Jump to content

Talk:Hawaiian Kingdom

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drake lazarus (talk | contribs) at 13:48, 12 October 2020. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconHawaii B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconFormer countries B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Template:Vital article

Notable people

This section currently features a dead link. Perhaps it is supposed to point towards https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_Hawaiians or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Hawaii? Drake lazarus (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Royal seat vs Capital

Kamehameha I and Kamehameha II hardly lived or operated from Lāhainā. Their royal courts were mobile and were where the government (Council of Chiefs) presided. Kailua definitely was a historical capital. If you are arguing the 1802 date for Lahaina because of the completion date of the Brick Palace, that building was just a house build for Kaahumanu and not a seat of government. The Brick Palace was never used for political activities even when Lahaina was the capital. Kamehameha III and his advisors lived and met elsewhere. Between 1802 and 1803 when he was building the peleleu war fleet, Lahaina was just one of the many mobile war camps of the king along with Kawaihae (before 1795), Waikiki and Hilo. Ahuena Heiau and the royal compound at Kailua was more important religiously and politically. Kamehameha I did not operate like the later Westernized kings. If we were to exclude the royal courts then Lāhainā would be considered the first modern capital but not until 1820 when Kamehameha II and Kaahumanu made it so. –KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kaahumanu had decided upon the transfer of the capital. So, without consulting the king, she called a meeting of the Grand Council of Chiefs to be held at Kailua on September 19, 1820. Kaahumanu presented the case ably and her proposal was prompdy endorsed by the Council. It was agreed that the transfer should be made as soon as possible.[1]

You are incorrect. Lahaina was the historic capitol of the Kingdom of Hawaii from 1802, as established by Kamehameha I and Kamehameha II and then moved to Honolulu in 1845. This is a summary of what the sources say and not due to a completion date of a structure.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What the source above is missing is a specific mention of what is being discussed and dates. It also does not disqualify Lahaina as the capital from 1802. You can say whatever you wish to about the Brick Palace but you use no source to back up your claims. Regardless of what you say above, the Brick Palace was indeed the royal residence of the king for 1 year.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No the exclusion of Kailua is not correct. Kailua was the capital and seat of Kamehameha’s government. The council of chiefs had to meet and move the capital to Lahaina in 1820. Your edits removed all the sources I put forward and most are travel booklets. Kamehameha I lived on Maui for a year and no governmental institutions were establish on Lahaina to justify your interpretation that “Kamehameha I moved his royal court but the capital remained were the palace and the royal taro patch were located and tended by the Kamehamehas”. I will compile a source of Kailua as capital from 1812 to 1820 shortly but I will try to differentiate between books on history and non-history books but it seems that most sources with date ranges are travel books. Not even Ka’ahumanu lived inside the Brick Palace. The article specifically states so.––KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
2 out of 5 is not "most of them".--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Kailua

  • Walker, Steven L.; Majorin, Matti P. (1992). Hawaiian Islands: Tropical Paradise of the Pacific. Scottsdale, AZ: Camelback Design Group. p. 30. ISBN 978-1-879924-04-8. OCLC 26480127.
This does not appear to have a preview so you'll need to provide a snippet of the portion that directly supports the claim.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Source states; "Three distinct areas comprise the Kona district: North Kona, South Kona, and the "big city" of Kailua-Kona. The bustling commercial hub was the capital of Hawaii from 1812 to 1819, when King Kamehameha the Great lived out his life at …" This is enough for me to agree to include that.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, this does not validate the claim but only implies it.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This source implies a few things about Lahiana but only makes a direct claim about Honolulu that contradicts other sources. It states Honolulu became the capital in 1850 and other sources say 1845.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because Kamehameha III established his court in Honolulu in 1845, and on August 30, 1850 Honolulu was proclaimed the official capital by the Privy Council. -KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't just drop off references in a discussion. Please show how these sources specifically support your claims. Not all are available to read. Also, the sources removed can be added back if they support the facts being claimed unambiguously. Sources must directly support the claim with dates.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Klieger short citation did not have the corresponding reference and my revert was some time after you placed yours. I can only assume the reference you were using was Moku'ula : Maui's sacred island by P. Christiaan Klieger. If you could supply a snippet that supports the claim that would be great since it is not available online. Of course it could be available through my local library but the discussion would have to hold while I went through locating an available copy to be sent to my local library.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
”In 1802 and 1803, Kamehameha and his court resided in Lahaina. With a retinue of 1,000, the king built a brick "palace" on the point in front of the present-day public library, surrounded by his court.” Kamehameha left Maui in 1803 for Oahu and ruled from there until 1812.–KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I need to look into this more. Sources do not have to be online but I make it easier by posting snippets soon. I really have not look critically at the moment.—KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just found the source of my edits. I added the list of capitals years ago. This was the main source I used years ago to create the list of capitals before your edits. Hence why I didn’t mention the 1802 and 1803 period since Lahaina was not mentioned by date by Kanahele in this section of the book.—KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clear consensus

From the original revert that KAVEBEAR made, he did agree, with a source, that Lahaina was the capital of the kingdom in 1802 but his source seems to indicate that it moved in 1803. This is where sources differ and where KAVEBEAR seems to say he has a source that at least states that there was some sort of Transfer by Kaahumanu while other sources claim it was Kamehameha II. Either way, the point is that there was an official declaration of Laahaina being designated as the capitol in 1820. KAVEBEAR's source seems to indicate some sort of transfer which implies the capitol was elsewhere but does not explicitly state so.


But so far we agree on the following;

  • Lahaina was the capital in 1802
  • Kailua can be referenced to at least one reliable source as having been the capital from 1812 to 1820 however...it is a weak source as an e-book travel book from a lesser known publisher begun in 1985. Frommer's is the top publisher of it's kind and has a history of fact checking.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I google "Kailua capital Kingdom of Hawaii 1812-1820" I get About 29 results (0.39 seconds) and nothing specific. That's not exactly well known or published information if it is accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I cut the key words down it helps; this one is stronger but has no dating. --Mark Miller (talk) 00:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. I'd call this clear consensus now. Sure there is more and perhaps with more detail. I'll keep looking.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Searching Kailua (or Lahaina) and date ranges will get us nowhere because a legitimate historical source would not do that. A legitimate source would mention the establishment and transfer of capitals and royal seats as the case with the Kanahele and Mellen sources; not X city was capital from xx to xx. I realized the caliber of the source were lacking but the same can be said with the sources you added: Frommer (I disagree on how well it knows history given it gets less knowledgeable in general when dealing specific details), Berlitz Guide, and The Americas dictionary. I will look into this more in the next few days.–KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not to Wikipedia standards for sourcing. A legitimate source is not as you defined it above. Sources can be used to source facts If all of the facts are not found in a single source, it may take multiple sources to reference a claim especially if the claim contains multiple facts that cannot necessarily be found in a single source. As far as the Frommer source being more well known and having a reputation for fact checking, that is part of checking the reliability of the source and can effect the strength of the source. Not really anything to debate over since a weaker source simply requires more, stronger sourcing and we have that now. As far as caliber of source, that is something that is decided by consensus as long as the source meets Wikipedia standards for what a reliable source is. Right now, one can see certain aspects have a clear consensus between the two of us alone from the discussion and from the edits. I don't see much room for debate over the inclusion or exclusion of anything unless it can be established and demonstrated that it does not support the claim it references.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:55, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since we can at least agree that the Frommers and Berlitz Guide are weaker sources as travel guides even if RS, and we have enough sources in this regard, I can agree to loose them from the list but they could be used in the body of the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kamehameha I had shifting capitals between Waikiki (later Honolulu), Kailua-Kona and Lāhainā.-KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier use of Waikiki and Honolulu

We still also need to discuss the years between 1803 when Kamehameha left Maui for Oahu with his peleleu war fleet to conquer Kauai and 1812 when he returned to Kailua.-KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier, under the rule of Kamehameha I, the capital was in Waikiki near Honolulu from 1804 to 1809 and in what is now downtown Honolulu from 1809 to 1812.
Kamehameha the Great, as he is now known, shifted the capital several times. In 1804, he moved the royal family from Kailua-Kona to Waikīkī, and then to Honolulu during 1809, in preparation to wrest control of Kaua‛i and Ni‛ihau from Kaumauli‛i.
He centralized the religious system as well, bringing the sorcery gods of Moloka'i to his capital (first in Honolulu and later in Kailua-Kona) to help control
1804. Kamehameha moved his capital to Honolulu on Oahu. The excellent harbor attracted ships from many parts of the world and made Honolulu the chief port in the Islands and the Pacific.

Whitewash of U.S. citizens' involvement

User:Rjensen has twice deleted the phrase "largely at the hands of United States citizens" from the intro, claiming it is false and unsupported. However, other Wikipedia articles provide ample support. For example, from Overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii:

The overthrow itself was started by newspaper publisher Lorrin Thurston, a Hawaiian subject and former Minister of the Interior who was the grandson of American missionaries,[1] and formally led by the Chairman of the Committee of Safety, Henry E. Cooper, an American lawyer. They derived their support primarily from the American and European business class residing in Hawaii and other supporters of the Reform Party of the Hawaiian Kingdom. Most of the leaders of the Committee of Safety that deposed the queen were United States and European citizens who were also Kingdom subjects.[2][3][4] They included legislators, government officers, and a Supreme Court Justice of the Hawaiian Kingdom.[5]

Jeff in CA (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

POV is when an editor selects facts to make a political point germane to his politics in 2018. It's a bad habit. All the leaders were permanent Hawaiian residents and only a minority were US citizens. As for the Queen-- her advisors were likewise mostly of European descent. The native Hawaiians had very little say one way or the other (likewise the large and fast growing Japanese element). The idea of tolerating an absolute monarch was very much out of fashion worldwide in 1890s (with Russia the main exception--and that one was assassinated). American influence had been dominant for 60 or more years in Hawaii. Rjensen (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you modify all the other articles as well and explain why References 2, 3 and 4 below are incorrect. Jeff in CA (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
they seem to assume that the Queen planned to get rid of her actual advisors and replace them with people of old Hawaiian ancestry, and they seem to approve of this racist move. There is no evidence whatever of that. She had few such advisors or close associates at any time. She and nearly all her advisors were trained in American culture (not native Hawaiians) --she also mingled with Americans like her husband John Owen Dominis (born in New York). Her Her ministers and closest friends all opposed her attempt to impose a new constitution. Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rjensen: This was brought up to me by User:Steve laudig. Pinging @Jeff in CA: as well. Your politics in 2018 comment disregards the growing new scholarly research into the indigenous Hawaiian perspective which tells a different story. You’re version ascribe too much to older narrative that demonized the monarchy and blamed Kalakaua and Liliuokalani. It was revisionist history that skewed in favor of the overthrowers. Phrases such as “absolute power” (Kalakaua did not have absolute power; absolute power meant he could act unilaterally which he couldn’t, he ruled as a constitutional monarch but more powerful than other constitutional monarch such as in Britain; the last absolute Hawaiian monarch was Kamehameha III) and “when her army did not rally to her defense” (Hawaii didn’t have a standing army and she refused for her guards to act with force suspecting the US marines will reinforce the revolutionaries if she did). As for the involvement, it is indisputable that the instigators of the overthrow were white men composed of Hawaii-born American, naturalized subjects or foreigners of American or European descent. And Native Hawaiians definitely advised the queen and the growing prominence of Hawaiians in government and sense of nationalism was a contributing factor to why the white elite wanted annexation to the US as well. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as the quote above states, "Most of the leaders of the Committee of Safety that deposed the queen were United States and European citizens who were also Kingdom subjects" they were citizens of Hawaii regardless of dual citizenship with US, UK, France and other countries. Rjensen (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ethnicity matters. Using another example, the American Revolution would have been much different if the Native Americans were the leaders of the revolution and not Anglo-American settlers. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Further breakdown of those involved: Six Hawaiian subjects (all white, four descend from the American missionaries), five American citizens with no Hawaiian citizenship, a German subject with no Hawaiian citizenship, and a British subject with no Hawaiian citizenship composed the committee of thirteen responsible for the overthrow. [2]. Many of the Hawaiian subject of American descent were educated in the US, lived there for a time and identified strongly as American (you can read this recent book Hawaiian by Birth: Missionary Children, Bicultural Identity, and U.S. Colonialism in the Pacific). Saying it was solely US citizen is wrong but saying it was solely the Hawaiian citizens (divorcing their white ethnicity and imperial era racism) acting is even worst. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Roark, James L.; Johnson, Michael P.; Cohen, Patricia Cline; Stage, Sarah; Hartmann, Susan M. (January 9, 2012). The American Promise, Combined Volume: A History of the United States. Bedford/St. Martin's. p. 660. ISBN 978-0-312-66312-4.
  2. ^ Vernon M. Briggs (January 1, 2003). Mass Immigration and the National Interest: Policy Directions for the New Century. M.E. Sharpe. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-7656-0934-2.
  3. ^ Vernon M. Briggs (2001). Immigration and American Unionism. Cornell University Press. p. 58. ISBN 0-8014-8710-2.
  4. ^ Tom Ginsburg; Rosalind Dixon (January 1, 2011). Comparative Constitutional Law. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 181. ISBN 978-0-85793-121-4.
  5. ^ Andrade, Jr., Ernest (1996). Unconquerable Rebel: Robert W. Wilcox and Hawaiian Politics, 1880–1903. University Press of Colorado. p. 130. ISBN 0-87081-417-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |month= and |coauthors= (help)

Changing the name requires more consensus at the moment and changing two articles is not addressing the problem and can be viewed as disruptive.

I would like the get a definition of "consensus" and even the "notion" of consensus on matters of fact is also problematic. The objection that "changing two articles is not addressing the problem" I find a bit problematic as one must start somewhere and it's seems an invalid objection that since the change isn't universal it shouldn't be done at all. If the consensus is that 2 +2 is 5, its a consensus but not a correct answer:

Aloha KaveBEar:

Could we have a conversation about this point? I can be emailed at SteveLaudig@gmail.com. I believe that I can present evidence that there is a distinction that needs recognition between the term "Hawaiian Kingdom" and "Kingdom of Hawaii". They are not synonyms. I propose we discuss it since you object to the changes. The summary of the argument is that the "Kingdom of Hawai'i" would apply until unification after that the almost uniform reference made by the government itself as "Hawaiian Kingdom" not "Kingdom of Hawaii", as evidenced in official documents, including 1852 Constitution Title 1864 Constitution Art. 47 73 76

1887 Constitution Art. 11; 20 45 46 59 76 Signature page

Nearly all treaties use the term "King of Hawaiian Islands" The http://hawaiiankingdom.org/pdf/Sweden_Norway_Treaty.pdf

I have found no instance of it systematically calling itself the "Kingdom of Hawaii"

This is just a sample. I assume we share an interest in factual accuracy. And the "Kingdom of Hawaii" is, in my opinion, inaccurate even if used.

If one searches on the term "Supreme Court of the Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands" one gets returns to the official court reports. So the executive branch refers to the country as the "Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands" as does the judicial branch. Likewise the legislative branch. https://books.google.com/books/about/Members_of_the_Hawaiian_Kingdom_House_of.html?id=XitqmQEACAAJ 


I don't quite follow this comment at all " The second link you provided is literally a fake book of an old Wikipedia category I created showing I had issues with consistency then. "

I provided two links. One to a treaty. The second was, if I understand what you are stating, a fake book text that you created and left laying around on the internet. May I suggest that all such fakes be labelled as such that they are not inadvertently, and innocently passed, on, as I did, here.

You have to understand how to use Google Books for research which was what I was saying when I point out you linked a fake source that mirrors a Wikipedia Category link. I left nothing laying around on the internet. Wikipedia encrypts anything created here online and I had no part in it and cannot do anything about these false links. The link is basically a fake book listing 72 pages of Wikipedia articles from Category:Members of the Hawaiian Kingdom House of Nobles. The link literally says “Source: Wikipedia”.KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But the factual point is that is that. I didn't provide links, thinking it unnecessary, to the Constitutions in which the term used in Article 46 of 1864 is. "This Body shall be styled the Legislature of the Hawaiian Kingdom."

So I suppose if I understand the terms of engagement here the issue needs to be discussed. As I am new to this I propose it be discussed and after discussion if it is deemed an erronous the error [or whatever one wishes to call it, that systematic steps be taken to explain and emend it.

I am interested in being enlightened as to the rules for the discussion. I don't see how confusion is engedered by a satisfactory explanatory noting things. If a professional historian is needed I can ask if he'd be willing to provide advice/suggestions on the historiography of the terms.

If I have omitted a step I look forward to being advised.

In sum the issue is rectifying/clarifying "Kingdom of Hawaii" [which did exist on Hawaii Island for a while] versus "Hawaiian Kingdom or Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands" which was the term Hawaiians came to use. And I think it is important consideration what the Hawaiians used, not non-Hawaiians however qualified they may, or may not be, as historians.

Mahalo and Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve laudig (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve laudig, you sent a Wiki email to User:GreenC bot but that is a backend computer process that happened to make an edit to this page. You probably meant to email someone else you may be involved in a conversation with here. -- GreenC 19:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second that notion. It seems that, perhaps, after "Hawaii Territory" was changed to "Territory of Hawai'i" and then to "State of Hawai'i", people began referring to what was always called the Hawaiian Kingdom to "Kingdom of Hawai'i." This is perhaps the reason for the proliferation and wide usage of the misnomer "Kingdom of Hawaii." I invite all to do historical research themselves, and see indeed the term Hawaiian Kingdom, and the term King of the Hawaiian Islands is constantly referred to in original documents. To not change the name of this article would make its title a historically inaccurate. Let's make the change. Cheers :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.117.161 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is likely a cause since looking at old newspapers. The proliferation of Kingdom of Hawaii dates before the advent of Wikipedia or the internet. It may also have been bolstered by the Apology Resolution which used KofH. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move to Hawaiian Kingdom 3 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. The provided evidence shows that Hawaiian Kingdom is the common name for this country. (non-admin closure)​ — Newslinger talk 03:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– Per above and this ngram showing that sources predominantly uses Hawaiian Kingdom. Further supporting prove should be forwarded as well. It would be problematic if Wikipedia is popularizing "Kingdom of Hawaii" because of naming conventions despite what the sources say. I want this to be a discussion of this large scale change and any oppose to be backed by sources rather than opinions. I've been sympathizing with the anon-editors who have been changing the naming convention and Steve Laudig for a long time but only opposed because of the logistic nightmare of switching over in every in-article text referring to Kingdom of Hawaii or Hawaiʻi to Hawaiian Kingdom. But now I think the logistics of switching over would not be problematic with the use of a bot or something. Not listed here are also all the categories containing the phrase "Kingdom of Hawaii". Pinging: Maile66, Steve laudig, Mark Miller KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other examples that Kingdom of X is not an absolute convention include: Merina Kingdom and Zulu Kingdom KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the change in article titles relating to the Kingdom. I also want to mention that I have access to copies of the Session Laws of Hawaii from the mid-1880s through 1892 -- the documents (which are the official government records of laws passed by the House of Nobles and House of Representatives and enacted by the Monarch) all make reference to the "Hawaiian Kingdom" rather than "Kingdom of Hawaii." @KAVEBEAR: just out of curiosity, do you know why there is a spike in references to "Kingdom of Hawaii" in the ngram between about 1880 and 1910? Aoi (青い) (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really know. Ngrams are not that great to be honest. You have to search it on Google Books as well. Searching it: HK vs KoH shows that Hawaiian Kingdom was more readily use during this period. Another case for Hawaiian Kingdom may be the works of Ralph Simpson Kuykendall whose three volume work is probably the seminal history of Hawaii from the 20th century. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The third one in your list is an empire, not a kingdom. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We are just going back and forth with Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Also not many sources exist for the usage of British Kingdom, Yugoslav Kingdom or Italian Kingdom (at least with the uppercase K) while many sources do exist for the usage of "Hawaiian Kingdom". KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources? Could you name me a couple? --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 18:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a few. KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary Sources - just based on titles of book alone not counting content

History of the Hawaiian Kingdom by Norris Whitfield Potter, ‎Lawrence M. Kasdon, ‎Ann Rayson
Palaces and Forts of the Hawaiian Kingdom: From Thatch to American Florentine by Walter F. Judd
The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1778-1854 : Foundation and transformation by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall
The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1854-1874: twenty critical years by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall
The Hawaiian Kingdom: 1874-1893, the Kalakaua dynasty by Ralph Simpson Kuykendall
Inventing Politics: A New Political Anthropology of the Hawaiian Kingdom by Juri Mykkänen
The Gods Depart: A Saga of the Hawaiian Kingdom by Kathleen Dickenson Mellen
The United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom: A Political History by Merze Tate
The Victorian visitors: an account of the Hawaiian Kingdom, 1861-1866, including the journal letters of Sophia Cracroft; extracts from the journals of Lady Franklin, and diaries and letters of Queen Emma of Hawaii. - technically this is a primary source but the title of the book is selected by the compiler
A tree in bud: the Hawaiian kingdom, 1889-1893 by Georges Sauvin

Primary Sources

Liliuokalani's declaration upon her overthrow [3]
1864, 1887, 1893 Constitutions of the Hawaiian Kingdom
Compiled Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom
The Penal Code of the Hawaiian Kingdom, Compiled from the Penal Code of 1850
Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the Hawaiian Kingdom and Other Powers, Since 1825
Statutes of the Hawaiian Kingdom Relating to Apprentices and Contract Laborer: With a Synopsis of Rulings and Decisions of the Supreme Court Thereon
Patent Laws of the Hawaiian Kingdom and Rules of Practice in the Patent Office
A Brief History of Land Titles in the Hawaiian Kingdom
I have withdrawn my oppose vote. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well the current name is also ambiguous for the pre-conquest state of the Kingdom of Hawaii (island) ruled by the Keawe line which the Kamehameha dynasty was a part of. The unified state that was form in 1795 was the "Hawaiian Islands", but the predominant terminology for the state prior to 1893 was the "Hawaiian Kingdom" if you were to reference the constitutions of 1864, 1887 and 1893 and other diplomatic documents. To address the ambiguity, we can have a disambiguation page or tab for the Hawaiian kingdoms redirect. But at this point there are no articles for the pre-conquest states of Maui, Kauai, Oahu and Hawaii Island. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hawaiian_Kingdom&oldid=983140784"