Talk:Kamehameha I/Archive 1

When did Kamehameha The Great become King?
It was requested that Kamehameha I be moved to either Kamehameha I, King of Hawai'i, or King Kamehameha I of Hawai'i. I among others oppose such moves. As can be seen, the poll went stale. Requests denied. Arrigo 12:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Instead of having to place opinions on multiple pages, we should follow the example of the users over at the Japan manual of style pages and move all related discussions to one place. Thus, I'm requesting that we move all discussions about the naming conventions of Hawaiian monarchs to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hawaii/Manual of Style. &#38738;&#12356;(Aoi) 06:19, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Image to save....

Royal consorts and monarchs
hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free cheers Antares911 23:57, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Owning land
Under "The First King of Hawaii" in the first paragraph it says, Kamehameha did not allow non-Hawaiians to own land; they would not be able to until the Great Mahele of 1848. I can understand writing about the Mahele, but was it necessary to point out that although "owning land" is a non-Hawaiian concept, that Kamehameha did not allow foreigners to own land? There was never an issue about owning land at that time. The whalers and traders there were only concerned about refueling and stocking their ships with provisions.

I'd prefer to see that section gone and maybe under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauikeaouli you could insert the Mahele which is vital under Kauikeaouli's reign.

Mamoahina 19:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Kamehameha I : was he giant?
Tradition has it that Kamehameha the great stood about 7 feet tall and weighed over 300 lbs. But I can't find any historical accounts to validate this.. does anyone know about any documentation of his giganticity?


 * That would be the first time I've heard about it. Curious if anything turns up. ;-) Jbetak 03:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well in a past National Geographic online article, it makes a short reference to him and says he's that tall.

quote: "stop at Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site [...] In 1790, the 7-foot-tall [2.1-meter-tall] Kamehameha the Great built a temple to his war god here, as a prophet said he must in order to conquer the Hawaiian archipelago. Human sacrifices took place on the lava-rock platform at the site..."

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/destinations/Hawaii_Volcanoes_National_Park/Hawaii.html

The National Geographic can usually be trusted as accurate, but still, I want some more confirmation if he was really that huge.

The estimate for his height is (or so material scholars at Bishop Museum claim) based upon an extrapolation from the size of a feathered cloak worn by him that exists in the museum's collection. Such cloaks were made to be worn to a certain point on the leg. By measuring the cloak, one can estimate the size of the person for whom it was tailored.

It should be noted, however, that there seems to be a motive among said scholars to validate mythical claims as to his great stature (although they may very well be true) to support his modern role as a nearly superhuman cultural hero. I have not, of course, had the opportunity to measure the cloak myself, nor has any objective party had that opportunity to my knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.94.8 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

character question
What exactly is the strange appostrophe character I am seeing a lot in this article? It it a unicode modifier character (like an accent mark?) my browser is not rendering correctly? Asteron 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

About the 'Okina
That 'strange apostraphe mark' is a Hawaiian diacritical mark known as an 'okina. It is a glottal stop, a momentary stoppage of air. The sound rendered from said stoppage of air is the 'okina. The 'okina is a letter in the Hawaiian alphabet along with another diacritical mark, kahako, which lengthens the sound of a vowel.

suggest a move
In accordance to wiki policies of monarch's pages, this should be moved to 'Kamehameha I of Hawaii, as it is with most monarchs (kings in particular).The Gonz 22:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

"Birth of a hero" mythology
I don't want to start a flame war or anything, but does anyone else see similarities between the early life of Kamehameha I and Moses? This wiki article doesn't go into much detail about it, but I once saw a children's book about how Kamehameha became king and it sounded almost exactly like the story of Moses. It may have been artistic license, but it read almost word for word like the Bible.

It seems a little to "pat" for me. Is this more like the typical "birth of the hero" mythology the surrounds famous leaders (Gilgamesh, Sargon, Oedipus, Moses, etc.) to enhance their status and provide some mystery about them or was the story "enhanced" by the Bible?

I think the story of his childhood should be fleshed out more and something be mentioned about the similarity to Moses and other legendary heros and leaders. Crystalattice 17:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation?
Aloha from Hilo. The correct pronunciation is similar to the second you've listed - "ka-meh-ha-meh-ha" - with no real emphasis on any particular syllable. There are no silent letters in the language, so both "h"'s must be pronounced. All Hawaiian vowels are pronounced as follows: a=ah, e=eh, i=ih, o=oh, u=oo. If you can remember these simple rules, you'll never have trouble with Hawaiian words. Hope it's helpful!1happytootsie 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

How is "Kamehameha" pronounced? I've heard it both as "ka-MAY-a-MAY-ha" (which I think is right) and "ka-may-HA-may-HA". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.74.28.59 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC).


 * You are right, the H is pronounced. The "ka-may-ah-may-ah" is incorrect.  The word is mehameha, which refers to solitude.  It's a reduplication meha, which is pronounced ME-HA, not ME-YA.  The only time you'll hear the semivowel "Y" in the language is after the vowel I, as in ia, io (sometimes).  Mamoahina (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In my halau (hula school) we pronounced it "kah-MAY-ah-MAY-hah"--Nomenphile 04:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which halau is this? So your kumu never learned to speak Hawaiian. Mamoahina (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

goku

I always thought that Dragonball had it right Jessew666 18:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

moving
E kala mai oukou iau. I dont know where, or how to make a comment here but i just wanted to note that Kamehameha's birth name was not Paiʻea as is written in the article. He was given th ename Paiʻea (hard-shelled crab) by the alii and koa (warriors) of Māui after his exemplary performance in battles on Māui 1775-1779. see..Kamakau, S.M.1961. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaiʻi. p84. Kamehameha Schoools Press. me ka haahaa.na.ron w. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.13.39.189 (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. I'll look into this and try to make the necessary changes. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I looked into this, and it seems we have a bit of a problem. All of the current sources say that Kamehameha was named Pa'ea from birth.  I have access to a few more texts so I'll spend the next few days looking into this more thoroughly.  I'm not sure why your book makes a claim that no other source can substantiate.  Can you look at the source again and reproduce an exact quote?  Thanks.  &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's correct. I think the other person may have tried to specify that Kamehameha was given that name at birth, rather than already having a name when he was born?  Not sure, but it is correct, once he was given the name Pai'ea, he was known as that. Mamoahina (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WIVES
Kamehameha's wife include Kaahumanu, Kalakua Kaheiheimaile, Keopuolani, but was there ever a Queen Namahana was she ever a wife of Kamehameha. Also the confusing thing was Queen Namahana Kaahumanu and Kalakua's mother Namahana'i'Kaleleokalani the ex-queen of Maui or their younger sister Lydia Namahana Pi'ia who later marry Prince Gideon Peleioholani La'anui —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.21.2 (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't tell if you meant that Namahana was or wasn't a wife of Kamehameha. But to clarify,  Namahana was a wife, just as her sister Kaahumanu & Kalakua were.  Namahana Kekuaipiia took on the name Lydia when she was baptized along with her sister Kaahumanu, who took on the name Elizabeth.  Their mother was Namahanaikaleleokalani. And yes, the younger Namahana was also a wife to Peleioholani Laanui, who was also baptized at the same time on Dec. 4, 1825.  Those bapitazed were Elizabeth Kaahumanu, Kalanimoku's infant son Leleiohoku, Lydia Namahana, Deborah Haakulou Kapule, Aaron Keliiahonui, Simeon Kaiu, Gideon Laanui, and Richard Kalaaiaulu.  And those were only a few of the wives.  I have the names of many, many others. Leleiohoku married Princess Ruth, Laanui had married Lydia Namahana, Theresa Owana Kaheiheimalie and Puohu, Deborah Kapule I believe is the granddaughter of Kaumualii, and Keliiahonui was the son of Kaumualii and Kaahumanu also married him.Mamoahina (talk) 21:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right except Deborah Kapule was one of the wives of Kaumualii not granddaughter.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why I wrote that Deborah Kapule was a granddaughter because my notes says wife. I probably wasn't looking at my notes at that time.  Thanks for pointing that out. Mamoahina (talk) 03:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed External Link
I removed this link from the article's external links section:


 * Biography from the Hawaii Royal Family's official site

The title of the site, which uses the title "official," makes its authenticity and encyclopedic value questionable. It claims to be the official site of the royal family, but it does not indicate which member of the royal family endorses it. I've gone through the site and it does have some detailed information in it, but I don't know how much of it is verifiable. Also, the site itself has a number of technical errors: for one thing, none of the images work. Can someone take a look at this and see if it's encyclopedic enough for inclusion in the article? 青い(Aoi) (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the link is useful, but of course needs to be qualified. As far as I can tell, it belongs to David Castro who re-published an old book on Keoua, the father of Kamehameha. He and the original author are distant descendants of Kamehameha's father. The name Castro used was "Ke Ali'i Publishing". It was ISBN 978-0966958621, and since then there has been another publishing. The images show up for me, but the site uses some java script technology or something to make the images harder to download. This might not work in some browsers, but a year and a half later this might be less of an issue. I hope to work on this soon; it has sat around long enough. W Nowicki (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, and yes it's based on that book not to mention this family are descendants of Kamehameha's older brother Kalokuokamaile hence they have their history passed down. Can't get more authentic or encyclopedic than that. Mamoahina (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Bisexual?
In a magazine called Out Traveler, a sub-branch of the Advocate, a gay magazine, there is an article called "Hawaii's Polysexual Past." In it, it says, "[T]he great united of the Hawaiian Islands, King Kamehameha, even kept his own aikane [men who had court positions based on sexual relations with the royalty], according to the ship's logs: "He with many of his attendants took up quarters on board the ship for the Night [sic]: among them is a Young Man [sic] of whom he seems very fond, which does not in the least surprise us, as we have had opportunities before of being acquainted with a detestable part of his Character [sic] which he is not in the least anxious to conceal."   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.228.129.9 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Would be a magazine like to capitalize on things they don't understand, particularly from a western point of view. The word 'aikane means a close companion but to suggest that because they had an 'aikane therefore were into same sex relation s so typical.  "Detestable character" as it was written.  Explain to me, should we apply the same to these college freaks who follow closely the ridiculous western tradition of hazing where, in some cases, involved having sexual acts with each other? Mamoahina (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Kamehameha's full name
I'm not sure if his full name should be broken down the way that it is. Can someone at least cite the source of writing it that particular way? It's obvious that if anyone actually speaks Hawaiian and most importantly can read Hawaiian, they would have seen how Hawaiian names were written before. To me, it can be subjective as to how the name should be written, and I'd prefer to see it written as one entire name. If we are going to separate it, why not separate Ka Mehameha Pai'ea, etc.? Mamoahina (talk) 03:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

House of Kamehameha Family Tree and Ancestry
Whoever did that family tree boxes could've done the dotted lines better by not having them cross into other spouses. Is there a way to edit or re-do them? Not bad of a diagram but even I was confused by the crossing of lines at first, and I've been doing genealogy for 22 years, doing Hawaiian royal genealogies for the past 15 or so years so if it weren't for my familiarity with all of these names, I would have no idea what the diagram really means. As for his ancestry, I thought I brought this up before but who decided to add "Princess" and other European titles to ancestors of Kamehameha? Let's keep it simple and stick to either chief/chiefess. Unless you actually know their exact ranking, I would stay clear of High Chief/Chiefess. For example, how many knew that Kamehameha was a naha chief? I'm guessing no one. Mamoahina (talk) 04:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I;m guessing you got your facts wrong because Kamehameha I was a wohi chief not a naha chief.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

July 18, 2012 - Late Evening - Loving and open dialogue :
Aloha No! Pehea Oe? / E'aha te Huru? Here's a juicy morsel to savor... "Ta Mehameha" (aka  Kamehameha(sic)) is the original and correct spelling of My Great (x4) Grampa's ("Ta Loku o'Ta Maile" (aka  Kalokuokamaile(sic)) little brother.  The bastardization of the 'Original' Hawai'ian language came about when the Christian Missionaries came with their families to 'help' the Kanaka, Know, Love and Respect the one, true God, through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour.  The outcome is apparent in a huge Christian Te'iki o Ta 'Aina (Keiki o ka aina), the diminished alphabet of the Hawai'ian language, Conservative apparel on the 'heathen' and a general lack of correct Hawai'ian History. The Missionaries did us a 'Favor' by removing many 'letters' as we knew them and 'helping' us create a written language. The 'T' in the beginning of Ta Mehameha was historically recognized by the original painting by, Ludwig (Louis) Choris, which is hung in the Kamehameha Hotel ( I know, Kamehameha... Irony!) Google "Ludwig Choris 'Kamehameha Portrait" to see the name spelled out with a "T". I was priviliged to be in the Kai e Hitu of Kona's Wahine's State Champion Wa'a. On a celebratory 'high', we all planned to go to the Pirogue Championat de Monde in Tahiti during the Fete (July). I learned interesting language variations, and remarkable facts about the Tahitians who originally sailed to Hawai'iki (White Heaven, aptly named because they saw snow on Mauna Kea and thought they were in heaven... side bar - BEFORE MISSIONARIES CAME THE ONE TRUE GOD NAMED 'IO, WAS THANKED FOR EVERY BREATH = "HA"(SAME IN BOTH LANGUAGES!), EVERY TREE = Kumu lā'au in 'Modern' Hawai'ian or Tumu rā'au in Tahitian, EVERY WONDROUS THING UNDER THE SUN!). They were handed down from one generation to the next in the form of song and dance. A 'hanai' Uncle of mine from Tahiti travelled to Ni'ihau and the Ni'ihauans UNDERSTOOD THE TAHITIAN HE SPOKE AND HE UNDERSTOOD THEIR TRUE HAWAI'IAN SPOKEN LANGUAGE!!! Obviously, this was VERY exciting for me to HEAR!!! Here are some examples of our ORIGINAL language that has been 'DOWNGRADED' by the Ha'aouli (by the way, the word, 'Ha'Aouli' IS NOT DEFAMING! It literally and truly means "No breath of God"...NOT WHITE PERSON! Just to be clear that I AM NOT RACIST, I AM IN FACT HAPA!)OK, here's a list (New/Modern Hawai'ian words displayed first, Original Hawai'ian/Tahitian words displayed last)for you to enjoy, I hope!!; 1-Hale / Fare (sounds like Fah-lrei - the 'lr' is a rolled 'r' similar to a Spanish 'r' or a French 'r') This first example shows the letters/'sounds' of 'F' and 'R' that were CUT from our language. 2 - Aloha / 'Ia ora na (sounds like Yio/yo- rah - nah) This is a great word to show the unmittigated GALL of the people who thought they knew better than us and had the NERVE to change an ENTIRE CULTURE'S LANGUAGE!!! REALLY??? Finally, 3+c = Wahine/Vahine, Kane/Tane, Mai ka'i / Mai ta'i = 'my - tah - ee...ETC, ETC, ETC!!! Po mai taʻi E 'Ia ora na ahi ahi! "Good luck and Good Night!!! Pu'u 07:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pu'u Wai Lani (talk • contribs)
 * The "w" sound and "k" sounds weren't invented by the missionaries. Hawaiian used to have both the "k", "w", and "l" sound along with the "t","v", and "r" sounds. It was only shorten down by the missionaries to aid in the teaching of the language during the 1820s. Old Hawaiians called the island of Lanai, Ranai until the end of the 1800s, which confused a lot of the Hawaiians living then. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Protection
Could this article be protected only registered users are allowed to edit? There have been so many vandals either taking out references, removing whole sections of information or adding fictious names and references to Dragon Ball Z, basically screwing up this article and it usually goes unnotice.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Page protection is requested at: Requests for page protection.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue
What is the section labeled Issue about? The matrix has several comments that state "... and had issue." What does that mean?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.211.102 (talk) 04:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Its a legal/formal term meaning children or descendants.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:43, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Claims with unfinished citations are not verifiable
I am moving this here for discussion and hopefully someone knows the page number to verify the claims.

The reference is "Ruby Hasegawa Lowe (1999). David Kalākaua. Honoulu: Kamehameha Schools Press. ISBN 0-87336-041-9" but there is no page number and therefore not verifiable. Inline citations of book references require the page number.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Parentage
His father Keōua and his mother Chiefess Kekūʻiapoiwa of the Kohala district on the island of Hawaiʻi were probably his hanai, adopted parents.[8] His parents by blood are said to be Kahekili (Ruling Chief of Maui) with his sister Ku, children of Kekaulike.[9] Until February of 1911 the version written by Kamakau and held by Fornander was accepted. Kamaka Stillman published accounts that were verified by others within the family.[10]


 * 9:Kekoolani source contradicts everything cited in the 1911 Kaha clan's account cited in 10. 10 says Kekūʻiapoiwa was mother of Kamehameha with Kahekili not Ku and mentions no hanai. I assume no source other than Kekoolani would assert Kamehameha's mother was not Kekūʻiapoiwa or there ever was a hanai. The genealogy compiled in Kekoolani is unreliable and contradictory when held up to other sources. It is written by the descendants of Solomon L.K. Peleioholani, and I assume the statement about "THE IDENTITY OF THE BIOLOGICAL PARENTS OF KAMEHAMEHA THE GREAT" is written by the site master in 2010. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Not contesting (which I do) the reliability of Kekoolani's source, this paragraph still does not stand by Wikipedia standard since it present some of the source used and some of it not used. It should really say: "By Samuel Kamakau's account, his parents were Keōua and Chiefess Kekūʻiapoiwa of the Kohala district on the island of Hawaiʻi.[8] However, the identity of his father is disputed. Many other sources indicated that his biological father was Kahekili, the ruling chief of Maui, instead. In 1911, Kamaka Stillman from the Kaha family, which had reared Kamehameha as an infant published accounts that were verified by others within the family indicating that Kekuiapoiwa had return from Maui pregnant with her son.[9] In 2010, Dean Kekoolani claims that Kamehameha's parents were Kahekili and his sister Ku and that Keoua and Kekuiapoiwa were merely adoptive parents.[10]"
 * I think you are way off actually. You keep attributing these facts to Mr. Kekoolani, but in his notes (which you seem to be misinterpreting) he quotes the source and author. Again, this simply directs us to the source that I think I know where to find.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems to be Dean Kekoolani stating what his ancestor Solomon L. K. Peleiolani once taught; it makes more sense if we can cite him directly instead of taking his descendants word for it. But still Kuwahine as the mother of Kamehameha I and the traditionally assigned parents as hanai parents are only mentioned by Solomon L. K. Peleioholani (through Dean Kekoolani). The bigger problem here is because of the way it is written the paragraph has the possibility of confusing readers into thinking that Kamaka Stillman's published accounts mentioned Kuwahine or a hanai relationship.-KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Sweeping changes
I reverted recent sweeping changes. There is an ongoing discussion at WP:RSN and no consensus has been reached. I can easly say that the monogram seems unlikelu and while I didn't add it, please stop making such incivil summaries that amount to accusations of making things up.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please understand these changes have nothing to do with the RSN discussion does it. (Nor does the discussion deal strictly about this article.) The reasonig anachronistic is a legitimate reason used by users on Wikipedia when removing anachronistic materials. It is the same thing as removing the title Princess from Bernice Pauahi Bishop's article; calling her a princess is an anachronism. It is not an insult or incivil. Please do not accuse me of that. Report me if you don't agree. Also how are these "sweeping changes" including the reverting to the original image by Choris? Have you forgot your own "sweeping change" since March? I am just talking about the removing of the image Wikipedia has used for years and which most history books would use as a depiction of the King. It is the fashion in which Kamehameha would have sat for his 1816 portrait for Louis Choris. Choris wanted the king to dress in Hawaiian dress but he refused because he wanted to be portray in Western dress; Choris added the ahu'ula in another version . The statue is not a likeness of the King and was made with the artist imagination of what a younger Kamehameha would look like, photographs of Hawaiians in 19th century portraying Kamehameha, and feature from Roman statues; see Kamehameha Statue (original cast). We can use the one in the Bishop Musuem too. I also believe the portrait also fall in line with WP:LEADIMAGE. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Because you seem to be edit warring and reverting anything I add. I've report this on the third opinion page for a consensus to be reached.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You don't report "this" to 3.0. You ask for their assistance, but you go there with dirty hands as you are reverting as well. We both believe we have a reasonable argument but we are both unable to achieve a consensus between us because you choose editing as a form of conensus building while there is an ongoing dispute. You just don't really try to stop and discuss compromise you just want it the way you want it because you feel justified. The image and all content is a matter of consensus but there are options like RFC and DR as well as 3.0 but a discussion on the talk page is preferred.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please Mark Miller you have shown in the past that you are equally as stubborn and uncompromising as I am. Okay sorry. I am asking for assistance not reporting. Again the ongoing dispute on WP:RSN deals with the use of the source Kekoolani not anything else in this article. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are overly aggressive and that I do compromise with you. But such things as images, that is not a matter of referencing. I don't think the painting is a true representation of Kamehameha I over all. It may well be from life but this was his far declining years and painted through the filter of an outsider at a time when some could argue were not entirely representative of the position, monarchy etc. Other articles on similar subjects, such as Charles II of England do not have the main image depict the subject in such elderly state and Alexander the Great is a copy of another work, but more famous than other depictions. There are many reasons to choose an Infobox image. They represent the subject at their prime and historic accuracy can some time be weighed less than something that has more encyclopedic value overall. The subject undergoes major changes near the end of his life and is very westernized, but this was the most notable of all the Kings and rulers of Hawaii. I think there are enough options not to have to use the portrait.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If Alexander the Great had a painting done in his lifetime, you bet it will be used for his article, and if Charles I had no authentic painting of his youth in existence other than century later reimaginations and only in have contemporary portraits in his old age then one would use of his old age for accuracy. Also we have plenty of examples of Europeans kings and Byzantine emperors from the Middle Ages such as Peter III of Aragon and Constantine XI Palaiologos who have had plenty of portraits recreated for them but use only contemporary depictions (coins). Another good example is Billy the Kid; history only leaves us one life photograph of him (one historians such as Paulita Maxwell and Drew Gomber view as a terrible representatation) but we choose to use because of its authenticy and not soe, statue or later day painting of Billy the Kid. The image should be the likeness of the king ("warts and all") as depicted in life not a statue made from the combinations of Roman features, photographs of 19th century Hawaiian youths dress in a manhole, ahu'ula and a malo including John Tamatoa Baker and brother Robert Hoapili Baker, and the sculptor's (a Boston born American who later moved to Florence, and who never been to Hawaii and was only sent the photographs and an version of Choris' depiction) imagination of what a younger version of the king would look like. Also a version of the statue is repeated on Kamehameha I and have their separate articles. The statue is thus also made "through the filter of an outsider (an outsider who has never seen the king in person or been to Hawaii as stated above).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "warts and all" and I am getting frustrated with your tone and attitude. Now you are an artist and wish to review the statue and the origins of the features used? Your opinion is "General discussion" and I find much of what you say insultingly inaccurate, insensitive as an amateur (we both are) are simply rambling off facts and making summary judgments, most of which here is leaping to conclusions.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes that is what the WP:3O request is about. The image only not the stuff discussed on WP:RSN.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not request third opinion but the image seems to be what KAVEBEAR has a dispute with.


 * I started a general cleanup on the article starting in February. As part of a series of edits I made in March, I changed the image to one I found on Flickr of the correct license and uploaded it to Commons then added to this page with this edit. KAVEBEAR and I are two of the more active editors to articles on Hawaii and related subjects and this is only one of several disputes he is beginning or even continuing from months ago. He retires and then suddenly pops up and then decides he doesn't like some changes and reverts back. The two of us view both Wikipedia and the Hawaiian articles differently, I just feel that there has been too little discussion on the talk page and this happened the last time KAVEBEAR requested a third opinion on the Kānekapōlei article talk: Talk:Kānekapōlei. After a very short, almost obligatory posting of general discussion, doesn't like the outcome and immediately goes to the boards. Notice boards should not be a substitute of talk page discussion. I find this a tad disruptive am beginning to see a pattern. He also reverted the infobox image just recently at Kānekapōle but at least stopped reverting after being told the image there was the only depiction of the subject at all. Generally when editor have an issue over image content they begin a discussion and request editors to weigh in. A formal RFC on this may be the best route in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * My retirement is not anyone's business and not relevant to this discussion (kindly excuse my aggression here). I've returned temporarily to write a few articles and change somethings while school is off changing my status to semi-retirement for the time being...I have acknowledge Miller and my disagreements and done my best to not edit anything that I know he will revert because it doesn't suit his desire outcomes (ultimately I don't want to argue unless I feel strongly about an edit as this one is since it usually ends up being me and him on polar opposite sides with no compromise in between; a family tree of Lunalilo I have created a while back ago has been changed significantly by Miller and I know all my edits would be reverted so I've given up on that because I don't feel strongly enough to waste my time arguing with him). I feel my the change of image what Miller calls my reverts (I choose to call them edits or restoration and defintely should not be wrongly labeled as "sweeping changes") are as legitimate as his own edits and changes here and shouldn't be view as edit warring reverts. Yes, the disagreements should be resolved by discussions on the talk page but I know Miller and I are not going to agree on anything base on our past discussions so that is why I need to seek outside help and opinion (it's really difficult when it comes to this subject because there are few editors in this subject). To clarify the previous request on Kanekapolei was not made because I "[didn't] like the outcome and immediately [went to the boards" but because Miller disagreed with me about a reliability of a source. The third opinion user stated that he "share my concerns about the accuracy of the source" but my argument for we don't know the birthdate didn't stand because I can't source that there is an uncertainly (I just know that reliable source in Hawaiian history rarely/never presents a birthdate for this women) and as for change of image on Kānekapōlei's article that was a legitimate edit made to restore an image that I felt portray the events in the article better but Miller presents point that the other image he wanted depicts the subject in the foreground, an argument which I have conceded to and have not revert. Notice I've reverted my own edits changing anything he has written (when it comes to textual matters such as the parentage section in this article) whenever I see errors on the articles that Miller has touched, which I feel strongly against, I have resorted to only discussing the edits on the article's talk page and listing sources which support my views (I ultimately want to do this to show other users who will see this in the future and find it more worthwhile to argue with Miller). If User:Stfg you feel like you shouldn't give a third opinion. I can bring this up on RFC, as soon as I know how to use it. If you do, please focus on the arguments made for each image not just our rants. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If your retirement is "not anyone's business", then perhaps you may not want to announce it on an encyclopedia and use a big black banner to make sure it is known. It actually is relevant to this discussid as any of the crap you are saying about me. You just accused me of having a desired outcome. That's a personal attack and shows a lck of good faith. AGF. The reason the retirement is brought up is because you became so upset with a content disputes and your own issues of "ownership" (you illustrate it above with the Lunalilo template) on articles and pages you just got fed up, blamed me and retired. I actually posted that you need not retire over the situation, had some resp[ect for your work and felt there must be a way for us to work together, but not like this and not the same old over and over. Eventually this will just lead to admin and arbcom as we bnoth seem likely to defend our work to those points. But the way you hold fast to your own beliefs being the over arching way the Hawaiian related biographies should be is just not right. Your own beliefs and biases are not how I write. They are how you write and no one has to uphold them or copy or continue them. This is an encyclopedia everyone can edit. You have to get used to editing with others. The Hawaiian related articles have others that edit. please be more civil with other editors and your own opinion of history is fine, it just doesn't have to be the opinion everyone must share.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

No
 * As I have shown with my acceptance (not to be taken as term of ownership) of the revert of the image on Kaneikapolei, reverting to image of the statue on this article while it is under dispute, not changing the textual changes on this article, Kekuanaoa and Kanaina 's article and only discussing it, I have acknowledge (acknowledgement is not needed since I don't own any of these articles nor do I view my views any higher than anyone's unless I feel I have a legitimate point; I'm clarifying before you run away with more accusations) some your of edits as legitimate (find a synonym if you like if this one doesn't suit you), but when comes down to a few point we are in dispute and we both feel strongly for different sides. In this case we both view our arguments as legitimate points, and this is where our dispute on this article, right now. I find your past comments as insulting and sickenly (the main reason I declare my retirement during the school year) and have done my best to ignore them here and elsewhere, especially when you keep accusing me of article ownership (my arguments on articles have never been related to ownership, who would present such a ludicrous argument, sorry if I use phrase such articles/templates that I have created (it's not an argument, it should never been seen as one, nor is it being used to advance anything because I know Wikipedia's policies about article ownership)) and only enforcing my desired outcomes ("you just want it the way you want"). In the future could you please discuss the argument at hand and not choose to dig back into the past, aggravating me to make such aggressive comments, which I apologize for. In the future if our arguments on talk pages do not resolve and I see no path for compromise, I'm resorting to Rfc to end our disputes because I find it hard to discuss with you when you keep making these accusations.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have done some things in the past to demonstrate good faith, but you have to do more than just demonstrate it once, This is ongoing and we are likely to be working on articles with very opposing ideas Some of the things I take issue over is how you don't see the whole picture. You demonstrated ownership when you brought up the template, not because your referred to it as yours, but because your complaint was that I had changed it drastically. I believe there is a better way to show the Lunalilo/Kanaina. I believe he is indeed a Kamehameha and that leniage is important, but the king's father is not un-important and I think you sometimes show a lack of sensistivity to how other's may see the subject as more than your opinion that Kanaina and his line are not important because Lunalilo didn't inherit the crown from him. It's a family tree and you can't ignore one line. I am also fed up with you accusations against my self and the history of editors you have been accusing and driving out of the Hawaiian related articles. We will must likely be a DRN, formal mediation or Arbcom because I don't see how it is assuming good faith to to claim you are using RFC because you don't like talking to me. I don't like the way I have seen your posts accusing others. While editor retention is important and I want to work with you, I feel you may need assistance familiarizing yourself better with policy, guidelines and procedures because I am also concerned with your chasing other editors away from these articles.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion
OK, thank you both for confirming that the question is just the image. I won't address any of the other points raised.

The portrait was the infobox image from this edit in July 2004 until this edit by Mark in March 2014. This being so, edit summary arguments such as "Sweeping changes need discussion. Image change not in the edit summary" and "No consensus to alter main image" are really self-defeating. The burden is on Mark to justify his change, not the other way round.

That said, I see no policy or guideline that would guide the choice between these two images, so I think the choice is really only a matter of taste. Both images somewhat overlap in purpose with other images lower down the article. But for what it's worth, the statue image looks to me like a very poorly composed tourist snapshot. Trying to get both the statue and the flag in the picture, the photographer has ended up with a picture of the sky framed by these two objects. The statue is positioned at one edge of the frame, looking out of the picture. And Kamehameha himself is not shown nearly so clearly here as in other statue pictures later in the article and in Kamehameha Statues. The similarity of this portrait to the other in the article at least serves to confirm that both are probably reasonable likenesses. So I would go with the portrait, at least until an image can be found that doesn't overlap with others in the article. --Stfg (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for giving your opinion. I think your actual opinion on the composition of the statue is your personal taste. I do have some criticism. Length of time on an article does not revert burden, it just changes who's burden it becomes. The image of the statue has been up since March and only KAVEBEAR objects. It is actually his burden since he is changing the image now. I changed the image, but my burden is stale as the length of time between edits was 3 months. His argument that he is changing to the long standing image is not justified entirely as consensus can change and it appears both images have silent consensus except for our two voices.


 * I do think it an interesting choice to pic an image in third opinion with such a short discussion. Since I disagree with this third opinion and it is not binding I thank Stfg for their time and hope they don't feel it was wasted. I believe consensus is how we determine content disputes. There is no consensus to change the image at the moment so I request it not be changed until further DR process has sought out such a consensus. I really think this is a clear case of two differing tastes and believing one additional voice is enough to end a dispute of this nature doesn't seam equitable. I hope understands if I now seek a different venue. I believe that an actual discussion in the form of an RFC would be enough to satisfy both myself and KAVEBEAR, but if not we still have many options resolve this.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * no worries. We disagree about the burden, but I agree it's a question of taste (I said as much, and prefaced my opinion with "for what it's worth"). It wasn't you that asked for a 3O, and you have no moral obligation to accept it. By all means invoke another process such as DRN or an RFC, and I will have no problems at all with that. Regards to you both. --Stfg (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The only reason I believe the burden is on the other editor is because they are the ones "adding or restoring" content. The last editor to revert should be seen as having that burden if both have made reverts. It was both KAVEBEAR who made the initial revert and the last revert (which he showed good faith by reverting back until the dispute is resolved). So from what I understand of burden, that would make it KAVEBEAR's. But, I can't hold you to my view or interpretation if you do not agree. Thanks again.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's wrong. You can't change 10-year-old content and, when reverted, claim that the burden is on the reverter. Try WP:BRD, according to which, after the image change was reverted, there should have been no more edits to the image until consensus was reached. --Stfg (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * After three months, that is not a revert and the "BRD" cycle does not apply. It is a fresh edit that changes content. I reverted that edit and KAVEBEAR reverted my revert which broke BRD in that instance because those are the fresh and current edits. That is where we seem to differ in opinion Stfg. KAVEBEAR altered the image that was stable for three months and I reverted that edit. The last satble version was the statue. It was not the longest stable version but it was the last. I tend to take a more techinical view on these things so, again, I am not holding you to anything Stfg.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These articles are special in that they are rarely patrolled by editors who have a stake other than me and Miller. Most edits involves vandals adding information about Dragon Z. So it isn't odd that such a change could persist for so long without editors voicing any disconcern. I didn't see the change until this month due to my absence and it being bury so far down in my watch list and only found the change by clicking the article on another article. Whoever's burden it is, we have both presented our arguments (I would have done the same either way), it is up to others to resolve this unresolvable issue between us. With that said, I think I will seek an RFC later to resolve this disagreement. Thanks. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing special about these articles. They are just obscure. But you have to be able to collaborate. I understand you didn't see the change for three months, but you still have to understand that was a silent consensus and had three months stable. That means there were no other interested parties that objected. You did't begin a discussion about your changes and when I did you rushed it, as you seem to always do and then went to 3.0. before very much was even said. Our policy of burden is about verification. This is an image discussion. As long as both are verified representations, the only issue is a consensus. With one against another there is no consensus so the image, after three months should not be changed until a consensus is achieved. If there is no consensus, the image should remain.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess I meant obscure not special. Agreed. I have no idea about the three months policies. Sorry for the rush. I predicted a situation where we would be reiterating our reasonings to no avail and thus I rush to 3.0 and now the Rfc. I guess I need to take my time before I resort to these sources for dispute resolution in the future.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so. Two editors with differing opinion can still reach a compromise or agreement to live with a version. I just feel you just won't allow a longer discussion to find a reasoning the other will accept. While rare, there are still instances where both of us have accepted the argument of the other and made some change or compromise to try and resolve the dispute so I believe it is still possible, but here for an image dispute, an RFC is probably the best start. The three month thing is only about what counts as a revert and BRD, 3RR and some admin thatmay be assisting with tools might see an emphasis to the longer stability while another may see only see the technical side of stablity being whatever version was "the last stable version".--Mark Miller (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Which picture should be used for the lead image?
Should the lead image be a portrait of the king by Louis Choris or statue of the king with the flag in the background? KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * It's only a matter of taste. For what it's worth, I prefer the portrait. My reasons are given in the section above, so I won't repeat them. --Stfg (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC) edited --Stfg (talk) 12:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Βoth The image of the statue is appropriate as a lead item. The portrait should be inserted in a section about the person's later years. -The Gnome (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Portrait, in keeping with the vast majority of our articles on political figures. The statue is not a representative work, but a Romantic, euhemerizing one, and as noted above, the photo does not even focus on it, but is a composition focusing mostly on the sky, and trying to include both the state flag and the statue.  This is not an aesthetic concern at all, but a relevance one. The statue image (or, rather, one more focused on the statute and its details) is of more use in a section about Kamehameha's legacy and modern perception, not about him as a historical person, which is what this article is about principally.  The lead should have a realistic portrait.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Portrait. The picture currently in the article de-emphasizes the statue by including the flag, so it doesn't do a good job of depicting the statue to begin with.  The statue itself is not a realistic depiction of what Kamehameha actually looked like, since (according to the Kamehameha Statues article itself) the sculptor created a face that more resembles a European than a Native Hawaiian.  The picture of the statue may have a place in this and other articles where Kamehameha's legacy is discussed, but it should not be the lead image in an article about the person himself.  Musashi1600 (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Portrait - My opinion is that the portrait is the better picture to illustrate the article as the lead image. The statue image in the lead is a bit small to give much of a useful representation of the topic. Also I note Musashi's point that the statue was made to resemble European features rather than the actual subject. Dlv999 (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Portrait. I agree with the above statements.  The portrait is most applicable to the lead.  The statue can be used later in the article.  The portrait does a much better job of illustrating the subject. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Portrait. I agree with the statements above. Whilst the image of the statue is perhaps useful later in the article, the portrait is more suitable as the lead. Sotakeit (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * Please thoroughly read the arguments presented in the above two sections in support or against these two images (which I have bolded) and less to the rants about other unrelated issue involving me and Miller over other related disputes. I will be happy to clarify anything relating to my arguments for the portrait and against the statue. Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, just the fact that this has largely been a ranty dispute between two parties who will not compromise is a good reason for you both to zip it and stop creating more sections laying out what people should and shouldn't do when they come here. We don't need to read your prior invective to make a decision about what is better for the article and for our readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I can respect that.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted the image back to the portrait as indicated as the consensus of editors in the above RFC after 30 days.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Death date
There is conflicting information depending on the source used, so I have added both dates with a source to the May 14 dating as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Writing down exact sentence for those other interested who might not have access to the books:..."With those words, King Kamehameha I expired in Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i, on 14 May 1819."
 * Can you do the same with the other source now please?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * From the footnotes of page 230 of Don Francisco de Paula Marin: The Letters and Journal of Francisco de Paula Marin (page 71 was a summary with a cut of the quotation but not in its entirety) are the original words of Marin in full. "8 May: "This day THE KING TAMEAMEA died at 3 in the morning aged 60 years and six months. Today they were weeping all day & cutting the hair in different figures and the women ate pork and cocoa nuts..." --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah...and this one says May 7. --Mark Miller (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * So, do other secondary or primary sources to replicate the other non-May 8 dates? Ann Rayson or Helen Bauer states the natural phenomena associated with Kamehameha's death started on May 7 not necessarily that he died on that day. How many secondary scholarly sources uses the May 8th date? (rhetorical question)--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably the only other witness to his death to write down anything would have been John Young, although a Western ship migtht have been docked in Kona at the time. Everything else would have been hear say either translated from the Hawaiian witness such as Kaikioewa, Hoapili, Liholiho, etc. Sheldon Dibble's account of Kamehameha's death state it was 2 o'clock, from which Leleiohoku I got his name.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Kamakau stated "Hoku, May (Kaelo) 14 according to the Oahu calendar." http://www.ulukau.org/elib/collect/chiefs/index/assoc/D0.dir/doc246.pdf. This may be the root.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we are best leaving it as "8 or 14" as that is precisely what we are suggested to do for balance of the sources with contradicting information.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The majority of reliable sources do not give an exact date because it is not actually known for sure, but I will leave it as is as two reliable sources and more do point to these two dates and this is the best compromise.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Returning to re-add content with sources
I removed a great deal of unsourced content the other night with the intention to return the following day to work on the article. I had an un-productive day today and will return to this article tomorrow night.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Requiring further research, sourcing, inline citations
From what was the family section

Birth section
This needs refinement. There seems to be some contentious claims not strongly referenced. The claim of eyewitness accounts is dubious and there is no mention that Kamehameha himself dated his age (yeah...Hawaiian's could count years) at 78, 5 years before his death. There is an issue here as it appears that Kamehameha was probably 83 years old when he died. Records through the LDS and Catholic Churches in Hawaii and elsewhere along with other documents, including probate records, Great Mahele indices, land grants etc., seem to date further back than the 1758 date and do seem to show Kamehameha was not 60 when he passed. We also need to revisit the list of wives and begin a more comprehensive list of children. this listing seems available in published form in a number of different ways, books, and websites and there seems adequate sourcing to begin summarizing the facts and opinions of a more varied group of sources to determine what might not be accurate and therefore need not be mentioned.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am removing all reference to the Halley's comet birth dating as nonsense. Halley's Comet did not appear in 1758. It is dated at 13 March 1759. This alone causes serious doubts and calls in to this content and claim. But that is simply the basic math problem of the dating along with contradicting information. The main issue is the dating is only based on legend that is then interpreted by others incorrectly. Its like saying that the birth of Jesus had to be in 44bc because that is when Caesar's Comet was visible and had to be the Star of Bethlehem. No, it seems this hinges on two things, the legend itself which I believe should be sourced properly to Kamaka Stillman from her response to another history written in the Hawaiian papers. The issue with dating of other events incorrectly as discussed by some academics is not an issue with the birth dating, as it is not a theory, but going from the written account of Kamehameha himself as recorded and documented. He was 78 when he was interviewed. I believe he died 5 years later.
 * The birth issue of May 8th and May 14 of the Hawaiian calendar may be simple math but as it stands now is accurate dating to sources. What needs to happen is more research on the dating to sort out specifically what date May 14 corresponds with in the Gregorian calendar.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What source does the interview and your reference of the Hawaiian calendar come from? The legend of the star dates to 1885 from Kanalu's article in Ka Hoku o ke Kai (The Star of the Sea), a Hawaiian magazine.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The source that references the calendar date is on the article. We have already discussed that. An additional source is not required. It is simple math to determine what day in the Gregorian calendar, corresponds to the May 14th date in the Hawaiian calendar. The reference for Kamehameha's own claim of age has not been placed into the article at this point. The legend of the star actually has a much earlier starting point but again, basing the birth of a historic figure on legend and interpretations of comets is nonsense, and does not fit into the known date the comet actually became visible as predicted by Halley himself anyway.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess I will wait until you add them then. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I really need to correct this inaccurate statement. Hailey Comet's 1758-59 transit was first recorded in December of 1758 over Germany and as calculated by modern astronomist it was visible over the night skies of Kohala between October and December of 1758. 13 March 1759 is the date of the perihelion (the point in the orbit of a planet, asteroid, or comet at which it is closest to the sun). Makemson's article only states the legend as a possibility not a fact. The 1758 date is not base solely on legend since Don Francisco de Paula Marin (a twenty-year long physician and advisor of the King) stated he was 60 years and 6 months at his death which would point to a date in the end of 1758. But the below sources only agree on refuting Kamakau's 1736 estimate; they don't agree on any specific years or legend, although there are high supports for 1753, 1758 and a range between 1752 and 1761.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "only states the legend as a possibility not a fact" we are done. You have proven the sources to be crap.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. As evident by all your responses, you seem to believe that I am arguing for the legend and soley for a 1758 date, and keep fixating on that and using that point to attack the credibility of the sources even the ones that don't mention the comet or the 1758 estimate. I mean if these were all arguing a legend that certainly gives it shaking ground but the conclusion of these sources support 1753, 1758 and a range between 1752 and 1761; only Makemsom's source speaks about the comet. Quoting myself, " The 1758 date is not base solely on legend since Don Francisco de Paula Marin (a twenty-year long physician and advisor of the King) stated he was 60 years and 6 months at his death which would point to a date in the end of 1758. But the below sources only agree on refuting Kamakau's 1736 estimate; they don't agree on any specific years or legend, although there are high supports for 1753, 1758 and a range between 1752 and 1761."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Research and rewrite
This article was reduced some time ago to remove unsourced claims. I am beginning improvements to the article today and will be working on the page for the next 24 hrs to add additional sourced content.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources challenging/refuting a 1736 date
Cataloging sources which were removed. These sources challenge/refute a 1736 date and support a date for either 1753, 1758 or a range between 1752 and 1761 (not solely for 1758). "In the nature of the case, it is impossible to know definitely just when Kamehameha was born. The best evidence on the subject is found in the estimates of his age made by observers who saw him during his lifetime. A collation of these estimates indicates that he was born sometime in the period 1748-1761. The earliest statement by a historian of the islands is found in Jarves' history, first published in 1843, which says that Kamehameha died at the age of sixty-six; hence he was born in 1753. R. C. Wyllie in 1850 noted the statement in the diary of the Spaniard Francisco de Paula Marin, who knew Kamehameha for more than twenty-five years, to the effect that the king was sixty years and six months old when he died.1 This would place his birth in November. 1758. The native journalist-historian, S. M. Kamakau, stated several times that Kamehameha was born in 1736. When this statement was first published in English in the Hawaiian Gazette (Honolulu), August 26, 1868, it was immediately challenged by Dr. S. C. Damon, editor of the Friend, who published a note on the subject in that periodical (Sept. 1868, p. 77), asking for Kamakau's authority and stating that the date 1753 was more likely to be correct. So far as known, Kamakau never answered this challenge; but the date proposed by him was taken up by Fornander and through the weight of the latter's standing as a student of the ancient history of Hawaii, the date 1736 obtained acceptance by later writers. In recent years, the first writer to question the date 1736 was the late Albert P. Taylor, for six years librarian of the Archives of Hawaii, who in his book Under Hawaiian Skies (1 ed., 1922, p. 81 ; 2 ed., 1926, pp. 127-128) revived the criticism first made by Dr. Damon and wrote: 'With all deference to Kamakau's intimate knowledge of ancient Hawaiian history, his selection of 1736 as the birth year of Kamehameha must be in error. It would be a more correct statement to say Kamehameha was born in 1753.' More recently the subject has been carefully examined by John F. G. Stokes, who has had some material not available to earlier writers.2 His conclusion is that Kamehameha was born between 1750 and 1760, probably after 1755. A proposal to celebrate in 1936 the bicentennial of Kamehameha's birth caused the Hawaiian Historical Society to express officially its views on the subject; these are contained in a report adopted by the trustees of the Society and a set of resolutions adopted by the Society at a public meeting on July 8, 1935.3 The gist of the Society's opinion is in the statement that 'the evidence now available points very strongly to the conclusion that Kamehameha I was born in some year during the period 1752 to 1761, the probabilities favoring the latter part of that decade.' Still more recently, Dr. Maud W. Makemson, assistant professor of astronomy in Vassar College, on the basis of an Hawaiian tradition and certain astronomical data, pointed to a possible time correlation between the birth of Kamehameha and the appearance of Halley's comet in December, 1758.4 If the Hawaiian tradition is authentic, Dr. Makemson's study is a remarkable corroboration of Marin's statement mentioned above. However, it may be pointed out that the astronomical argument will support any date within a few months or even a few years of December, 1758, for in the process of legend making a striking natural phenomenon like the appearance of Halley's comet and an historical event such as the birth of Kamehameha, the importance of which would only be recognized in later years, could very easily be telescoped together even though they were in fact separated by some little space of time. After the foregoing portion of this appendix was written, there was published in the New England Quarterly, X, 355-380 (June, 1937), a portion of the journal kept by Captain Samuel Hill of the ship Ophelia, who was at the Hawaiian islands from March 28 to May 7, 1816. In this journal Captain Hill makes the statement, 'According to the best data I could procure from Mr. Young, the king is now about 67 years of age.' The statement is of great importance because it evidently gives us the opinion of John Young, who had been almost continuously associated with Kamehameha since 1790. This estimate of the king's age in the spring of 1816 would make his age at death about 70 years, and would place his birth in 1748 or 1749. This may be compared with the statement by the Spaniard Marin, placing the birth of Kamehameha in 1758. An average drawn from the estimates of Young and Marin would give approximately 1753 as the birth year of Kamehameha, agreeing with the date given by Jarves." "WHEREAS, Kamehameha I is universally recognized as being the greatest figure in the history of the Hawaiian people, and as being of significance even in world history; and WHEREAS, the exact date of the birth of Kamehameha I is not known and in the nature of the case cannot be known; and WHEREAS, the evidence now available points very strongly to the conclusion that Kamehameha I was born in some year during the period 1752 to 1761, the probabilities favoring the latter part of that decade; and WHEREAS, Hawaiian traditions without contradiction indicate that the birth of Kamehameha I occurred in the stormy season of the year (fall or winter) and probably in October or November; and WHEREAS, Kamehameha V by proclamation in 1871 appointed the eleventh of June of each year thereafter as a day to be 'observed as a Public Holiday in memory of. . . Kamehameha I, the founder of the Hawaiian Kingdom,' and that day is now a public holiday of the Territory of Hawaii under the title 'Kamehameha Day;' and WHEREAS, it is clear that the eleventh of June was selected for the purpose mentioned, not in the belief or on the assumption that it was the birthday of Kamehameha I, but simply because it was a convenient date and because a new holiday was desired in the summer to take the place of Restoration Day formerly observed on July 31; and WHEREAS, the birth of King Kalakaua is well ascertained to have occurred on November 16, 1836; and WHEREAS, King Kalakaua is one of the most outstanding figures and his reign one of the most important and colorful epochs in the history of the Hawaiian Kingdom; and WHEREAS, Act 202 of the legislative session of 1935 appropriated the sum of $10,000 to be spent by a commission (to be named the Hawaii Jubilee Commission) 'in the celebrations of the anniversaries of the birth of King Kamehameha I, and of the centennial of the birth of King Kalakaua;' and WHEREAS, in spite of the fact that the Territorial legislature, in passing Act 202, carefully eliminated all reference to the bicentenary of the birth of Kamehameha I, it has been stated or implied in various statements by representatives of the Commission appointed in pursuance of Act 202, and by others, that June 11 is the birthday of Kamehameha I and that the bicentenary of the birth of Kamehameha I will occur in the year 1936 and will be the principal motive of the celebations to be held on June 11, 1936; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Hawaiian Historical Society, FIRST, that while the Society is entirely in sympathy with the idea of commemorating, from year to year, the life of Kamehameha I in accordance with the proclamation of Kamehameha V, and neither proposes nor desires any change in the holding of the annual celebration on the eleventh of June, the day named in the proclamation; nevertheless the Society objects to and protests against the propagation of the unhistorical assertion that June 11 is the birthday of Kamehameha I; SECOND, that while believing it altogether appropriate that the bicentenary of the birth of Kamehameha I should receive special recognition in the form of a celebration under governmental sponsorship, the Society formally puts on record its opinion, on the basis of present available evidence, that the bicentenary of the birth of Kamehameha I will fall on some date during the period 1952 to 1961 and that the celebration of the event should therefore be held at some time during that decade; THIRD, the Society heartily approves the idea of celebrating in 1936 the centennial of the birth of King Kalakaua, but the Society objects to and protests against the plan to call or consider the celebration in 1936, or any part of it, in any sense a celebration of the bicentenary of the birth of Kamehameha I. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Governor, Secretary, Auditor and Treasurer of the Territory of Hawaii, to the Chairman and Executive Officer of the Hawaii Jubilee Commission, to the Postmaster-General, and to the local press." "The year estimate, 1736, by Kamakau, requires careful consideration, because it has been picked up in modern times and so frequently quoted that many people believe it to be correct. The basis of Kamakau's estimate has never been found or even explained. He was four years old when Kamehameha died in 1819. He could have received no ancient information on year counts because, as already shown the early Hawaiians did not keep them. In his chronological list, which the native writers of his time did not follow, he sets many dates which are grossly erroneous. For instance, an event in 1779 he places as in 1740 A. D.—a difference of 39 years. A contemporary opinion on Kamakau's accuracy may be found in a letter signed 'A Hawaiian' in the Hawaiian Gazette of 1868. Among other things, the writer says: 'It is well known among the Hawaiians that some of Kamakau's historical writings are not authentic, and that his imagination supplies the material of other statements. This is evident by the controversy lately entered into by the native newspapers.' Kamakau was constantly under fire by native historians. Since Kamakau was the first to use the date 1736, and it varies so greatly from the average of the estimates made by those who saw Kamehameha in person, it should be rejected as part of the material said to have been supplied by his imagination. Kamakau's date, 1736, first published in 1865, was ignored by [contemporary] local historians* (see Table II). Jarves' date, 1753, continued in use in local histories, chronological tables, etc., for many years after Kamakau's list appeared. But for Fornander, who perpetuated many of Kamakau's errors, the year 1736 for Kamehameha's birth probably would not have been noticed. He repeated it, and since Alexander and later writers trusted him, this date has been generally followed as correct. Conscientious historians in the future will no doubt avoid it." RELIABILITY OF KAMAKAU

The question now is the reliability of Kamakau's chronological table of dates in the traditional period. It depends upon no authority but that of Kamakau himself. Of course in some quarters locally it is a heresy to question Kamakau's dictum, although in his day his historical accuracy was assailed on all sides by his compatriots (57, pp. 45 ff.) His retort was as follows, according to his biographer: Asking to be excused for being presumptuous, still he brags that he is the only one who can answer to perfection, and to the satisfaction of anyone who asks any question pertaining to Hawaiian history; that others are nothing but children and did not know of what they were saying. This remark is typical of many native authorities today, and if Kamakau were correct in his boast, he would need no earlier references in compiling his chronological table. Kamakau's reliability however was not of the best. He was deprived of his judgeship for cause. His eulogist (57, pp. 52 ff) in the legislature apologizes for his "political and social" opinions but enlarges on his value as a "historian and legendary writer." The latter expression is presently changed to "romancer" by the eulogist. His historical followers are themselves somewhat reserved and accept Kamakau with apologies for his inaccuracies. His biographer regards his history as "at times of doubtful character." Fornander says of Kamakau: "He is often very credulous, inconsistent and uncritical . . . his love of antiquity often leads him into irreconcilable difficulties." Alexander (2, p. 17) notes that Kamakau "did not always keep his versions of the ancient traditions free from foreign admixture." Yet these authorities are largely responsible for the perpetuation of the dates established by Kamakau alone! For much of his unreliability, Kamakau is not wholly responsible. His instructor in historical methods (52, p. 98) was more unscrupulous in misstating facts than ever was Kamakau. For much of his unreliability, Kamakau is not wholly responsible. His instructor in historical methods (52, p. 98) was more unscrupulous in misstating facts than ever was Kamakau.

DATES ARE; MERE GUESSES

Briefly summed up, most of Kamakau's dates in the traditional period related to people who were dead long before he was born; he had no opportunity of ascertaining the dates through tradition, because Hawaiians did not use year dates; he was the first to expound the dates and did so without explanation of their source or his method of obtaining them; they were not accepted by his native contemporaries who, on the other hand, assailed his historic accuracy. Obviously Kamakau's dates were the merest guesses of an irresponsible man, yet his closest followers, while apologizing for his unreliability, pick up the dates he guessed at and write them into Hawaiian history as "thoroughly well established." There can be no question that the dates now applied to the traditional period of Hawaiian history should be scrutinized most rigidly before acceptance.



"Kamakau's date for the birth of Kamehameha has been challenged as over twenty years too early on the basis, first, of Kamakau's general inaccuracy in matters of dating; second, contemporary estimates of voyagers who visited the islands during Kamehameha's lifetime; third, the events of his life, which would, in case the early date is accepted, put his career as a warrior well into middle life; fourth, the contemporary record by Don Francisco Paula de Marin, who, according to Wyllie's copy of Marin's journal (in Archives of Hawaii) puts his age at death (1819) at 60 years 6 months. The whole argument has been set forth in detail by the Hawaiian Historical Society (29). J. F. G. Stokes treats of the subject also (33). On the basis of further evidence, Kuykendall favors 1753 or several years earlier as the probable birth date (17 p. 430)."
 * — Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii was not removed but it is another source that brings question to Kamakau's own dating in his own book. It is dated most recently to 1991, however it is a summarization of Stokes and Kuykendall's sources.


 * I don't think any of that is worthy of the statement that it refutes anything. It seems very much to be nonsense that does not appear to have a basis in fact of any kind but is simply the opinion of few modern interpretations based soley on myth. Its crap.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All of the above secondary sources are nearly 90 years old. I would also point out that none of them ever refer to the comet dating as a fact.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Only Makemson's article does. I'm not presenting an argument for the legend of the comet, that is beside the point. These sources refute Kamakau's assertion of a 1736 date that is all. Although, it would be interesting to note what serious Hawaiian research has spoken of the subject in the intervening 70-80 years since most of these sources, and if there are any which are independent opinions and research outside of these history, not mere regurgitation, repeating older sources with no independent research behind them. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The very first person to question Kamakau's dating was Albert Pierce Taylor in his publication: "under hawaiian skies" however, he gives absolutely no reasoning whatsoever to explain other than his own preference or belief that Kamehameha I was 25 when Cook arrived. I am unaware of Lt. King or any other eyewitness at that time referring to Kamehameha by age. Taylor also makes no statements of fact. It is conjecture, opinion and...unexplained: "With all deference to Kamakaivs intimate knowledge of ancient Hawaiian history, his selection of 1736 as the birth year of Kamehameha -must be in error. It would be a more correct statement to say Kamehameha was born in 1753. This would make him 25 when Cook arrived." This cannot be used to source a fact, or any other source based off it.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

In "The Hawaiian Kingdom" it states outright: "However, it may be pointed out that the astronomical argument will support any date within a few months or even a few years". The problem is, it doesn't even support the year because we know the comet only became visible in March of 1759. It is not a fact. --Mark Miller (talk) 13:18, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Hawaiian Historical society reference is a proclamation from the society in 1935 but is also not a fact and also does not state what the evidence is at that point either. It also does not state the year 1758 at all but a broad dating between 1752 and 1761. A reference from the same publication, but from 1903 states outright the dating to be considered by most to be 1736.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The first person to question the 1736 date was Samuel C. Damon, the editor of The Friend in September 1867, two years after Kamakau printed the date in the Kuakoa; and this does not count the countless sources before 1865 that in retrospect disagrees with Kamakau's dating. The 1903 HHS citation you're speaking of is authored by William DeWitt Alexander (who heavily cites Kamakau and Fornander; see quotes from Stoke's 1935 Report above). The 1903 article like Edith McKenzie's Hawaiian Genealogies are merely recycling Kamakau's and Fornander's mistakes and unlike the 1935 HHS proclamation isn't the official opinion endorsed by the Society. At a time when the Territory of Hawaii was suggesting to celebrate the bicentenary of Kamehameha's birth along with the centenary of Kalakaua's birth, the HHS proclamation opposed the validity of celebrating the 1736 date. I don't disagree with range between 1752 and 1761 as more valid than the 1758 or 1753 dates.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Crap. Old and outdated nonsense.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah and a single person's word from 1865 (backed by no evidence) which was later proliferated and repeated by later authors with no independent mind or ability to find new evidence and research on their own on the topic is any better. Although it has to be stated that Kamakau's work is not crap; as an aspiring historian I respect his authority in Hawaiian history but I will not blindly accept his dating of Kamehameha I's birth as fact. I refuse to insult any of the listed sources including Kamakau and Fornander with such heinous and opinionated language as "crap" but terms such as "grossly erroneous", "challenged", "must be in error", "general inaccuracy" can be applied as so by the opinion of more than one actual historian. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That single person is one of the most widely cited Hawaiian Historians, S.M Kamakau, who was schooled by dibble. The other author most widely cited is Abraham Fornander. Both use the 1736 dating and both you yourself cite in other articles. The criticism you show above by stokes from 1933 is not the current academic consensus. It has not been debunked. "as an aspiring historian I respect his authority in Hawaiian history but I will not blindly accept his dating of Kamehameha I's birth as fact" we are not stating it a fact and I do not wish to state it as fact. There is no source that claims ANY date as fact, but the 1736 has been demonstrated to be the most reliable. We have not really done any further research on this just ran through the current sources. As far as being an aspiring historian I and accepting something, cool. However as a Native Hawaiian I would never accept a dating that wiped out every single known dating of others. You can't be born if your father is has been dead about 5 or 6 years and you can't have father a child at 8 or 9. Stokes is great but he has an opinion and nothing more. It's over 70 years old and I am mot sure that a single authors opinion of the more well known historians from that long ago is enough for us to start calling Kamakau and Fornander's dating as incorrect. It is not "proven" but it is more likely than 1758 and has been viewed that way for at least the mid 1960 when real archeology was beginning on Kamehameha sites and true investigative research carried out. Stokes may not even be worth mentioning if he isn't the actual source of the 1758 dating, but I suspect it goes back to probably dates back to the political turmoil of the Ruth-Likelike or the Kalakaua-Emma fights. That's is speculation but likely.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "...1736 has been demonstrated to be the most reliable." — Nothing has demonstrated that 1736 was anymore reliable than the other estimates except the arguments that Kamakau's own dating practices for Keoua and Kaoleioku's births makes his own claim of 1736 make sense. The literatures today does not demonstrate any consensus on the issue or that Kamakau's source on this specific date is anymore reliable than the other authors who wrote after Kamehameha's death (some before 1865) or the estimates of figures that met the King in his lifetime. The reliability of Kamakau's date has been questioned recently as 1991 by Kamehameha Schools Press in a reprint of his own works. Archaeology research in Hawaii hasn't been shown to comment on the issue

.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Stokes is great but he has an opinion and nothing more. It's over 70 years old and I am mot sure that a single authors opinion of the more well known historians from that long ago is enough for us to start calling Kamakau and Fornander's dating as incorrect" — If we can't call Kamakau and Fornander's dating as incorrect; we most certainly can't call the other datings incorrect either. These writers have the same weight and opinions as Fornander or Kamakau; all wrote after Kamehameha's death and never met him in his lifetime. Fornander and Kamakau claims aren't unassailable opinions (unquestioned/unchallenged authorities on this specific issue) as demonstrated by the opinions of thees other historians; one can't judge the opinions of the other historians and sources without applying the same judgement to these two authors as well. Stokes's and Kuykendall's opinions are over 80 years old; Kamakau's opinion is over 150 years old; Fornander's rehashing of Kamakau's date is over 130 years old; James Jackson Jarves's opinion is over 170 years old; then we also have the opinions of those who knew the King in his lifetime or wrote around the time of his death which are over 200 years old. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "These writers have the same weight and opinions as Fornander or Kamakau" That is demonstrably incorrect.
 * "If we can't call Kamakau and Fornander's dating as incorrect; we most certainly can't call the other datings incorrect either" That has no real logic. We most certainly can call one incorrect without effecting the status of the other and vice versa. One does not depend on the other.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Hawaiian Historical Society's resolution is an opinion. It is also an old opinion and has not been demonstrated to be the current model or accepted belief of the organization today. There may also other counter resolutions from other organizations like the Royal Order of Kamehameha and any of the other Royal Orders, but again these are only opinion of groups. Cutting a historical persons lifespan of 20 years when the majority of sources that discuss his family, wives and children all agree that the man must have been born sometime between 1736 to 1740. All the so called eyewitness accounts from those supporting the 60 year age turned out to be speculating. There are eyewitness accounts from others there as well that support the 1736 dating. At least one is not speculation. I will endeavor to research this further but I have noticed tat the more contemporary sources are not using the later dating.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources that claim the 1736 dating as fact (or close)

 * The United States Congressional record states the 1736 date as fact in the sub committee reports dated 1798 to 1901. --Mark Miller (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This source directly cites C. C. Bennett's "Honolulu Directory and Historical Sketch of the Hawaiian or Sandwich Islands", who cites Kuokoa native newspaper of the year 1865 . Another proliferation of Kamakau's mistake. I contexture there are no sources out there that is not just another person replicating Kamakau's date of 1736 or Fornander's later rendition changing it to a range between 1736 to 1740.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It has never been established that these claims are not accurate. Kamakau and Fornander did not make a mistake nor has that ever been considered a fact. This represents the strongest chain of referencing yet, based on printed newspaper accounts by Kamakau. The mistake is trying to use any source that cannot establish as a fact the claims being made. Kamakau is considered highly reliable and nothing has demonstrated the dating as incorrect. I will also add that the dating for Keōua's death, as well as many other dates, do not add up. Keōua is said to have died in 1752. Our article propped up a later date using free genealogy site. The 1758 dating does not work and has been established as false, based entirely on astronomy observations that were incorrectly dated as well, and were guesses at what the legend may have referred to. That is the actual mistake. I'll also add that Kamehameha would be too young to have fathered Kaōleiokū at the age of 9 and that as well has been noted along with the dating for the death of Keōua. The 1758 dating is unrealistic all around.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * John F. G. Stokes ("New Bases for Hawaiian Chronology") has demonstrated that Kamakau and Fornander were totally unreliable with dating and often inflated the age of figures by twice the age they were suppose to be. Kamakau was challenged in his lifetime and after on his dating but he never addressed how he know them at all. Even the modern publisher of Kamakau's 1991 reprint of his newspaper articles Ruling Chief of Hawaii points to inaccuracy of the 1736 date in a footnote. At this point, no one is arguing for Hailey comet correlation as a fact (the source merely states Kanalu's legend is a possibly); the 1758 date is supported by Marin's journals and the range between 1752 and 1761 is supported by people who met and knew the King. Also the 1752 date of Keōua's death is Kamakau's creation (p. 75 Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii); it proves nothing, merely showing Kamakau agrees with himself in his chronology. On Kaoleioku, "Many of these "possibilities" are to be anticipated. In the matter of ages for instance—the best information is that Kaoleioku was born in 1767 and Kamehameha in 1758, so that the latter was nine years old when the former was born. Now, since the dates are only estimates, they may be moved a few years either way, and Kamehameha be represented as old enough to be a father! (Stokes, "Kaoleioku, Paternity and Biographical Sketch," 1934, page 28)."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. You are incorrect. Stokes did not "demonstrate" either were wrong with the dating of Kamehameha's birth nor did he demonstrate that Kamkau and Fornander were "totally unreliable with dating...". Stokes is making a hypothesis in this publication and you know it because we have discussed it at length before. The entire issue he covers is that Paulie could not be Kamehameha's son using the 1758 dating as one possible reasoning. Your interpretations of that exact source has been previously challenged (by me on another page). We already know that source cannot be used to claim Paulie IS or IS NOT Kamehameha's son. It is opinion. There are however, sources mentioned in article. It is just the current evidence that it is unlikely...and it still is unlikey even if Kamehameha was born in 1736. By the way, this does appear to be the current consensus at the university of Hawaii at Manoa but using a question mark. I believe this is strong evidence to keep this date, but also add the question mark on Wikipedia as well. .--Mark Miller (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sticking to the actual topic at hand. Facts or opinions depend on the way an author writes it. Kamakau's dating is based on his own writing, written in an matter of fact way to leave no room for other opinions. However, his "fact" was never supported by anything except his own words, and was challenged by contemporary native historians, Damon and earlier work by Jarves in his lifetime. Stoke, the HHS, Kuykendall unlike Kamakau actually presents extensive literary evidences supporting a hypothesis which challenges Kamakau's dating. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect. Much of kamakau's dating is derived from Dibble. He is not without mistakes, nor is Fornander, Stokes, even others, but those authors and sources are never clear on much detail and even for the day are not conclusive. After the md 1960s academic research along with archeological research began confirming a good deal of Kamakau. Simply put, you have not established that either Dibble, Kamakau or Fornander were ever debunked. they were not. Genealogies of many living people can be traced to non dynastic children of Kamehameha that are actually recorded in church records and published in numerous accounts including "Kamehameha's Children Today" which includes much of the Royal Family genealogies prior to some of the questions Stokes brings up about another figure who had dubious genealogy. There has been 80 years of academic research, family documentation, church and other records, including the state archives.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Much of kamakau's dating is derived from Dibble." I don't believe any of this. Dibble's work never cited the date of Kamehameha's birth in any of his work or any of Kamakau's other dating; can you cite references where Kamakau's datings especially the 1736 date shows up in Dibble's work? The sources don't debunk anything but they certainly challenge the accuracy of Kamakau and Fornander's datings with multiple sources including Stokes, Kuykendall, an official statement by the HHS, the Kamehameha Schools Press (through their footnote in Ruling Chiefs).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "I don't believe any of this." I don't care and it means nothing here what you believe, especially if you fail to even know the facts about Dibble and Kamakua. What you are asking confuses what I stated. Kamakua derived much of his dating from his instructor...Dibble. Now...perhaps you might want to read, in full, that Stokes source.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read it all unlike you. Just because Kamakau was influenced by his instructor Dibble in his writing doesn't mean he derived his dating from Dibble. Dibble being Kamakau's instructor does not equal Kamakau's datings were influenced by Dibble. Kamakau could've invented and fabricated datings independent of his lessons from Dibble; the only one who knows where it came from was Kamakau himself and he has never cited where he got his datings. Historians however knows that Kamakau's dating has been challenged by multiple sources throughout history.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Since now you are just attacking me, I will now tell you point blank that you have not demonstrated these old sources to be accurate and again, it is based false information that is pure speculation.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "it is based false information that is pure speculation" — Your opinions or interpretations what is truth/false and what is speculation/facts does not matter in this argument...I don't see this argument getting anywhere and never expected it to amount to anything other than for me to presented my case and the contents of the sources that were removed. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not the most civil editor. You twist things to demonize others and perpetuate false information that suits your POV. My opinion is not in question nor is it the basis of my argument. Facts are. The 1758 dating is not based on ANY fact at all. it is a theory based on innacurate astronomy dates. I don't care what you expected. I see they way you treat people that don't agree with you. But you are not going to bulldoze your way through this article, pushing your POV based on these sources.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor is the 1736 date based on ANY fact all, except Kamakau's word and everyone else since 1865 that has replicated his assertions. At least, the 1758 date is supported by Don Francisco de Paula Marin's journal (the only contemporary source to describe Kamehameha's age in years and months).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually....you have not demonstrated that as accurate at all.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not, nor will I. But all sources listed above has challenged Kamakau's dating of Kamehameha's birth as problematic/erroneous.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don Francisco de Paula Marin has absolutely no reliable sourcing for the date and neither do you.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * He was the King's advisor and physician for twenty years; I guess that doesn't mean much. And touché same thing can be said about Kamakau. And I will say it, Kamakau has absolutely no reliable sourcing for the date (1736 that is). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "totally unreliable with dating..." — Probably a bit too strong but definitely not completely reliable. — "Briefly summed up, most of Kamakau's dates in the traditional period related to people who were dead long before he was born; he had no opportunity of ascertaining the dates through tradition, because Hawaiians did not use year dates; he was the first to expound the dates and did so without explanation of their source or his method of obtaining them; they were not accepted by his native contemporaries who, on the other hand, assailed his historic accuracy. Obviously Kamakau's dates were the merest guesses of an irresponsible man, yet his closest followers, while apologizing for his unreliability, pick up the dates he guessed at and write them into Hawaiian history as "thoroughly well established." There can be no question that the dates now applied to the traditional period of Hawaiian history should be scrutinized most rigidly before acceptance."--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * How does http://manoa.hawaii.edu/hawaiiancollection/legends/subjectsearch.php?q=Kamehameha prove the University of Hawaii at Manoa has a consensus on the topic? Whatever their library search engine present does not equal a historical consensus or opinion of the University on the subject.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If we want to throw around institutional names in modern Hawaii. The Kamehameha Schools website states "Kamehameha is believed to have been born in about 1758" and the Kamehameha Schools Press is also the publisher of the 1991 book Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii including the page 66 footnote. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah....one page from a high school bio page is not a strong source.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah...nor is the keyword category of a library search catalog. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You seriously need to better understand how Wikipedia works.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Edith McKenzie's Hawaiian Genealogies lists Kamehameha as being born between 1736 to 1740.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * While the Hawaiian Historical Society appear to change their minds in endorsing a date in 1935, they write it as fact in 1903. --Mark Miller (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)