Talk:Kānekapōlei

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

older[edit]

I have commented out the family tree that appears to be incorrect. I will leave it out for the moment and ask that, that be respected until further research is finished please. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree[edit]

Here are the sources:

  • Pauli Kaōleiokū was the son of Kānekapōlei and either Kamehameha I or Kalaniʻōpuʻu. (Stokes 1935, p. 16)
  • Kaōleiokū and Kahailiopua Luahine were parents of Kōnia. (Stokes 1935, p. 16)
  • Kaōleiokū and Keoua were parents of Pauahi. (Stokes 1935, p. 16)
  • Pauahi was the mother of Ruth Keʻelikōlani. (Stokes 1935, p. 16)
  • Kōnia was the mother of Bernice Pauahi Bishop. (Stokes 1935, p. 16)
  • Bernice Pauahi Bishop adopted Keolaokalani. (Kanahele 2002, pp. 104-105)
  • Ruth Keʻelikōlani was the mother of William Pitt Kīnau. (Zambucka 1977, pp. 19–20)

Generally family trees are not sourced on Wikipedia. I can added sources if you want. I can just use the single Hawaiian Historical Society journal article already used in this article for most of them. All these connections are sourced and attested in Stokes, who actually did a detail analysis on this topic using many primary and secondary sources. I can even list many more sources linking these people in a family tree.

What inaccuracies are you trying to point? I have no idea what new knowledge you plan to add to this subject. But Wikipedia forbids users from generating original research, which sounds like what you are doing, so I advise unless you plan on publishing your work and challenging the consensus establish by historians and genealogists so far, to refrain from challenging the accepted sources which support this family tree.

I will let Wikipedia:Third opinion decide on this argument. Feel free to present your case, some of which are on my talk page. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
Looks like a non-starter. I don't see any credible reason supplied by User:Mark Miller at this time to dispute the well-sourced information already in there. Feel free to follow-up on my talk page if I can assist in any way. Thanks! GRUcrule (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have only attempted to keep in contact with Kavebear on some research that shows that the family tree shown here is inaccurate to actual probate records from the petitions of each family member to their bloodline. Repeated myths are not actual records of relations and there are a number of commons mistakes. Since Kavebear has asked for a third opinion and that was more of a decision for one side and not a discussion to even bother to allow me to present my sources. I will simply not bother for now. Mistakes of this nature are common and it seems that the sources are using some of the most common mistakes.

"Pauli Kaōleiokū was the son of Kānekapōlei and either Kamehameha I or Kalaniʻōpuʻu". That is not stating anything as fact that should be used on a family tree. It's more than worth a mention in the prose but is not enough to show in the tree GRUcrule. However probate records show that Kalaniʻōpuʻu was the father. The legend is that Kānekapōlei had an intimate relationship with a young Kamehameha. That has been shown to be a simply Hanai adoption. Not a true blood relation. Ruth stated so through her representatives in probate court. That is my issue. From that the tree begins to show further incorrect information that probagates a myth not supported by any RS I can find.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is Stokes article not a reliable source? The conclusion is that there is a probability that Kamehameha was a father of Kaōleiokū along with Kalaniopuu. You are using primary sources which I have yet to seen any trace of while my stance is supported by accepted academic sources all reliable. It seems you doing a lot of original research which is not allowed here on Wikipedia. Go to the Bishop Museum, Hawaiian Historical Society or even Kamehameha Schools and ask them. My tree acknowledge both sides of the story and doesn't blindly support one because one single source found in the court records not even used by academics.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stokes makes no claim either way. Therefore it is not reliable to make a claim either way. You have seen a trace of the primary source Kave...you directed me to it and have posted it just recently on my talk page so that is also not entirely accurate. What you may not have at your disposal is the full text of all the petitions. I am NOT using original research. Absolutely not. I have been in contact with the Bishop Museum and spoken directly to the head archivist. He stated clearly that they are not the authority on the genealogy of the royal family and that their family tree may well be inaccurate. We already know that Pauli was adopted by Kamehameha. Such is worth a mention but is not a part of what constitutes a family tree.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The tree acknowledges both claims. Did Bishop Museum say that the petitions were the authority on the genealogy of the royal family? You seem to acknowledge the fact Kaoleioku is a po'olua child but not accept that Kamehameha could be a biological father. What source stated that Kamehameha adopted him? The source stated that Kamehameha acknowledge him as a child of his beardless youth; interpreting what he meant I'd impossible and there lies the controversy. Both sides should be acknowledge. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I am saying you do not have a reliable source to make the claims here as accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be best to open an RfC at this point, as it seems apparent that you two feel strongly on your differing opinions. Thoughts, Mark Miller, KAVEBEAR? GRUcrule (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The source does not claim this. Synthesis. Combing facts to create another fact. Content dispute commenting out for now." Why is that every comment and edit you make you make me more confuse than before. What do you mean by "this"? .....It is typically impossible to create family tree without more than one source. I strongly object to you calling this synthesis. If I remove Pitt Kinau and Keolaokalani, the entire tree can be found in Stokes' article even the controversial links to Kamehamhea and Kalaniopuu. So where is the synthesis? I specifically removed Kamehamhea and Kalaniopuu from the tree because of the controversy. What are you claiming now that Kānekapōlei was not the mother of Kaoleioku or Kaoleioku was grandfathers to Keelikolani and Bernice Pauahi? You remember my earlier messages to you about your ancestor's connection the Moana family, that was found across multiple sources too. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I have been far too patient with you. There IS a very real dispute that Kanekapolei had any sexual relations with Kamehameha...a little research might suggest how stupid the entire suggestion is and why the royal Family disputed it. The age issue being one but the main fact is...the family tree should never had included Kamehameha as the most common belief is that Kamehameha only adopted Paulie and only to keep the peace. As an adopted "child" of Kamehameha, he was accepted as his son. The tree is one thing but the article is another . I believe the info was still there and I will check to remove it if not already.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above:

Pauli Kaōleiokū was the son of Kānekapōlei and either Kamehameha I or Kalaniʻōpuʻu. (Stokes 1935, p. 16) Kaōleiokū and Kahailiopua Luahine were parents of Kōnia. (Stokes 1935, p. 16) Kaōleiokū and Keoua were parents of Pauahi. (Stokes 1935, p. 16) Pauahi was the mother of Ruth Keʻelikōlani. (Stokes 1935, p. 16) Kōnia was the mother of Bernice Pauahi Bishop. (Stokes 1935, p. 16)

If the source here is from Stokes article in the Hawaiian Historical Society of 1934 (printed in 35)...then you may want to re-think your strategy here. That article from Stokes supports the claim that paternity is from Kalaniʻōpuʻu. While it is not conclusive, it wieghs all the sources (and plenty of them there are) including Fornander with the opinion that they were mistaken about Kamehameha being the father.. But you have Stokes agreeing with the Kamehameha theory. He doesn't. This report very much indicates that Stokes believed otherwise.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...and you are actually making up the your first point as page 16 of Stokes does not say that at all. In the "Table of Characters" it shows Kalaniʻōpuʻu as the father with Kanekapolei. Kamehameha is in a separate table and line.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kanekapolei, Kamehameha I and other husbands[edit]

Some of the traditional stories appear to state that, while Kamehameha the Great was still young and hairless, he had sexual relations with Kanekapolei and the result was Pauli Kaoleioku. The problem is...Kamehameha is dated to have been born in 1737 and Kanekaoplei was born in about 1755. Pauli was born in 1767, making Kanekapolei about 12 at the time of his birth. While possible and even probable that she had children at this young age it makes Kamehameha 30 years old. Now we know the dating is not completely accurate but...the Battle of Mokuohai took place another 15 years later. It is clear that the age differences and simple math do not support the story as accurate and with balance in its proper proportion. Even at the time of Bernice Bishop there is documented accounts of writers and other royals stating that the connection was not accurate. Kamehameha simply stopped his Hanai adopted son from being killed after the boys brother had been. It was also a gesture of peace to stop further bloodshed of family members. As an adopted child of Kamehameha he would not have had a blood line that made him in line for the throne and even Kamehameha V seemed to understand this.

If we treat this as it should, we should be covering a broader range of sources and be as clear as possible what the encyclopedic information is and what is currently not supported by reliable sources in a clear and unambiguous manner. Also the article is missing one of her husbands. Lula from Alika Hawaii. There may be some other spellings or names that this figure went by. Some non reliable sources are claiming Kanekapolei was married to someone named Mela or Alika Mela. The two names "Lula" and Mela" are too close not to believe it possible for them to be the same person as even Kanekapolei had multiple spellings in other sources. Alika Mela did exist and was a konohiki listed in the Mahele records. I believe Mela is mentioned in at least two or three reliable sources, one saying that he was actually English. I need to locate these sources but the source mentioning "Lula" appears to be somewhat weak. Its an LDS genealogy site and they seem to have a major issue with, spelling, dates, marriages, children etc. It's very incomplete and too many errors to be considered reliable and may be why Lula is not mentioned. Don't know. Looking at other sources for now.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How reliable is the 1755 birth date for her? The Kekoolani site is a genealogical site is not too reliable. 1737??? . Don't be too sure...Even Kamehamhe's birth year is disputed.
  • Hawaiian Historical Society (1936). "Report to the Hawaiian Historical Society by its Trustees Concerning the Birth Date of Kamehameha I and Kamehameha Day Celebrations". Hawaiian Journal of History. Hawaiian Historical Society: 6–18. hdl:10524/50.
  • John F. G. Stokes (1933). "New Bases for Hawaiian Chronology". Hawaiian Journal of History. Hawaiian Historical Society: 6–65. hdl:10524/70.
  • {cite journal |work= Hawaiian Journal of History |title= The Legend of Kokoiki and the Birthday of Kamehameha I |author= Maud W. Makemson |hdl= 10524/50|year= 1936 |volume= |publisher=Hawaiian Historical Society |pages=44–50}}
Oh sure. Kamehameha's birth date is in dispute...as is his death. What have it firm as May 8, but a lot of older sources say May 8-14, because the friends that were attending him waited for a Lunar event after Kamehameha had died to hide his body and announce that the King was dead. They stated that they waited just under a week and that back dates to the 8th, but they never confirmed a date. Kekoolani being a genealogy site does not make it "not reliable". The author is a notable genealogist who has placed all his research up for the royal family. It basis out of Kekoolani.org, the official website for the Kekoolani family. Are there mistakes? Perhaps, but I haven't noticed any. Is there a question about dating all of the figures. Yes. There are two theories of dating with a difference of about 20 years. Park Service has this: "Accounts vary, but many think that Kamehameha (originally named Pai'ea) was born into a royal family in North Kohala sometime between 1753 and 1761, possibly in November 1758. ". --Mark Miller (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pauli Kaōleiokū[edit]

This reliable source has one of the strongest cases against Pauli being the son of Kamehameha by bringing all of the primary sources together for analysis and interpretation by expert translators and genealogists. Forty-third annual report of the Hawaiian Historical Society for the year 1934. This section entitled:"Kaoleioku paternity and biographical sketch" , Stokes clearly believes that Fornander was simply taking an uncritical record of two contemporary sources without question and that sources before that time show paternity as being Kalaniʻōpuʻu. Stokes believes these earlier sources to be more reliable and to be accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This was the source I kept mentioning. Stokes doesn't place the whole blame on Fornander because Samuel Kamakau states the same thing years before Fornander.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that they are contemporaries of each other, just when one stated anything is irrelevant.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does because Fornander was influenced by Kamakau, who was one of the first Hawaiians to write down the genealogy passed down by oral traditions. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate[edit]

Personal genealogy sites are not reliable sources and any dates prior to Cook are up to debate. The dates we know for sure are base on Hawaiian oral traditions found I printed published sources. Find me that and I will accept this date. The Kekoolani site is not anymore reliable than royal ark. It sources the stuff but most of them are dubious materials. If you look through all the sources stack on her name on that site I can bet you money that not a single one will say "about 1750" in either English or Hawaiian.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are incorrect. The official site of the Kekoolani family can be used to source this information.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is an incorrect source at least on the part about the date. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a personal agenda against the source. I don't really care. Either you demonstrate that it is not a reliable source by our standards or just stop.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop forcefully asserting yourself in everything removing my edits. Requesting a third opinion is a definite course of action here. I have no personal agenda other than the fact that it is not entirely accurate. I found descriipancies in the past when using this site when I compared it to written sources, I found little written sources dating the birth years of most of the more famous chiefs and I don't see how anyone can know the date or even an estimate or her birthdate. It is like citing a Wikipedia article in a research paper. You have the footnotes but not necessarily all the informations are found in the footnotes because the creator can add something not found in the sources base on good faith estimate on his part and stick a footnote behind it talking about something completely different. Your opinion on the reliability of this source has been heard and we know it goes against mine.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't care about opinion here. Seriously. You act as if you are the ultimate authority on Hawaiian figures and your opinion is superior to the source because you doubt it or can't understand it? That is not a requirement for me to source that date and it is far superior to the date on the Kamehameha page as I stated. No one knows what day he died but we have it cut and dry.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Newspapers have the same disclaimer. Sorry, but you are just attempting to say the source is not reliable based on that disclaimer. All publications make mistakes as we clearly see from experience in working with sources on Wikipedia but as I stated, the date is as reliable as Kamehameha's on his article. The genealogy site is not my source by the way, it has already been used on multiple articles. It is reliable for the date as it is an official website of the family. Is it accurate? Who knows...but this is the source and it makes perfect sense.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I'm tired with arguing with you. I have much more to say about such a stupid assumption and blind trust of one single source. But I'm done.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"This database contains over 3,800 individuals and 1,700 marriages (couples). There can be no doubt that there are many errors. We warmly welcome and will sincerely appreciate any corrections—whether of facts or typography—from our readers. We will continue to amend, correct and clarify the data as we develop this website in the future. We apologize in advance for any mistakes you may discover in the meantime and thank you for your understanding." http://www.kekoolani.org/Pages/Kekoolani%20Genealogy%20Database%20(PAF)/index.htm Information on this site should never used unless one can find a parallel in the written sources they cite in their entries.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:
It looks like both of you have done a lot of work on this page, and are the two main editors working on it.

I share KAVEBEAR's concerns about the accuracy of the source. That said, KAVEBEAR does not seem to have an alternate sourced date, just a general century. I am no expert on the topic and have not done extensive research, but a quick Google search produced several different dates for her birth, so I take it that it's all quite uncertain and guesswork. I think the best option is to openly acknowledge in the article that there is uncertainty about when she was born and provide all the sourced dates, along with rational for each. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinion, I understand the concern but nothing has proven this date to be inaccurate or the source as being unreliable. The reason why this source, compared to others is MORE reliable...its researched from the family and uses other pertinent information. Other sources are even less reliable. I think we should stick with the sourced date until we have other sources that contradict this one and then only mention any relevant differences or uncertainty where commented by the source itself. I am not concerned about this source any more than any other source, but thanks again ONUnicorn.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands right now there are many original research claims being made even though they appear to be sourced...the problem is, the sources are not making the claims that add comments about differences in content or information. We can't just add our own comments to the page and yet...there is a lot of it. I intend to clean up this article and make sure all sources comply with Wikipedia standards and all claims are supported by the sources used as well as make sure all sources are reliable to our standards as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, their are a number of people with this name and born not too far apart. The subject here is Kanekapolei I (sometimes used to distinguish between her and Kanekapolei II, her niece). Kankapolei is said to have also married a foreigner and from that marriage (a Christian marriage from what I understand) came another Kanekapolei. I would note that the other dates I am seeing for this subject are impossible. 1778? A year before Cook's arrival. I hardly think a one year old infant could have anything to do with Cook in 1779. From what I understand, Kanekapolei is the grandmother of John Mahiʻai Kāneakua, so perhaps researching with some of this in mind will help us locate a source, but I somehow doubt it...unless she was notable enough at the time of her death to be mentioned in the Hawaiian papers. I'll take a quick look.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1762 birthdate[edit]

The LDS genealogy web site lists this subject's birthdate as around 1762.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a reliable source on Hawaiian genealogy on this specific person? How do you know if there are no bureaucratic errors down the line where one person or another did not simply guess the person age (original research)? Do you know how they dated Kamehameha I and Kamehameha III's[1] birthdate? Base on journals and even oral tradition down to corresponding Hawaiian month or year of their birth. No published sources in Hawaiian academia (books or articles) even tries to cite a year of her birth or any early chiefs beyond the most prominent. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't prove Kekoolani or LDS as unreliable so I'm not going to even try anymore. Harvard University is a reliable institution as a whole but there are definitely professors within who can state one sentence of bullshit in a lecture that is for the most part true. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed tree and ahnentafel[edit]

Moving removed content to talk page:
The following family tree presents Kānekapōlei's descendants:[1][2][3]

Her two descendants Bernice Pauahi Bishop and Ruth Keʻelikōlani
Kānekapōlei
KeouawahinePauli Kaōleiokū
1767–1818		Kahailiopua
Luahine
Pauahi
1804–1826		Laura Kōnia
1808–1857
Ruth Keʻelikōlani
1826–1883		Bernice Pauahi Bishop
1831–1884
John William Pitt Kīnau
1842–1859		Keolaokalani
1862–1863
  1. ^ Stokes 1935, p. 16.
  2. ^ Kanahele 2002, pp. 104–105.
  3. ^ Zambucka 1977, pp. 19–20.

Sources and claims need further look[edit]

OK, its time to start calling crap, crap here.

The history surrounding this figure as written on this page needs to be further refined. I can't help that there seems to be some discrepancy with what history books seem to claim (as conflicting as they may be) and what actual primary source documentation appears to be stating. So, I am opening up this can of worms again because I am not at all sure the sources used are even being used correctly.

I cannot find real evidence that this figure was ever noho'd to Kamehameha. The research into the Beamer family seems to indicate that Kamehameha I gave Kānekapōlei to Mr. Mela, his foreign advisor from Oahu who built his Royal residence on Maui. This also seems to indicate that there is some real issues with the dating of this figure as confused with another wife of the former aliʻi nui of Hawaii. I am also going to be revisiting the birth and death dates for Kamehameha I. I will be gathering all the sources together for editing within the next few weeks to a month.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modern scholarship needed[edit]

Modern scholarship directly discussing this issue is needed to interpret this controversy and reevaluate Stokes' research with modern findings and putting the issue into modern perspectives since the Kamehameha Schools and Bishop Museum all seem to view their founder Bernice Pauahi Bishop as the last living (legitimate) descendant of Kamehameha I. Kalakaua is quoted as denying this entire line's descent from Kamehameha while his sister Liliuokalani's autobiography does the incredible thing of both denying Ruth Keelikolani as a descendant of Kamehameha I i her appendixes but stating her hanai mother Konia was the granddaughter of Kamehameha I in Chapter 1 (showing how inconsistent the opinions were even during the 19th century).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed sourced contents[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kānekapōlei&diff=675086085&oldid=675075589

In 1865, Kalakaua wrote in a book of genealogies that Kānekapōlei's granddaughter Kōnia, and Kānekapōlei, herself, have denied that Kaʻōleiokū was a son of Kamehameha I.[1] According to an account by Gorham D. Gilman, Kōnia repudiated and denied "introduction (by one of the family) giving as an ancestor a royal person not generally recognized as a legitimate ancestor, though the descendents were very ambitious to have it so acknowledged."[2] Historian John F. G. Stokes interpreted this "royal person" which Kōnia repudiate in Gilman's account as Kamehameha I.[3][1]

(edit conflict) Genealogy and academic consensus is what this encyclopedia relies on. Kalakaua and Liliuokalani's claims where ALL denied as un-established in 1877 by the Hawaiian Supreme Court WHILE Kalakaua was King and many years before the Bayonet Constitution. I have no idea what you think you are trying to pull here but you better get your facts straight and rely on what claims the sources an support. If I am mistaken I will rectify it, but I cannot see your changes as improvements from what the sources say.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I suggest you look at when Kalakaua wrote what and exactly what this source says Konia stated or implied in her last mention that is stated as being direct.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My edits clarified what the sources said with direct quotations if you don't like it and wish to fight it I really don't want to care that much to continue it either. I advice you to stop using accusatory terms like "pull here" and "better get your facts straight" when my edit was directly in the source. The denials were not directly quoted from the two ladies or their descendants and that is the fact (your sentence doesn't directly implies this but the vagueness and word choice of flatly (used by Stokes in secondary sense not in Gilman or Kalakaua's quotation) can lead readers to this assumption thus the need for an edit of clarification expanding on what the sources actually says); it was quoted from hearsay and indirect anectodal sources (Gilman and Kalakaua who said "Kaoleioku had four fathers. Kalaiopuu, Keawemauhili, Kaumaku and Kamehameha all had intercouse with the same woman Kanekapolei. Konia's denial that she was descended from Kamehameha, but from Kalaniopuu was frequently heard. Thus Kaoleioku told her: he was not of Kamehameha,, but indeed of Kalaiopuu. Also Kanekapolei said that Kaoleioku was of Kalaiopuu and not of Kamehameha I." Stokes' translation from Kalakaua's Ka Mitolegio o Hawaii a me Na Moolelo e ae e pili ana i ka noho ana o ko Hawaii nei Lahui Kanaka, May 25, 1865. (MS book). Also the article is cited with the Harvard citation format and needs another footnote to the correct page number of Stokes that cites the denial which is not in page 18 of Stokes or the three other sources linked after the sentence..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ a b Stokes 1935, p. 25.
  2. ^ Krout 1908, p. 12–13.
  3. ^ Stokes 1935, p. 22–23.
What I don't like is you constantly editing warring and messing with my edits just to screw with me. You need to back off. I don't need the denials to "come directly' from the ladies. THAT IS NOT HOW Wikipedia works. The source has made the claim as fact that both Konia and Kanekapolei had flatly denied the paternity and believe your editing warring to make the Konia statement to be the lesser flactual statement, when the author does come out and say she does make a later claim that is a direct rebuff of that fact. You are merely attempting to keep your point of view that is skewed and biased. Frankly...I don't care about your bias but I do care about you using the sources correctly. If you want to fight over the page number, do it elsewhere. This article is no where near a rating that requires such be fixed immediately. It isn't GA, FA or even B rated.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C4%81nekap%C5%8Dlei&diff=675213148&oldid=675152270

I stand by the edit summary and ask you to stop edit warring over your own POV. Demonstrate within the guidelines of the project or stop edit warring and trying to demonstrate that you feel some sort of ownership over some of these articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

)

Citation error[edit]

Will somebody please fix the citation error for reference 1? I have attempted to do so, but my edit has been reverted. John.D.Ward (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from article for further sourcing[edit]

According to Hawaiian historian Samuel Kamakau, Kauakahiakua owned the sea cucumber (loli) ovens of the district of Kaupo on the island of Maui.[1]

References

  1. ^ Kamakau 1992, p. 352.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kānekapōlei&oldid=1202575556"