Talk:Kalaimanokahoʻowaha

Bias

Having just read other Wikipedia articles on Captain Cook and his ship, the events surrounding the captain's death are described rather differently in this article. Furthermore, this article is riddled with grammatical errors and biases. It reads more like a Hawaiian High School student's first draft for history class than a proper article, up to Wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.153.250.43 (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC) I'm trying to improve it. It isn't great. Did you want to help?

Requested move 16 December 2014 Withdrawn

• Oppose Latin Ordinal per reasons I've presented on Talk:Charles Kanaʻina#Requested move 16 December 2014. Kanaʻina nui or something else along that line would be better. The sources listed on footnotes 1, 2, 3 on the article page at this moment uses Kanaina not "Kanaʻina I." One source (search page shows two editions of the same source and the fourth one quoting the same source and the third one which is just a dud search result) calling him "Kanaina the first". Below is that source as quoted by the requester on the other talk page; only change I made was to parenthesize the citing template so it doesn't create a footnote on this talk page. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Heulu, the first husband in the list, had Hakau by this Moana. Hakau (w) gave birth to Hao (k), and Hao (k) was Luahine’s father. Again by Keawe, the third in the above list, Moana had Kanaina the first, who was father of Hao by Hakau aforesaid (Hawaii Reports: Cases Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of Hawaii. Valenti Brothers Graphics. 1893. p. 631.).

I actually still don't get your argument since you provided one of the sources. The figures should be titled, not just by the majority of sources, but by the guidelines of the MOS etc. Shame that you refuse to even address that and are arguing based on the number of sources alone...not the fact that it is accurate. The fact that two sources have been located (and really, the difference of the okina you argue is silly) means there are actually likely to be more sources. By the way, it is also of note that while family genealogies on Ancestry and other sites are not precisely reliable sources the number of uses of the ordinals would indicate it to be a Hawaiian tradition. I really think this goes beyond silly the way you are fighting these move requests that are based on a consistent use of our guidelines seems silly. Cleaning up these articles and trying to name them properly based on Hawaiian traditions and our own guidelines seems nearly impossible when you become involved. --Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I provided one source for Kanaina the first and one source for Kanaina II; I searched with and without Okina. In voicing my opposition, I put both the MOS and source numbers into consideration. The naming policy should be follow if there is a clear indication Latin ordinals are used for these two figures but if it is a fringe usage (which I believe in these two cases here with the Kanaina) then no it should not be used. Sources and the MOS support the usage of Kanaina for both figure, which I totally agree agree with. The problem is there are two figures with same name and I don't agree that usage of ordinals is the solution to that problem because only one source for Kanaina the first and one source for Kanaina II...Except for actual cases of use during the kingdom by figures like Leleiohoku II and with the five Kamehameha monarchs, it is not a Hawaiian tradition to use Latin ordinals that were not known to ancient Hawaiians until January 18, 1778. It just an easy way out for Western historians writing about Hawaii and often modern day people who create genealogy site's inability to differentiate Hawaiian figures who shared similar names. The Hawaiian traditions is the use of nui, wahine vs kane, and either a follow by Father's name or a follow by Mother's name. Wikipedia titles and move request place as much importance on the academic usage of the title in reliable sources as well as the naming policies. Example Queen Victoria's title ignores #1 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereigns preferring what popular sources over policy.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:41, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

And...now you call it fringe. How nice. What a lovely way to approach it. You made the accusation now demonstrate it. The MOS gives us the reasons why to use the ordinals and it is not a matter of the sources but a matter of whether it is accurate. The fact that the subjects are both notable and famous for differing reasons suggest the reasoning why we use the ordinals and pre reign names. But you fight tooth and nail to drop for your own reasoning that your feel makes the name fringe? When you accuse something of being fringe you better be able to put up.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• It just occurred to me why this is not accurate. There is only of figure named Kanaʻina and that is Charles Kanaʻina. Kalaimanokahoʻowaha is this subjects actual name and "Kanaʻina" is only a nickname. So, per the MOS and using pre-reign names Charles Kanaʻina would properly be titled as Kanaʻina. The use of the name would go to the one who is most notbable and has the name as an actual legal or birth name without changing it. There is actually no source that shows Kanainanui had ever taken the name himself. I believe it is what his parents (his dad I believe) nicknamed him as a child.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"He would have inherited the rule of Hawaii from his father..."

This sentence needs to be sourced "He would have inherited the rule of Hawaii from his father..." --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)