Talk:Kamehameha I/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

1736 dating stands

The 1758 dating is pure crap and not based on fact. period. No amount of argument presented by Kavebear has debunked anything or substantiated a false claim. Period.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The 1736 dating is purely erroneous and not based on fact. I refuse to insult any of the listed sources including Kamakau and Fornander with such heinous and opinionated language as "crap." As evident by multiple scholars cited above, Kamakau's dating is erroneous and has been challenged during his lifetime and afterward. The only reason it still exist is because of people who have and continue to proliferate his mistakes. Period. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

"The 1736 dating is purely erroneous and not based on fact." You have not demonstrated that. "Crap", in this instance is in reference to the dating method, not the source or sources. Dating a historical person, using a legend that does not specifically state a comet but a bright star (Hawaiians understand the differences between celestial bodies since they use them to navigate the entire pacific) that is then theorized to be Halley's comet nearly a year earlier than the comet was even visible, and then extrapolating a birth date from that....is crap. It is also no longer accepted as it was 80 years ago. The sources using the comet and the known dating of the comet also don't match, makes the man 9 years old when his (supposed) first born son is born and places him at a birth date several years past the death of his father. "Crap" seems to fit as a descriptor for the dating method with all of the flaws it contains but certainly not for the authors, sources or even the ancient legend.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Kamakau has not been shown to have made a mistake in this instance. Kamehameha married and had children by 1758. He would have been around 22. Several genealogies confirm this. Dating of nearly all of his other immediate family members can only be possible with the earlier date. Is it precise? No, but is actually based on the facts and not just a legend Kavebear, and that is the main point here. As someone (you) who actually supports the method, my calling it crap was not friendly so I am sorry if that really offended you, but it is my true feeling and not aimed at you just the method and because I do feel it is nonsense. So I'll stick to the phrase "nonsense".--Mark Miller (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

There is blatant POV disregard of the sources listed above supporting other dates in the current article. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Not POV. Took time to research out the correct information in the correct chronological order. Still not complete but far better now.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Kamehameha I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130727124836/http://www.donch.com/lulh/naha.htm to http://www.donch.com/lulh/naha.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090916050001/http://coe-dmha.org:80/Liaison/Vol_2No_3/Lia03.htm to http://coe-dmha.org/Liaison/Vol_2No_3/Lia03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Naha Stone

I can't find any reliable sources verifying this legend. Even so, does anyone think it needs to be worded in a more neutral tone? It tells like an actual mythic tale rather than a description of it. 184.254.136.146 (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the travel blog source and reformatted the Stephen Desha reference which is a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I am moving this entire section to the talk page as I am not convinced it is of encyclopedic value as it is written.

Prophecy states that the man (child) who moves the Naha Stone would be the one to unite the islands. Many tried and failed to get the stone to move from its original spot. Those who have tried were of high-ranking "naha" blood. Kamehameha was of nīʻaupiʻo descent and Ululani believed that Kamehameha was not worthy of attempting to move the stone. A story found at the Hilo Library holds that Ululani, High Chiefess of Hilo, wife of Keawemauhili, and other High Chiefs/Chiefesses were brought together by Prince Kai o Kuanui a Kanaele of Kawaihae to prophesy over Kamehameha. Ululani then introduced her son Keawe I Kahikona of Keaau Village (the only other Chief to ever lift the Naha stone) as the younger brother to Kamehameha, so later they would not fight. In the gathering of the Ohana for Unity, Keawe I Kahi Kona chose Kamehameha I over his father Keawe Mauhili. Kamehameha ignored all negativity and moved the stone. Legend says the stone was overturned. Kamehameha went on to unite the islands through a series of battles.

Image

I am moving this image here for the moment until needed. This image is a recreation of Kamehameha dressed in traditional black tapa cloth. There is a history to this and the image used in the info box that needs expanding on in the article. Moved here for now.

--Mark Miller (talk) 00:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kamehameha I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051101013347/http://www.ksbe.edu/pauahi/history.php to http://www.ksbe.edu/pauahi/history.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:07, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Alii nui?

There is a section titled "Alii nui of the Hawaiian islands", but no definition of the term. Is it a title of position? A word for laws? I don't know how to fix this. Grothmag (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Is this a joke or a coincidence?

I’m guessing that at least one person has vandalized this article because of the name’s (unfortunate) resemblance to a certain yellow-haired guy’s anime power move. In the revision history, there’s a lot of defamatory revisions which need to be deleted. JohnSmith13345 (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

And I found the Dragon Ball reference [1] JohnSmith13345 (talk) 23:20, 4 May 2019 (UTC) and a better one [2]