User talk:KAVEBEAR/Kingdom of Oahu

help me!
What can I put for the currency shells, hogs, and feathers? Just kidding but how do other ancient Kingdom's infobox look like? Do they use currency places and flags. See if you can help.
 * Ok, the first thing you can do is check whatlinkshere for Infobox Former Country. This is good to know for future reference.  As for your question, the answer is yes, without even looking at the links.  This is because the infobox structure parameters already include currency, flags, and places. Look at Infobox Former Country, and see the section on instructions and empty syntax.  Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also what does the |representative1 = Committee of Safety |year_representative1=1893-1894 represent in the Kingdom of Hawaii infobox? Also I don't see where I can put down what the government is, it say Not specified.  What can I replace for the flag?  The government is a Absolute Monarchy, moiety, chiefdom, or or feudal state.  It would be great if you include all of these, if possible.  What would you call a monarchy that practice feudalism similar to the ones in Europe and China, giving fief to nobles. thanks!   KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How come when I put in this infobox it categorized your talk page? Sorry but I can't change it.  KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This is more my plan article of Kingdom Oahu since I am near finish with the list of Alii Aimoku of Oahu, with the exception of Kahahana due to the subjects length.
 * Scratch out moiety. it isn't a system of government. I thought it said kingship no kinship.  Stupid me  KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Population
If you have time do you want to write the section personally? Just about as large as the Capital sectionKAVEBEAR (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can definitely help contribute. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you think the different people that settled Oahu were from? From my research mainly from Kalakaua and Fornander, the original settlers were the Marqueasans (claim descendant from Nanaulu, a descendant in the fourteenth generation from Wakea) and the second migration from the south by the Tahitians (claim descendant from Ulu, a descendant in the fourteenth generation from Wakea).  Ulu and Nanaulu  were brothers.  But where does the Menehune come into this if they really existed. Because the Nanaulu were not conquered or oppressed by the Tahitians, but rather the two race assimilated into one.
 * Would the windward side be Koolau? At one time, the ‘Ewa district population was one of the densest on O‘ahu. (ref. Mo`olelo O Na Ali`i)
 * Kalakaua and Fornander are a great place to start, but you need to read the peer-reviewed literature, particularly what has been published within the last thirty years. I'll attempt to put something together for you if I have the time.  The questions you ask are excellent, but I'm afraid all we can do is speculate.  I'll put together something for you here as well. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cordy 2002: "Oral histories suggest complex societies emerged on Oahu no later than the early A.D. 1300s in three main centres: Ewa, Kona and Koolaupoko. Ewa then unified the island in the 1400s..." Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)




 * Need
 * Total population of Hawaii numbers
 * Dye and Stannard in Atlas of Hawaii 1999
 * List of islands by population
 * Majority of the population lived on the windward side due to water and fertile soil. (Kirch 1998)
 * Factors for population growth and decline?
 * I highly doubt that Oahuan population was 1000 in the year 1100s. There was no war during this time in history, except for Kaupeepee of Molokai who was raiding and pillaging the coasts of Oahu during this time.  Plus the island had already been settled five houndred year prior by the Nanaulu people (Marquesans) and before then probably by the Menehunes.  If 1000 people was the progress of 500 hundred years of peace and tranquility, enjoyed by the archipelago under the rule of the Nanaulu, then something must be wrong.
 * 1450's estimate is reasonable because this was during the peaceful reign of either Mailikukahi or his sucessors: Kalonaiki, or Piliwale, or Kukaniloko.
 * My understanding is that any number prior to 1830 is suspect. I'll try and update the numbers with more info. Viriditas (talk) 09:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Density?
 * Population sample size based on Mokapu skeletons (200-800 years-old)
 * Paleoethnobotany of Oahu

Newsletter
I would like to devote a column in the newsletter describing the work you are doing on ancient Hawaii topics. If I ask you a few questions, would you be able to briefly respond? Thanks. BTW, have you seen what Fang 23 is doing with User:Fang 23/Prehistoric Hawaii? Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues with Fornander
I've been reading through the current literature on the subject, and apparently, some of Fornander is highly problematic and possibly even false. I suggest that any dates or speculative details from Fornander should be carefully cross-referenced with current research. More later... Viriditas (talk) 09:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Many writer use Fornander's work i.e. most of the Mooleo by Roy Almedia. I am using others beside him like Waikiki 100 B.C. to 1900 A.D. By George S. Kanahele.  I try using David Malo and Kamakau, but beside the point that I there are no Full view on Google Book, they don't refer much to Oahu's history prior to Kakuhihewa's lifetime.  As for Fornander's accurracy, I think this should be dicussed in the talk page after the article is made.  Know what I mean? KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oral history is only one element of this research. We must not forget about the historical record and archaeology, which has become more important as scientific methodologies have gained prominence since Fronander's era.  Most of the sources you should be using are in Cordy's paper.  Keep in mind, Fornander is basically a primary source and we should be leaning towards current secondary sources for accuracy. Case in point: Cordy points out an error in Fornander's genealogy, and Kuykendall also points out similar errors.  There are many other issues to consider, but the point is that we do not rely primary on oral history but on historical records and archaeology as well.  There have been dozens of research papers on this subject since the 1970s, so there is a lot of data to draw from here.  Obviously, Fornander was one of the greatest scholars of Hawaii, and using his data is acceptable in many instances, but there has been a significant amount of research since his time. Viriditas (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean about the archaeological evidence of these event mention in oral history. Like the sites of major conflicts or sacred sites such as the heiau. Whose Cordy?
 * Dr. Ross Cordy was an archaeologist for the State of Hawaii. He's currently at U of H. You should [mailto:rcordy@hawaii.edu e-mail him] with any questions. Viriditas (talk) 09:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to see Kuykendall and Daws used as sources in this article. You can get just about every book you need from your local library using interlibrary loan. Viriditas (talk) 10:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you give me a list of books you think I should be using? KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can certainly help. Viriditas (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Attribution issues
KAVEBEAR, you may not be aware of policies and guidelines, but when you quote an author directly like you did with Fornander, you need to either use quotes or compose it in your own words. The statement, "If the epigram be true that "happy is the nation that has no history," the Hawaiians must have been eminently happy during this period" is a direct quote from Fornander and needs to be attributed as such. If you are ever unsure, just ask. Keep in mind, unless you indicate it is a quote, everything needs to be written in your own words, and even then, attribution is still needed. A good way to learn how to do this is to get a hold of a writers handbook from either the library or the bookstore that teaches you to how to write a research paper. Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I state that it was a quote by the using the quotations? This is starting to sound harder than I thought it would be.
 * It is hard, but you are moving in the right direction. The next step is to continue looking for sources (as you already know) and to focus on writing a second draft, keeping track of all claims in relation to their sources.  It would also help to use an outline as a roadmap. Viriditas (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good work adding refs, but now you need to either cite the material in blockquote or rewrite it in your own words. Here's one example: The first paragraph of the "Formation" section is drawn largely from the third paragraph of Fornander 1880:5.  Putting aside the bias of the article, these are Fornander's words and cannot appear without a blockquote.  If you want to paraphrase the material, that's fine, but what you have now is a quote without quotes.  Keep in mind, this does not appear as a quote in the article, so that's a problem.  But, forget about all that for right now.  Remember all the questions you've had about the Kingdom of Oahu?  Put five of them together and write five sentences, answering each question in your own words.  Don't even use references.  Now, take each sentence and create a section based on its subject.  So now, you have a five sentence lead and five empty sections.  Keep doing that until you have one paragraph for every section.  Then, add the references back in, working backwards, starting with one at the end of every paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 10:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)