Talk:Paumakua

Move
The reason why this was at Paumakua of Maui was because there exist a second Paumakua from Oahu. Though there shouldn't be any probem until that article is recreated. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We can keep that in mind and when or if either of us create the article it should probable be named something along the lines of Paumakua (Oahu). This article would have some priority of the name as the first First moi of Maui.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Be careful there. The list of alii aimoku we have now are completely fabricated by Christopher Buyer on royal ark. In some of the islands there is not a definitive list of chiefs by which we can assign numbers to. The unified island kings were a later additions as chiefs gain power over time. The chiefs which royal ark tries to make a list for are often just ancestors who didn't share the same position as their later descendants. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We should not make accusations of content being fabricated. Please Kavebear, you need to understand you cannot say certain things without proof. Right now, the information should be verifiable. If the number is incorrect it can be changed, but moi is a unique title and the list is from the ruling alii and only goes back so far. This should easily be mentioned in at least a few separate genealogy chants. What is it you believe is fabricated? The number, the subjects or both?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbers. The concept of a list and the whole premise behind those list of alii aimoku articles are flawed and were base on the informations on the royal ark sites. I made them in 2008, so I know where I got my information from. Although I can't prove Buyer fabricated the list with numbers, I and others like User:Mamohina certainly have a strong hunch something is wrong. There are no reliable sources which gives individual numbers to these chiefs and it isn't simple math. Some of the individuals were not actually even rulers. Did Piʻilani really inherited a kingly title from Paumakua with everyone in between succeeding and ruling as the list would suggest? I think we have a alii aimoku of the Big Island who lived for most of his life on Molokai but because he was the son and father of a chief who lived and ruled on the Big Island, he was counted by the royal ark site as #th alii aimoku. I know of no way to actually rewrite these lists to be truthful and accurate, which is one of the many reasons why I washed myself of these articles. My guess is that Christopher Buyer created the list and numbers by looking at the genealogy of the last chiefs of these islands and Fornander's book which attempts to tell the stories and reigns of these chiefs in a chronological order, although it gets murky as you head toward Buyer's 1st rulers because most of these people were just chiefs who settled in the islands from Tahiti. There are so many problems when one thinks about it and so many misconceptions and romanizations. There is even scholarship which have shown the title moi is a later 19th century invention (see discussion in Molokai list). See Talk:Alii Aimoku of Molokai, Talk:Alii Aimoku of Oahu, Talk:Moʻi of Maui. Many of the points which User:Mamohina makes are extremely valid. The best game plan is to create these articles without any attention to these lists. I'm not that concern really where these articles are heading, but I just want to inform you about past discussions on these issues. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You put a lot into your replies and becomes a difficult task to touch all of you concerns. So, I will say that some things you bring up are not really an issue. First, the numbers are a matter of simple math. We simply count the number from the prevailing, main stream, academic sources. We have to decide or, more accurately, we have to make editorial choices when writing an encyclopedia. We are only a tertiary source. We are not the main source. You tend to give specific examples that are sometimes about topics that require a broader look. I am not saying your information is inaccurate, but that you are emphasizing that there was one scholarly source that doubts the validity of a strongly held belief. Balance would dictate that we only mention the single scholastic information if it is main stream and accepted theory. I will, of course trust your good faith that the information you are talking about is mainstream, but that means it lives along side other accepted understanding and theories. it does not mean it overrides all other sources and facts known to us. Let me leave you with this post by stating something you may not know or think about much. A local consensus cannot override a broader community consensus. That is why we have guidelines, policies and procedures. It is the wider community consensus. A local consensus of editor on a group of pages cannot override the wider community standard.


 * The documented history of the Hawaiian islands centers around Maui and Hawaii. There are other islands and they all have specific histories that lend to the overall history of the island chain, but Kamehameha I and all other successive rulers had some link or tie to Maui because of Kamehameha's line being placed over the other lines by subsequent marriage. But Maui also had its own history and line of rulers and the accepted understanding is that, at one time there were alii aimoku of Maui and that they were called moi (for the sake of speed I am not sticking to Hawaiian orthography in the discussion). At some point they began being referred to as such. The issue would be when the mainstream, academic consensus of that starting point. Was it at the creation of the position or was the title something that grew out of the separation from the other islands that was incorporated over time. But in order for that mark on Wikipedia to be set, we have to know what the mainstream opinion is and only add the other source as long as it is peer reviewed, published and then commented on by a secondary source. Just because someone publishes something doesn't mean we can use part of a theory or speculation as primary source mention in an article, let alone as overarching source for all or other articles. If it is a notable theory it might be mentioned in secondary sourcing and that source would be summarized. Then you can introduce the primary source and even mention some further related content. However, for Wikipedia to outline a standard in which a collection of related articles should adhere to, we have to be sure that it is mainstream and should be used as overarching facts for all these related articles and their content.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The numbers are inaccurate that is the biggest concern as User:Mamohina points out. That's the main issue. Just pointing the issues I have encountered before. Good luck.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh please, "You tend to give specific examples that are sometimes about topics that require a broader look. I am not saying your information is inaccurate, but that you are emphasizing that there was one scholarly source that doubts the validity of a strongly held belief. Balance would dictate that we only mention the single scholastic information if it is main stream and accepted theory" – You use this same tactic on Kekuanaoa and Kaoleioku. Actually I wasn't even doing it here. You notice Mamohina brought most of the information about doubting the history behind the history of the term moi. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Doubt is not a tactic nor is it a reason to tell everyone they are wrong, telling them specifically what is wrong is what Mamohina did and is doing and she seems to be very accurate and has her facts and sources straight.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyway, she is correct and it is the mainstream opinion:

--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)