Common law marriages are not used officially here. “The term common-law marriage (or similar) has wider informal use, often to denote relations that are not legally recognized as marriages. It is often used colloquially or by the media to refer to cohabiting couples, regardless of any legal rights or religious implications involved. This can create confusion in regard to the term and to the legal rights of unmarried partners (in addition to the actual status of the couple referred to).” No one here is arguing that the Hawaiian Kingdom recognized their relationship in any capacity. It is cited in secondary sources and that’s what is being reported. The repeated deletion of all other cited material except for an entry in 1900 census is blatantly bias. You literally added additional information not found in that source, that they stayed until they aged out/married out which is not stated in the records. And I’ve seen your interpretation that she was a caretaker to the children. Again where is the source for that? What evidence do you have where their father or legal guardian entrusted in Lizzie to raise them as a caretaker.
In my edited version, the information in the census is reported. You seem to place too much weight on the census given that it was likely filled out by a census taker, and Lizzie could have ulterior motives to list them as boarders and stating she never had children. What’s unconvincing as well is there are no records of their 1910 or 1920 census. The Whiting children are listed in her obituary as surviving family (absence is any mention to Macfarlane or any other adoptive children if you want to argue that it was just a list of her charges when she was a caregiver), and no corrections were made in the days after her death.
I am more than happy to state that the sources are unclear on the issue and report both sides but I am not going to allow you to delete all other sources just to present what’s in the census. KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
@HawaiiSpeakTruth and KAVEBEAR: I have put a one-week Extended Confirm (WP:ECP) protection on the page, giving the two of you time to work this out on the talk page. ECP protection prevents editing by new users (less than 30 days' tenure and less tha 500 edits). This talk page is not affected by the protection. Yes, Wikipedia is the place where everyone can edit. But, HawaiiSpeakTruth that doesn't mean a user can come in and dismantle an article and re-write it for what they believe is accurate or true. This needs to be resolved here on the talk page. Personally, I think we are jousting with terminology interpretation of what defines "Common law marriages". The wording means different things to different cultures. Please work it out here. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- It’s been a week and @HawaiiSpeakTruth: has not show signs of communicating here or on their talk page. KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @KAVEBEAR: HawaiiSpeakTruth has not edited at all since August 14, so maybe the issue is resolved. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
.svg)