Talk:David Kawānanakoa

Referenced claims only

The current geopolitical situation surrounding the succession to the current Kingdom of Hawaii makes the article a possible target to supporters and opponents of a particular royal line. The article must remain nuetral to any realtime situations in order to maintain an encyclopedic tone and stay true to the biography.

If the claim that the Kawānanakoa line was established as the immediate succesors to the Queen at the time indicated by the edit that was removed it must be sourced. The reference must match and support the claim. Care and sensetivity to the fact that these are also all relatives...cousins, aunts and uncles some more distant than others and many claims be made for the throne. Sounds a little like a victorian fantasy...but the Kingdom of Hawaii was modeled after the British Monarchy after all, but at the heart of all this may well be a private family matter to be decided outside the pages of wikipedia. There is undoubtably information that can clearly be referenced and this article should be expanded.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although mentioning the kingdom of ʻi is probably a typo (I think there was such an entity around Hilo?). Also removing the New York Times article is questionable. I will add it back, but do agree we should only make claims that are in the source (i.e. the public betrothal). The other interesting connection I ran across was that his wife's step-father was his Republican opponent in the 1900 election. Should also mention his brother turned Republican (and won). But again need sources for these. W Nowicki (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

OK...if you mention the line of succession why scrub the number? Also, I believe the term "around the time" to be questionable terminology for wikipedia. It would be more accurate to simply name the exact line in the article as derived from historic documents that match with all referenced material. The line was set. It is documented, referenced and included in both of the two other articles of the Royal Family that were first and second in line. Is there a dispute I am unaware of. If so it is probably something that could be mentioned if properly sourced. Over 100 years of writing must have some account of the aftermath of the overthrow and the effect on the line of succession. Surely something can be found even an internet site if it has proper editorial oversite may contain information, but the article as it stands has a small OR problem, not the biggest issue to worry about but will eventualy become probelmatic as the article grows and information doesn't match other articles. Are we to change the other articles without the proper references? I think it may be best to minimise the wording in order not to make the biography inaccurate.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what you are proposing? I was trying to follow the guidelines for lead sections: they should summarize and provide general context. The body already said he was "third" in 1883, and then when the King and Princess died he moved up, as disucussed in the body in more detail. The body can add yet more detail for sure, but leads should summarize and get readers to go into the body if they want to read the whole story. I think newspapers (although they can get deails wrong too) are slightly better than web sites as sources, which is why I added some. Certainly if you have better sources please add them too.

And yes, please do change other articles to have reliable sources. Many were written years ago when people were careless with sourcing. I try now and then but it is a big task and time-consuming, so help is appreciated. Thanks. W Nowicki (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper article about funeral

In the newspaper article about his funeral, it says that his funeral was the grandest since Kalakaua's funeral, but didn't Queen Kapiolani and Princess Kaiulani died before Kawananakoa; I think their funeral would have been as grand if not more. Also it mentions a Catholic service by Bishop Libert on his casket...wasn't he an Anglican or Calvinist like all 19th century Hawaiian royals? Liliuokalani complained that Queen Emma's funeral was Calvinist when she was an Anglican, but for a Protestant to have a Catholic funeral...I think she wouldn't have been really happy unless Prince Kawananakoa was actually a Catholic.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how the funerals of the current Kawananakoas are like?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well news media might sometimes exaggerate. Imagine wikipedians a hundred years from now trying to reproduce actual events from recordings of Jon Stewart and Glenn Beck, for example. As for church affiliation, feel free to research futher and use whatever sources seem most reliable. I did note that the Church of Hawaii (the offshoot of Anglican which became part of the US Episcopal) was called "Reformed Catholic" at the time, but Libert H. Boeynaems of course was Roman Catholic. Either would not be surprising; later royalty generally liked the nominations with elaborate ceremony (i.e. not Calvinist), but faith was a personal preference. W Nowicki (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

You know what he converted to Roman Catholicism about a year before his death.[1]--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Current infobox image

Is there some details about this image that we can expand on. What age was the subject? Where was it taken and under what circumstances. If nothing is available that is fine....but this image is freaking me out. Are we sure this is him?--Amadscientist (talk) 05:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it is him. These type are retouched photographs made by James J. Williams. I've upload multiple images of the prince on the wiki commons.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Religion

There is good reason to believe that was an Anglican/Episcopalian (thus member of the royally sanctioned Church of Hawaii) before his Catholic conversion later in life since he went to a private Episcopal school and source state his younger brother Edward was baptized by Bishop Staley, although still can't find no direct reference.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on David Kawānanakoa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320235026/http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/governme/index/assoc/HASH012f/eff08168.dir/Kawananakoa,%20David%20Prince.jpg to http://archives1.dags.hawaii.gov/gsdl/collect/governme/index/assoc/HASH012f/eff08168.dir/Kawananakoa,%20David%20Prince.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)