From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen, Liliuokalani call his son of Kamehameha I in Appendix F and in Appendix G. No. 3., he calls him son of Kalaniopuu. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 01:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Why is that no one dare to contradict his paternity when talking about the ancestry of Bernice Pauahi Bishop and her mother Laura Kōnia, but modern authors and even contemporary readily contend that Princess Ruth was not descended from Kamehameha through Pauli.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 18:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC) reply

Age at the Battle of Mokuʻōhai

Simple math. He was 15, but is mentioning this original research? He didn't play a huge part in this battle beyond this.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 09:53, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Source for Hawaiian tradition of young male relatives having sexual relations with older female relatives which was removed:

  • Handy, E. S. Craighill; Pukui, Mary Kawena (1952). "The Polynesian Family System in Ka'u, Hawaii". Journal of the Polynesian Society 61 (Polynesian Society). pp. 243–282.

Please don't remove this is as reliable a source as the one you put forth. I actually can't find a single source from before 1900 calling Kaoleioku a poolua child.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 00:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

This isn't about what you cannot find. It is about what we do find. However, even you have stated that Stokes is a far superior source than this journal. What is your exact argument from this source to which we are to place such emphasis on it over the 1935 Stokes analysis? Forty-third annual report of the Hawaiian Historical Society for the year 1934.
No, for now this is what I shall do. I will change that in an original manner and back up the prose and text with two independent sources. The issue at hand is simple, the idea that Pauli was the natural son of Kamehameha I has never been a fully accepted story by historians or even the descendants of Pauli. The articles Family tree doesn't even show that, or is that your next step? Going to change the work of yet another editor to propagate this story as fact? It isn't that it can't be mentioned, just not as fact as most reliable sources are not claiming this.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
In other words...yeah, looking further into this in depth, I see there is a great question. Hey...its even on your own user page.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Also...don't tell editors not to revert themselves. They may do so. And reverting because you, yourself either believe it or want to continue the text as is, would be the argument, but directing others in that manner is uncivil.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Well heck...I don't even have to go look. This is another case where the sources being used do not exactly support that already. Two sources being used here support that Kamehameha was not the father. Both Stokes with one credited alongside Fornander. I am pretty sure these prominent historians opinion on this matter still outweighs the one journal. I will use the existing sources and summarize the information from them, but so far, it does appear that the belief is that Pauli was adopted. Bernice believes the Kamehameha story and writes it as fact, but she wasn't there. Stokes makes it clear (and even demonstrates it) that the story began many years after the battle and after a certain point.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Now, Kamakua does say that the children of Kamehameha were Pauli from Kanekapolei...but I am doubtful that alone would qualify as reliable in itself to override the doubts, but we would have to give it some weight as Kamakua is a well established historian, but he doesn't really comment on it, just states he was the son of Kamehameha through Kanekapolei. To me the compromise seems pretty clear...don't claim as fact that he is and weigh all the available sources as best we can. So, lets keep looking at the sources and see what the mainstream, academic opinion is. Either way, it isn't changing history. Ruth and Bernice are still a part of the Royal family anyway through other lines, and the prevailing doubt of the time in the family was well known and documented. This isn't anything new, but it should at least be demonstrated clearly.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 02:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply

The source isn't being used to support or denied who his father was. The phrase "who also had sexual relation with her nephew Kamehameha I in his youth, a practice common in ancient Hawaiian tradition" does not change anything following it in the paragraph which continues to affirms the doubt of his connection to Kamehameha. My problem with your edits in other articles was the fact you totally erased or disregarded any possibility of the connection between him and Kamehameha. I agree there is doubt and many sources and historians differ on the issue and thud it should be presented as such and never as a clear fact.

Your new approach on Kānekapōlei is what I support. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 13:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC) reply

Don't tell me what I used the source for. I know better than you how I used it. I would like to remove that source as I now feel it is rather weak, but if you object we can use it to demonstrate or illustrate the alternative native Hawaiian tradition, which is actually just one of many. I never disregarded any possible link, I am summarizing the mainstream, academic opinion, I perceive you as wishing not to acknowledge. I believe emphasis should be placed on Kalaniʻōpuʻu as that is what mainstream academics in both Hawaiian and Military history suggest. Family trees of people such as Bernice, Ruth etc, will show that line from Kamehameha's acceptance of Pauli but is not reliable sourcing to claim such as fact or emphasize Kamehameha. Present both but use the due weight scholars do with due weight to the more known and established academics.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 00:45, 13 February 2014 (UTC) reply
Mary Kawena Pukui is an authorative figure in Hawaiian culture and history. George Kanahele included her account in his biography of Bernice Pauahi Bishop. Her intepretation of history is important. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 06:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
I don't know what to say here. There is no single author, historian or figure who can be said to be more important than the other in regards to their interpretation of Hawaiian genealogy or history. If, for example, Mary Kawena Pukui makes a claim as fact that others do not agree is indeed a fact, we don't emphasize the author because of a perceived importance.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Of course not but she was among the most important. And If you mean she is one sided yes it is. So is Fornander. So is Kamakau. But it places this event into the Hawaiian kinship system. Where she got that I don't know probably from the stories and traditions of Hawaiian kupuna and her only family's oral tradition. Too bad Kawena is not alive to defend herself.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 06:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
She has no need to defend herself as she is not being judged or attacked, but if we go by family oral tradition alone....that would save so much time for me.....but i don't accept family oral tradition for Wikipedia but am VERY sensitive to those, who's family oral and written genealogy suggests many things. I believe we need to be sensitive to the families that call Kanekoplei family even if we, as yet, cannot demonstrate such events and genealogy are actual fact.
It's one of many interpretations of a controversial issue. It's not the family oral traditions you're thinking of, which is as conflicting with different families claiming different descents, and ultimately cannot be used for Wikipedia because of the sites policies. Family oral traditions published by a historian or academic is more reliable than from the words of a family. Samuel Kamakau and David Malo's works falls under the same scope as Kawena's work. They all started by recording down the words and memories of old Hawaiians who still remembered the past. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 07:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
No, it is exactly the family oral traditions I am speaking of KB. Believe it or not....there are indeed other family oral traditions and written accounts beyond just those authors and genealogists that you may be familiar with. That is why you really have to be more sensitive to the history and family genealogy. I would also remind you of something you stated sometime back...that family trees on Wikipedia do not require sourcing. So, while there are indeed a great deal of oral tradition not documented, the overall belief is strong enough to, for example, to link Kanekapolei to family that may not be written into the works of more notable people but cannot be mentioned in an article. That should only be done when the overwhelming opinion of the family lines are all almost without much question. Simply put, we can acknowledge the family trees and still stay within policy as long as we don't just make up stuff. Either that, or we start requiring a reliable source for every instance and link in a family tree on Wikipedia.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 07:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
This figure is interesting, controversial and a part of the history of Hawaii. However, not much has ever been proven about him. What we do know is that he is the son of Kanekapolei. Beyond that, everything is somewhat blurred but there are many that see things a little more cut and dry and only becuase, as i said, the sources don't refer to Pauli as a son of Kamehameha until well after a certain point. I do find that interesting.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 06:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Pauli_Kaōleiokū&oldid=1203197461"