloha ʻOe transcended geographical boundaries and is somewhat universal these days. It might be worth mentioning how after her funeral, it became tradition to sing it at anyone's funeral in Hawaii. — Maile (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

It might be significant to mention that the queen never wanted it to be used as a funeral dirge and always thought it as a love song. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Aloha Oe at the funeral

KAVEBEAR "Liliʻuokalani would have highly disapprove of the use of her song "Aloha ʻOe" for she had always considered it a love song and not a funeral dirge." Is that your opinion? It's not attributed to anyone. I feel uncomfortable with the sentence as written, even if it's Allen. It's very POV, and only Liliuokalani could say how she would have felt about it. If she allowed it to be played at Berger's funeral, then she wasn't totally opposed to the idea. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Not my opinion. According to Allen's footnotes it is sourced to a taped interview of Lydia Aholo and the Berger files: Although "Aloha Oe" was sung frequently during Liliuokalani's funeral services, it is now known that she requested it never be sung at any funeral service but one. 21 "It is a love song," she said. "Not a funeral dirge." The one funeral at which she had stated it could be sung was Henry Berger's, whom she had presented with a medal in 1916 which was engraved in Greek and read, ambiguously, "To my beloved server." At that time she also gave him the title of "The Father of Hawaiian Music." It does seem to be coming from the writings of Liliuokalani herself just hearsay from her hanai daughter. We may consider subsuming it as an important footnote instead of having it be part of the paragraph and attribute it to Allen. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I see you did that. I'm looking at a library copy of Allen's book right now, and I find that on p 399, so maybe you and I have different editions. I'm not changing your page numbering. "highly disapprove" does seem like phrasing we should avoid. When I looked at the newspaper clippings of the death and funeral, I was thinking there is enough coverage for a separate article in and of itself. However, the question is whether or not to put in that much effort to tell the story. For the time being, a paragraph or so will suffice. — Maile (talk) 20:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

We have the same edition and page number. I just entered the wrong page number in previous edit.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks good now. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

We might want to also split off the later life and death section to one specifically covering her trips to the US and life between 1898 and 1910 when she was still fighting to reclaim the crown lands and beginning her actual later life (when she really retires and return to live in Hawaii for good) and death section starting from her return from her final trip abroad.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Split it off to its own article? — Maile (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I mean breaking off part of it and creating another sections within this article because a lot of stuff happened to her between 1898 and 1917, a span of nineteen years and the current section. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

We're on the same track. As I have continued to find more information about that time period, I see some of the dates in the Later Life section are within the time frame of the Opposition to Annexation dates. I agree that we are going to have to do some moving around. I haven't done that, because stuff crosses over. That whole paragraph about her health scare should stay in somewhere. Yet, it's not about anything but her personal health. We can work on this, and I agree with what you are saying. — Maile (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Annexation and legal claims in Congress (renamed section)

I moved much of what I've written up under this section. Which is OK. But what is missing in the narrative, I think, are specifics about what kind of claims were made to Congress, what was she asking for in any given year. I have when she was there, but we need to fill in what was happening with Congress. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is something I have been looking into deeply. This comes under the Blount report and other documents after the overthrow as well as US Annexation claims of law. Also the actual congressional record is available but there are some concerns about biased opinion Op Eds that were published with some false information. We cannot.....under any circumstance, relay the opinion of the US congress without text attribution directly to them and the record.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I think NPOV will be iffy on any source, because everything about the overthrow is charged with emotions, either direction. Why publish a book on this subject otherwise? Everything needs to be cross-checked on this one — Maile (talk) 13:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions

In response to Kavebear's request for a copyedit and suggestions, a light copyedit is in progress (when I have time). A couple of other thoughts:

- Would it make sense to call her Lili'uokalani throughout, and clarify her name changes just once?

Yes. That would be a lot better.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

- There needs to be a (brief) explanation as to why Bernice Pauahi Bishop was deemed ineligible to be in the line of succession.

It was the doubt cast by Kalakaua's genealogist and the genealogy wars between Ruth and Queen Emma. Both Ruth and Bernice descend from Kānekapōlei's son, Pauli Kaōleiokū who it is believed was the natural son of Kalaniʻōpuʻu, but Kamehameha I stopped Pauli's murder and accepted him into his court.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

- The Promulgating a new constitution section needs a significant rewrite putting events into chronological order and getting rid of repetition.

 Done--Mark Miller (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Otherwise, an interesting article that's shaping up nicely. Good work, you guys!

Awien (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Another in the Promulgating a new constitution section:

- In the first sentence, "Lili'uokalani began to receive petitions from her people . . . ", what they were petitioning for needs to be specified. Awien (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done thank you for pointing that out.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Lawsuit against the US

I think this needs to be expanded into a separate section. At the moment it is only a single line. While she lost, it is considered a very important part of the history and contains information that has great encyclopedic value.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. And that's an end result of primarily what she was in D. C. for. Proto's book heavily concentrates on what led to the lawsuit, and its aftermath. This is all about compensation for the Crown Lands. In particular, Chapter 12. The good thing about Proto as a source, is that he is an attorney and approached it from that perspective. But we need other reliable sourcing as balance for Wikipedia standards. After scanning through the chapters, I almost felt like there should be a cast of characters sidebar on the issue. I do think we should be consistent with capitalization in the whole article. The lawsuit uses "Crown Lands", and Proto uses "Crown lands". But I definitely think Crown should be capitalized where it's used in conjunction with the land. Comments? — Maile (talk) 14:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• "June 17, 1897 letter of protest from Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii to the U. S. House of Representatives". Our Documents. ourdocuments.gov.
• "No. 07-1372 State of Hawall etal v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs etal" (PDF). American Bar Association.
• Proto, Neil Thomas (2009). The Rights of My People: Liliuokalani's Enduring Battle with the United States, 1893–1917. New York, NY: Algora. ISBN 978-0-87586-720-5 – via Questia. (this url links to the Questia access of the entire book)

This will absolutely require multiple sources, I agree. Just to understand how things proceeded to the result.

It seems that many sources want to add the capital "L" from use in titles when discussing other Crown lands. Our article indicates that specific regions have differing definitions and titles to such lands. I believe for Hawaii the formal name is Crown Lands, Hawaiian Crown Lands or Crown Lands of Hawaii. I would say there is a slight tendency towards both being capitalized in sources pertaining to Hawaii but not sure how good an argument that is.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I broke up the Annexation section, to give us a section on Crown Lands of Hawaii. It doesn't have to stay that way, but it's a start to sorting this out. — Maile (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Consistency – can anyone verify exactly how many acres were affected? This article says 1,200,000 acres (4,900 km2). The Hawaiian Organic Act doesn't even address the issue. Ceded lands says 1.8 million acres (7,300 km²). And the legislation that affects this does not specify how many acres were involved. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I was just reading the source used for this article, and it says "...the 1.8 million acres of Crown and government lands obtained by the Newlands Resolution were placed under control of the territorial government." However the Wikipedia article on the Newlands Resolution does not specify a number of acres. And the source for the text of the Newlands Resolution also does not specify acreage. I've removed the acreage figure until we can come up with a source.— Maile (talk) 23:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

April 3, 1917 American flag raised at Washington Place

It is notable that the U. S Congress did not officially declare war until April 6, but it was in the works before April 3. The entire front page of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin was all about the pending war. Right above the mention of the American flag being raised at Washington Place was an article about Hawaiians who were believed to have died with the sinking of the Aztec.

For the first time in its long and picturesque history, Washington Place, home of Queen Liliuokalani, was decorated today with an American flag. It was the occasion of the visit of the legislators to pay their respect to the aged queen and in view of the extraordinary crisis in international affairs and the prospect of patriotic war action by Congress, the queen allowed the flag to be flown in honor of the government which years ago was responsible for her loss of a monarchy.

• "Queen's Home is Flag Decorated; First in History". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. April 3, 1917. Retrieved October 9, 2016 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.

However, given that the local newspaper after her death mentioned that for her last 3 years she didn't even know where she was, it would seem logical that she wasn't the one making decisions like this. In fact, maybe she didn't even know about anything in the news for 3 years. Same thing about her joining the Red Cross. There's a photo of her in the Red Cross ceremony, but who knows what she was actually aware of. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

"Yeah....while I agree...how can this be demonstrated? It was central in a case that put someone behind bars.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Clarify "put someone behind bars". Are you referring to her so-called "sanity trial"? My point here is, we should tread carefully on things like the flag raising and Red Cross, attributed to her the last 3 years of her life. A given event happened, and she "allowed" it, but that just means she didn't oppose it, not that she decided to do that. Or that she even knew what she was allowing.— Maile (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

The last three years nothing can really be attributed to her. I agree with that. Is there a source that goes into any detail? I think there was some mention in a source about her will...or wills? Princess Laanui went to prison over her last will.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"local newspaper after her death mentioned that for her last 3 years she didn't even know where she was," — I'm confused here. I don't think we should go into questioning her sanity and mental health either without detailed sources (primary and secondary) and should be aware that certain newspaper sources of the time were quick to bring doubt to her sanity or promote conspiracy like newspapers of today for the sake of a good news story. What sources beside those associated with Kuhio's insanity suit (which we would need to address eventually in the article) are questioning her overall awareness of her actions? From my understanding, she won the case with Kuhio in 1916. As for the flag event, I think we need to look into it more probably but the news account in the Outlook noted a conversation with Iaukea where the word. The question then would have to be how did the Outlook know what Iaukea and the Queen was saying to each other and if how truthful it was.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, @KAVEBEAR and Mark Miller: I didn't mean we should question her mental health/sanity. I only meant that we should be careful about how we word what she "approved" in the last year or two, make sure it's not contradictory with anything else in the article. Just make sure it's worded so it doesn't come into conflict with anything else. As for her sanity trial, from what I've read it seems to be about greed and opportunity. The way it went down just makes me cringe. That said, the trial should probably be mentioned in this article. Nasty business, that trial. — Maile (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm tap dancing around this too much. I think it is not a question of her sanity. I think it is a question of her being taken advantage of in her later years when she became frail. I think the Laanui situation could lean towards that as well as the flag raising etc.. Even the trial seems to indicate many people around her were trying very hard, in her later years, to take advantage of her.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Bingo! I was thinking the same thing, but not limited to her later years. If you go back up to the Annexation section, that doctor Charles H. English seemed to be a piece of work. I have not yet found evidence that he's the one who told her she had cancer, or that he spread the rumor, but the timing of it sure seemed like it. After he was booted out, the cancer stories end (as far as what I've researched). — Maile (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree on most parts of this. But I have to say that for the Laanui's case, there are no reliable second sources except the scant newspaper accounts that are online about the cases to overturn her will after her death. Laanui was one of many litigants including Kuhio, Emma Kilioulani De Fries, Kahakauilakeliimoewaiowaiaulio (Keawe/Kahakauila) Nawahie and John F. Colburn, on behalf of the Kawananakoa minors, who were trying to overturn her 1909 will and deed of trust after her death. These were separate cases after the insanity suit after her death, although the parts involving Kuhio are addressed in Queen and I. I don't think we as editors using available online sources can paint a clear picture of this situation. I don't think the history surrounding the other litigant besides Kuhio was ever a topic anybody has ever researched in secondary sources and we don't have the online access to enough newspapers account (Chronicling America scan version of newspaper drastically decrease at this point) or legal records to paint a clear picture using the primary sources. Below are a list of the few articles from Hawaii I could find mentioning the post-death litigations involving Kuhio, Laanui, De Fries, Nawahie and the Kawananakoa's.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1918-06-25/ed-1/seq-3/
• http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1918-07-09/ed-1/seq-2/
• http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1918-09-17/ed-1/seq-7/
• http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1918-06-28/ed-1/seq-4/
• http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1918-07-30/ed-1/seq-3/
• http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1918-06-25/ed-1/seq-6/
• http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1918-01-15/ed-1/seq-5/
• http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83025121/1918-07-16/ed-1/seq-4/

Summarizes the issue surrounding lawsuits over her will.

• "The Queen's Estate: First of Two Parts". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Honolulu: Oahu Publications, Inc. May 17, 2009. Retrieved October 21, 2016.
• "The Queen's Estate: Last of Two Parts". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. Honolulu: Oahu Publications, Inc. May 18, 2009. Retrieved October 21, 2016.

Date of filing for Liliuokalani v. The United States

I think Wikisource got erroneous information. It says "Documents dated November 20, 1909 Archives, Honolulu, Hawaii REF HD243.H3 L55 1909". However, based on newspaper accounts I just found, that date is not possible.

• "Queen's Lawyer Will Be Ballou". The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. December 18, 1909. Retrieved October 15, 2016 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.

• "The Queen's Complaint". The Hawaiian Star. Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii. January 10, 1910. Retrieved October 15, 2016 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.

The lawsuit had not yet been filed by Dec 18, 1909 and is reported as "will be presented early in the coming year ." And the second source, a verbatim transcript of it, makes it sound like it was just filed in January 1910. Something to check out if anyone can verify a date of filing. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't say why the article states that. I can only show you this to demonstrate that Wikisource is not the only one using the 1909 date. However, this source states 1910.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Cabinet Ministers

We may need a way to name drop her cabinet ministers in the reign section or would it be more appropriate to create a table of some kind. Because at the moment we listed the first group of minister she appointed in 1891 and then refer to her cabinet ministers again in 1893 in the Promulgating and Overthrow section when they are not the same four individuals that were listed a few sentences before. I've refrained for example from naming the hold-over cabinet who did serve her for a few weeks. Essentially she had the hold-over cabinet, the one she appointed in 1891, a group she appointed in 1892 the so called Wilcox cabinet (George Norton Wilcox that is) and another group she appointed in 1893 days before the overthrow. I might be missing another group or they were just replacements and not complete cabinet changes. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that is too much detail for this biography. Name dropping is not encyclopedic and it is doubtful that such inclusion in biography is needed. Suffice it to say, there was a hold over cabinet that she replaced but for one or two. Those names hold encyclopedic value in this biography.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That may be so. I don't like name dropping either which is why I suggested maybe a table (maybe) and why I didn't name the holdover cabinet since it did not seem appropriate to the flow at the moment. However, I think her cabinet ministers during the overthrow (I think they are the ones who disapproved of her constitution as well) would needed to be included since two of them ([www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/hawaii/hawaiitrans.html]) betrayed her to the Committee of Safety during the overthrow. At this point we only list Peterson but not Colburn, Cornwall and Parker. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Just the two need be named.Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I will just disagree here for now. All four should be listed eventually in future expansions since they are significant figures leading up to the overthrow. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Only those directly involved in context to this biography are relevant. We can and should mention the hold-over cabinet...as we did. But to suggest that everyone should be mentioned here is undue weight.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixico and Roark et al

I am conceding the fact these edits definitely needs future consensus. But I question why I would need consensus to alphabetize Daws before Fuld, remove a duplicate source which attributes an encyclopedia's editor as a co-author of the related section (see below) and the addition of the complete list of the five contributors to the book The American Promise, Combined Volume: A History of the United States| since Sarah Stage and Susan M. Hartmann were left out. To reiterate how referencing works for editors. Editors are not included in the footnotes only the author is; they are included in the complete bibliography where they are listed after the authors. The only circumstance where an editor can be attributed in the footnotes is if there is no author which is not the case here.

Duplicated sources: Both attributes Fixico but one in his actual role as editor not a co-author and one leaves Linda S. Parker out completely.

• Fixico, Donald L. (2007). Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty. ABC-CLIO. ISBN 978-1-57607-881-5. OCLC 153598713.
• Parker, Linda S. (2007). Fixico, Donald L. (ed.). Alaska, Hawaii, and Agreements. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. pp. 199–208. ISBN 978-1-57607-881-5. OCLC 153598713. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Formatting issue. The citaions linked to the same source and all content requires consensus.Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"To reiterate how referencing works for editors. Editors are not included in the footnotes only the author is; they are included in the complete bibliography where they are listed after the authors. The only circumstance where an editor can be attributed in the footnotes is if there is no author which is not the case here"'. What is the basis n Wikipedia guidelines and policy for this claim?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if there is policy for but it is how referencing styles work in writing history. If we are using Harvard referencing style templates, we should probably follow the outlined rules of that style. I've taken classes on how to write footnotes and how to reference in scholarly sources...which is probably not enough for you. https://ilrb.cf.ac.uk/citingreferences/tutorial/theexamples3.html This site for example agrees with one of my points that editors come after the author in a chapter in an edited book; doesn't speak about footnotes. I will try to find an online guide that speaks about footnotes in Harvard referencing style if I can find it. These rules are taken seriously and guides are written online and in book form on these subjects. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I am confused by this edit. What did I remove in this edit? It was an edit fixing a template error issue in the existing footnotes.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Confused? Your edit summary was this; "revert if you want". Your replacing one source for another....in a long form against the very style you began? OK...I am even more confused.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

My summary was a response to your reverts after reverts of my non-controversial edits. "replacing one source for another" what?! The edit added a key that fixed a red error note in the footnotes; it did not replace any source or go against any style I began with. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"I don't know if there is policy". Then don't make the change.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

No because the problem still remains there are two duplicate sources. I have ask what policy or example you have for listing the editor of an encyclopedia in Harvard referencing style in the footnotes (we do no dispute on the issue of attribution in the full reference) or for using a footnote that has a red error note on it that is not anchored to any listed sources --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Again If you have no guideline you have no reasoning. "a footnote that has a red error note on it that is not anchored " You really don't get it, do you? If you are going to argue redlinks...you need to make a report to Administrators Noticeboard for Incidents. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"My summary was a response to your reverts after reverts of my non-controversial edits" I don't care. You made it clear it could be reverted. It was. This discussion is now becoming disruptive editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

ISBN dashes

I just ran autoFormatter on the ISBN dashes in the references section. That's one of the areas reviewers tend to notice. My understanding of how the dashes are spaced, is that they are indicative of the geographical area of publication. I had been using a script on AutoWikiBrowser, but since I upgraded to Windows 10 anniversary edition, AWB will no longer open for me. I have a ticket out on the AWB, but Phabricator has a big backlog. — Maile (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T148342

Reliable source and what it states

The Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1890 reads as follows;

Her Royal Highness the Princess Liliuokalani,

Heir Apparent, b. September 2, 1838; m. Sep-

tember 16, 1862, to the Honorable John Owen

Dominis, K.G.C. of the Royal Orders of

Kamehameha I and Kalakaua; Kt. Com. of the

Orders of Francis Joseph and Isabella Catolica;

Member of the Privy Council of the State, etc.

Proclaimed Heir Apparent to the Throne, April

11, 1877

It is the contention of KAVEBEAR that the portion referring to the Orders of Francis Joseph and Isabella Catolica in this mini bio is referring to them being designated to John Owen Dominis based on the punctuation, except that when I do look it is clear that each separate subject under this mini bio is referring to Princess Liliuokalani and is clearly separated with a semi colon. Everything from the semi colon located directly after Dominis, K.G.C. of the Royal Orders of Kamehameha I and Kalakaua; is now referring to the princess. Dominis was not named the Heir Apparent in 1877.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Using the above sources again. All the list of honors and positions between the words "Dominis" and the period after "etc" belong to John Owen Dominis. The argument that "Dominis is attributed here with the Knights Grand Cross of Kamehameha I and Kalakaua, but the Knight Commander positions are referring to Liliuokalani" makes no sense because it is followed by "Member of the Privy Council of the State, etc." Only Dominis was a member of the Privy Council not Liliuokalani. How logical is it to list her husband name, his two royal orders then list her two royal orders and then list his position as a member of the Privy Council. This same list can be seen in all list from the Hawaiian Almanacs from 1878 to 1891 when Dominis is listed but in none of the ones where Liliuokalani is listed alone as Princess or Queen. The semicolon separates theorizers which he bore as "KGC" and the orders he held as "Kt. Com." I AM NOT disputing the Hawaiian orders although I do not think these are sources for them. I am disputing the foreign orders. The pictures only proves Liliuokalani held the honors of Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Kalakaua which is a fact we don't have reliable sources for at the moment. But not the foreign royal orders from Austria and Spain which belongs to her husband. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying "Everything from the semi colon located directly after Dominis, K.G.C. of the Royal Orders of Kamehameha I and Kalakaua; is now referring to the princess" is not true. I think it all refers to Dominis. But one point that makes no sense in your argument that everything after belongs to Liliuokalani is the final few words "Member of the Privy Council of the State, etc". We have primary sources from the monarchy in the minutes of the Privy Council and the same source above listing only Dominis not his wife. Neither Liliuokalani or any women for that matter during the reign of Kalakaua unlike the earlier periods of the monarchy ever sat in the Privy Council, but Dominis did.

"Dominis was not named the Heir Apparent in 1877." Who is arguing? The period returns the subject to the princess. "Proclaimed Heir Apparent to the Throne, April 11, 1877" is a new sentence and refers to Liliuokalani. It is the same thing as saying..."Princess SO&SO married Honorable SO&SO, his positions and honors, etc, etc. Last sentence about her." --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I have demonstrated the separation as the style of the writing of this bio. Your source does not discount that directly or your claim that she was never seen as such or any woman.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

My sources demonstrates she never sat on the Privy Council as a member. Other list from the Almanac (1882 for example: File:Members of the Court, Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1882.jpg) also listed Members of the House of Nobles as another position following the orders. We have records of the rosters of the Legislatures throughout the monarchy and she is not listed as a member of the House of Nobles but Dominis is. -KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Not so sure it actually demonstrates that but indicates you are probably right. On just that point. How does that explain that there is also a reliable source in her book but you also claim he was Grand Commander of every single order? You're not entirely in the right here.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

One error does not support your claim about the orders. It demonstrates an error in the Bio.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If anything, that source merely demonstrates the bio in error...to that single point, but it is not entirely clear. You removed the honor we already know she had for the same reason, that you feel there is not a reliable source that can confirm it. That is an assumption but does not explain her sash and Royal Order.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Saying it is bio error is your intepretation because those positions are repeated every time her husband is listed from 1878 to 1891 and only slightly changes when he was not in the House of Nobles but was still a Privy Councilor between 1888 and 1891. It CONSISTENTLY list his memberships in those bodies. I also never argued about her Hawaiian royal order which she most likely had. But the orders of Franz Joseph, Isabella the Catholic, Rising Sun, and Chrysanthemum were her husband's. In her memoir: those honors are listed after his name not her's. There is a unreliable self-published source that does explain the fact she has those Hawaiian orders and the Order of the Precious Crown, but because it is self-published we can't use it. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Also there are usually more than one Knight Grand Commander or Grand Commander of an order the head a royal order is usually referred to as the Grand Master and is usually the monarch or head of a royal house. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Look, there is absolutely nothing you have presented that demonstrates the bio was actually referring to Dominis and not Lydia. Even as much of a mistake as that may be, it has not been demonstrated here at all. Did they misplace the semi colon or did they err in giving her that description? In her book (and not the other unreliable self published site) the page your refer to is an illustration page and lists the queen on one side of a page and Dominis on the other and then the lists of Grand Command illustrations. This is not a biography of Dominis, it is an autobiography of the queen.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Also you removed the Knights Grand Cross and that constitutes an argument;[3]--Mark Miller (talk) 05:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Break

The tentative consensus I see above is the following;

• The Hawaiian Almanac and Annual for 1890 is a reliable source.
• Liliuokalani was not a member of the Privy Council.
• John Owen Dominis was never Heir Apparent.
• That Liliuokalani was awarded a Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Order of Kalakaua as demonstrated by the sash and breast star clearly visible in photos and portraits in oils from that period.

--Mark Miller (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Now for what are outstanding questions that I have;

• What is Kt. Com. of the Orders of Francis Joseph and Isabella Catolica referring to? The Kt. Com.? Kight Commander? Neither Order has such a degree. There is a Knight of the Collar, Knight Grand Cross, Knight's Cross and two commander levels but no Knight Commander level on either order. Is the fact that the order of Isabella supposedly a different title important here? Is that actually true (our page says it but the source needs translation) and is so, does that mean it was mentioned correctly or that there is no translation of Dame in Hawaiian?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
• Are there any images or paintings of Dominis that demonstrate him having any Royal Order other than the K.G.C. of Kamehameha I and Kalakaua and the Order of Kapiolani?
• Does the lack of such an image on either mean there were no awards? If that be true...are these "honorary" titles?
• In either case can it be demonstrated through official documents, proclamations, decrees or newspaper articles in either English or the Hawaiian Language?
• Is there a transcript or description of Liliuokalani's coronation ceremony or the official titles she took on as queen?

--Mark Miller (talk) 07:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Liliuokalani never had a coronation. She was sworn in in front of her brother's hold over cabinet ministers and the justices of the Supreme Court on the afternoon after they brought Kalakaua's body back to Honolulu. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No consensus has been achieved for inclusion. It has been removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually Thrum's Hawaiian Almanac contains complete list of members of the Royal Orders of Kamehameha and Kalakaua for some of the years like 1880, 1881 and 1882 for example. Not all the issues includes a list. All of the listed individuals for those three years were men which may be significant; even Queen Victoria is not included unlike other foreign male monarchs and royals.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Paki surname

Why was the surname Paki removed? Calling the hanai system "informal" is a Western construct trying to differentiate it from Western adoption laws adopted by the monarchy after Liliu's birth. Hanai relationship were not deemed legal or not legal during her childhood. Also surnames were mostly self-chosen or non-existent during the early days of the monarchy and there were no legal restrictions until Kamehameha IV made it obligatory. We know Liliuokalani chose to identify as a Paki instead of as a Kapaakea or not one at all; this can be seen in her and Dominis' marriage certificate in which she signs as Lydia K. Paki which is closest thing we have to a legal document bearing her maiden name. This is also a name used commonly in sources to refer to her from her childhood till her marriage. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Calling the hanai system "informal" is a Western construct trying to differentiate it from Western adoption laws adopted by the monarchy after Liliu's birth". Point blank, In both Kingdom law and US law a "hanai" adoption was NOT formal. Case in point...no hanai could or had taken the name of the informal adoptive parent without a legal name change. Those that did not, even if they used the name...were not legal. See John Mahiʻai Kāneakua and his headstone (only illustrative and not to be seen as a source). We need a direct source to claim Paki as a surname to this subject..--Mark Miller (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Both subjects died within the territory of US Hawaii. Both used the name in legal documents however.....many legal documents in Hawaiian Kingdom, Republic and territory include miss-spelling etc, that were disregarded. John Mahiʻai Kāneakua was a lawyer using the name Kāneakua. Unfortunately, it was a hanai adoption and by law...not the legal name of the subject.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Her marriage certificate can maybe be considered a legal document. If there is no case for legality, which is not easy to prove or disprove unless could find legal documents in the form of early kingdom census before her marriage; the name should still be noted in the article because of common usage by her contemporaries and secondary source and was use as a self identification by the subject legal or not. Same reason why we call Jeb Bush Jeb in his article even though his legal name is John. Also claiming "Lydia Kamakaeha" is legal in the current article is also an unreferenced claim and as contentious and needs reliable source to back up; I've removed legal for now and simply left it as name after baptism which we have sources for. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The certificate is a primary source. I tend to think something like a name needs stronger sourcing. The Paki surname is not used in many sources because Hawaiians didn't always use surnames at this point and it is questionable if a hanai adoption was formal in this manner. John Kāneakua used that name and passed it on to his children but his head stone shows his birth name..but we still use the name he was known by on Wikipedia. I would agree if we place an explanatory note "Marriage certificate shows maiden name to be....." with the certificate as the source.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Using sfn template

@KAVEBEAR and Mark Miller: No fault discussion here. In response to the request on my talk page, I have looked at the article and corrected sfn formatting errors. Here's what I did and noticed:

• I moved Daws up to its correct alphabetical slot under References
• Under References inserted carriage return for the Rogne listing.
• NEEDS ATTENTION: → Fixico, Donald L. (2007) "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFixico2007."
• Corrected year in citation from Parker 2007 to Parker 2008
• Corrected template formatting error in the Parker Fixico book
• Per Template:Sfn#Large_numbers_of_authors, it can handle four author names "Only the first four authors are required by the template. Listing more is not supported." eliminated fifth name from sfn template, while leaving the fifth name as is on the cite book template.
• Also see Template:Sfn##Parameters When more than three editors are used in the sfn template, while it does support four authors, the template is coded to render it as the first author's name and "et al." There's nothing wrong with it when you see that.
• With this October 9 edit, I bundled and standardized the referencing on the whole "Later life and death" section using harvnb; page and pages →p and pp. I'm not saying this is what we have to use, but I think it works visually. Either way, I encourage a standardization of what we use as soon as possible, and follow the agreed-upon style on future edits. Waiting until we're ready for review to standardize the citation style is the most tedious, head-banging way to go. I know from experience, having waited until the last minute on my own.

Lastly, I really don't think anybody was campaigning for anything on my talk page, but rather asking for help on formatting snafus. Which I am happy to do. — Maile (talk) 13:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it is KB's intention to fall under the campaigning guideline, but he does tend to ask for a lot of help of others when I get involved, on several different talk pages with different users about specific articles I begin writing on. When the de-centralized discussion is begun by KB and I add my own concern he then basically tells me it isn't the proper place to dispute it...when he is. It can't be both ways. You can't want discussion about an article only between the ones you want it with and the way you want it. That's a private message. He should use the e-mail function. This isn't the first time I have had issue with him during this collaboration on talk page issues. He began a discussion on my own talk page and out of the blue transferred the entire discussion to this page. I was responding to the alerts and it was a couple of comments before I realized I was on this article talk page and not my own, where he began the discussion. He has a lot of passion but he seems to specifically desire to bump heads with me constantly in an uncivil manner that has become a serious long term pattern. Collaboration seems to be designed to make me give up and walk away. Simply put, these are conduct issues to impede content. There's no problem going to your page, but for him to actively tell other concerned editors it isn't the place for them to discuss, seems to be saying it is no longer a collaboration. That is very much what I see our policy on campaigning being about.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Mark Miller Let me be very clear – I would prefer that neither KAVEBEAR nor you email me about disputes, or anything about this article (so far, neither of you has done this). Email erases transparency, and I think we need to be out in the open while we are working on this article. Yes, it would be ideal to keep everything on this talk page for tracking purposes; but I am just as faulty of posting something I consider minor on a user talk page when it should have been the article talk page. Also, on this article I am first an editor who wants to help research and improve this article to FA. I am secondly an admin who has access to a few tools that might be helpful as we get this going. If I can do formatting, research or help clarify anything in getting it together, I will. But the difficulties that happen between the two of you, I would prefer to remain neutral, and hope the two of you respect that. If anything happens where one or the other of you find the situation untenable, you have the option of ANI, but I like to believe it won't come to that. I see you both as two good editors with your own styles and individual sourcing. And both equally confident of those sources and historical accuracy. All three of us bring separate resources and information to the table here. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

KB has a perfect block log and I have had no interest in filing a complaint at ANI because I feel more obliged to use my own experience at DRN instead. But DRN is only about content disputes not conduct. I would never ask you to step in as an admin. I understand how inappropriate that would be and impossible for you, being involved in the article discussion etc.. But I also believe strongly in Conflict Resolution in relation to conduct issues. I am not discussing the policy to entrap KB in guideline violations to get him blocked or just preaching or trying to make a point. I am attempting continued Editor Retention engagement with the editor because he is an obvious net plus to Wikipedia...just not at the expense of collaboration and transparency. Not everything needs to be a battle . But when disputes arise, we do use policy and guidelines to get through the disputes. KB understands that because he has never been blocked and has been here long enough to understand how to avoid it. So, I am not stopping everything here just to complain in any formal manner. Any content disputes that cannot be resolved here can resolved with further community input .--Mark Miller (talk) 23:56, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

1911 pension and sugar plantation income

I'm deleting these two sentences until when (and if) we can come up with verifiable sourcing:

Effective July 1, 1911, the territorial legislature of Hawaii voted her a pension of $1,250 per month."Queen's Pension is Approved". Evening Bulletin. Honolulu, Oahu, Hawai. March 30, 1911. Retrieved September 30, 2016 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress. They also permitted her to receive the income from a sugarcane plantation of 6,000 acres (24 km²).Haley|2014|p=343; "The Queen Subject of Perennial Interest". The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands. July 11, 1909. Retrieved September 30, 2016 – via Chronicling America: Historic American Newspapers. Lib. of Congress.

There is conflicting information. In regards to the pension, the above March 30, 1911 Evening Bulletin says $1,250 a month. The July 11, 1909 Pacific Commercial Advertiser says $4, 000. According to that same article, "in the latter part of 1908 it was announced that she was preparpossessed a sugar plantation of 6,000 acres in addition to smaller parcels aggregating 1,000 acres..." Is there such a word as "preparpossessed"?

The Haley book, while not footnoted on its source, says "The legislature had voted her a pension of four thousand dollars per year and the income from a large sugar plantation that had belonged to her brother" And the dates are all jumbled in that paragraph from his book. He refers to a 1907 visit from Jack London, then goes into a group photo apparently not related to that visit, since it mentions it was taken in World War I which had not begun in 1907. I suggest we either leave out what I just deleted, or find better sourcing. Haley is too vague and convoluted on it. And the Hawaii papers contradict each other. — Maile (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

We should include it somehow although after some further research. If the numbers conflict, we might have to leave them out but we still can state she received a pension but the numbers are disputed. From what I am guessing at the moment the 1909 news article speaks about a future proposal while the 1911 article dates closer to the effective date and thus has probably more credibility. We need to look at the newspapers sources and see if we can find a secondary sources as well preferably not a copy of Wikipedia content which is the majority of the sources you can find when searching those terms in non reliable recent publication.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The 1911 articles refers to a bill by Givernor Walter F. Frear. Could we possibly find the original bill?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I am also somewhat surprise by the late date! Kaiulani was said to received a pension from the Hawaiian territorial government in the 1890s. So it would have made sense if Liliuokalani had been voted a pension years before. The 1911 date comes after the establishment of her trust in 1909 which effectively limited her financial expenditure to a monthly allowance (don't remember the exact number although it was small).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The mention of the income being from Kalakaua's lands, makes me wonder if it was somehow connected to the Crown Lands legal issues. Are you reading the Van Dyke book on Who Owns the Crown Lands? I don't have access to it, but it might have supporting information about this. I would like to delete Haley as a source on these issues. He did a fine job on his book about Sam Houston, but reading that one page about Jack London and Liliuokalani just seems meandering thoughts. — Maile (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I suspect they may were in some way but I don't think the lands were part of the crown lands. I think the pension was issued by the territorial government because they felt sorry for the aging queen not because they wanted to compensate her for the crown lands. I think the 1909 news source speaks about the reasoning behind the proposed pension. I don't have physical access to Van Dyke's book but some of the pages are visible to me; page 236 uses the number of 12,000 issued by the territorial government and cites Allen, notes 13, page 372 (ummmmmm wait I have no idea what Van Dyke was doing; there is no note to support the number in Allen's book; note 13 is connected to a paragraph after the pension while note 12 is connected to Iaukea's comment about Queen Kapiolani's estates); the subsequent footnote in Van Dyke also cites a Representative Johnson criticizing the US government for not providing the pension instead. Allen does go into great depth about the issue as well... I know land usually referred to as belonging to Kalakaua and Liliuokalani means their personal lands which they inherited from their mother and their maternal grandfather who received allotments during the Great Mahele. The Crown Lands were considered inalienable during the monarchy and that was the main opposition against her in the lawsuits. And are you suggesting deleting Haley in reference to just the land and pension issue because he does a good job elsewhere in terms of summarizing existing knowledge and I rather retain it as a source since it is rather good recent publication that talks about the entire kingdom's history.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This source mentioned that Kaiulani was given a pension but Liliuokalani was refused one in the 1890s by the Republic.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Maile66 Have you checked Queen and I. Footnote 51 of page 86 cites the 1911 Territory of Hawaii, Territorial Pension, Act 43, “Making Appropriations for the Benefit of Queen Liliuokalani,” March 30, 1911 in its entirety without mention of the plantation income. It states 1250 a month which is 15,000 a year. The number still conflicts but this is a governmental act so it is probably more reliable. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

KAVEBEAR I restored a rewritten paragraph about the pension, with Iaukea added as a source, and the ones with the $4,000 eliminated. In regards to Haley, I only meant to take him out as a reference for that paragraph. I have no objection to his book being used elsewhere, because he is otherwise a usually thorough author. I did not yet add back anything about the income from the sugar plantation. I'd like to know more about that. — Maile (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree about exclusion of plantation for now. Do you think it would appropriate to note the conflicting numbers in those sources in a footnote; 4000 and 12000?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't. It only serves to confuse reviewers. Iaukea on page 181 has actually quoted the full Territorial Pension, Act 43 section authorizing the pension. We can't get more accurate than that without crossing over into original research. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing 2007 unsourced "first" claim on Hawaii's Story

Removing November 2007 unsourced edit claiming she was "first Native Hawaiian female author". It's been tagged as "citation needed" since May 2008. I would think it would be pretty hard to verify that assertion. The only thing I find on the internet about that claim are sites that are copying Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Moving pictures

As she lived during the age of film, it is surprising how little we know about the few footages of her during her later life. I've located snippets here and there on YouTube of her being visited by dignitaries either members of the Territorial legislature or US Congressional visitors and being escorted by Iaukea while she curtisies. These news article from 1917 [4] [5] references moving pictures by Eddie Fernandez of "Members of the Legislature Visiting Her Majesty - Liliuokalani" and this article mentions another one done by Fernandez of the 1912 reception of the Queen. This is a difficult research topic but I'm putting it down here on this page for record purpose and to aid future research. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Visits to Kalaupapa

I removed the claim that she was the first reigning monarchy to visit Kalaupapa since King Kalakaua and Queen Kapiolani visited on April 14, 1874 along with a royal party. Something I am uncertain about currently is if Liliuokalani accompanied the King and Queen on this brief stopover visit in 1874. Because it would affect our numbering of her visits at the moment. The newspaper account describing the visit does not describe her or her husband but does list them in as passengers from the Windward ports. We know that they were part of the party when they visited many of the towns in Maui but without a direct mentioning it opens up the possibility that not all of the royal party went to Kalaupapa or that she and her husband came back from an earlier stop Maui instead and didn't accompany the Queen and King the entire way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Liliuokalani's visit in 1874 is not mentioned in either Ma‘i Lepera or Kalaupapa: A Collective Memory (Ka Hokuwelowelo). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's clear in this other description of Kalakaua's tour of Maui and Molokai [6] that Princess Kamakaeha and her husband was part of the suite and since the entire party came back to Honolulu on the Kilauea from Kalauapapa, it make sense that this was her first visit to the settlement.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)