Talk:Charles Kanaʻina/Archive 1

Archive 1

article title

If anyone is to create an article of his namesake. Please move this to Charles Kanaina.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Eia was the son of Kamakakaualii and Kapulaoa.

genealogy issues

"His mother's maternal grandparent were the High Chief Kauhi-a-Haki of Maui and High Chiefess ʻIliki-a-Moana of Hawaii; the former was the descendant of King Piʻilani of Maui and the latter was the granddaughter of King Keakealanikane of Hawaii. "

I think the information about ʻIliki-a-Moana should probably read that she was a daughter of Pi'ilani. I am not sure about the rest of the information but according to this reliable secondary source: "Rethinking the Native Hawaiian Past By Kanalu G. Terry Young published by Routledge (1998 - page 48)", Moana Kāne and Piʻilani were ʻIlikiamoana's parents. I will look at the other sources used in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the other source as well. There appeared to be no translation and I could not find supporting referencing from it. I will seek other RS for the family section.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Former usually refers to the first person mentioned and latter the second person mentioned. It is suppose to read that Kauhi-a-Haki was a descendant of King Piʻilani of Maui and ʻIliki-a-Moana is a granddaughter of King Keakealanikane of Hawaii. King Piʻilani and Moana's wife Piʻilani were different people.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That may well be. I was working off of something that was not quite complete. I now have the full documentation and there is still something wrong here, but I will leave it for the moment as I gather sources. I will also recheck that source, as long as it is RS it should remain for the moment at least.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Kamaka Stillman's genealogy

Possibly paternal grandmother's line.

• http://nupepa-hawaii.com/2014/06/14/history-and-the-kahu-hanai-of-kamehameha-1911/#more-14133

No. This is a newspaper claim by the actual person involved and is an opinion piece. It can only be used to source Stillmans's opinion of the line but...it is very far off from the legally recognized and determined lines of the Royal Family. At the bottom of that newspaper translation is this: "[There are many articles in the many different newspapers of the time speaking for and against this claim. Is there just one history? Should there be just one history?]" History has many versions and genealogy has many differing lines, however, we are discussing a Royal Family and it isn't that difficult to see this is a dead end and not an accurate account. Goodness...they don't even have Kanaina's parents correct and...when I say correct, remember that as a Royal Family there are legal and non legally recognized figures. The courts have truly determined what the lines are for the purposes of inheritance and that in turn gives us reliable sources to base a genealogy on. In this translation the writer makes a claim about Kanaina that shows this to be an inaccurate account. It lists Kalani Kikiwahikalani as Kanaina's father and Kapupuulaokalani as the mother. Neither of these names can be found in any source but the newspapers and is limited to this person's claim. Now...if there is something from a chant or genealogy that has been published...I am all ears.

"born was Kapupuulaokalani (f) and Kalani Kikiwahikalani (m), and from there came Kanaina (m), the father of King Lunalilo and Queen Hakaleleponi." The two are siblings and "and from there came Kanaina" means from Kapupuulaokalani/Kapulaoa (Kanaina paternal grandmother) came/descend Kanaina.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

That does not appear to be what is being written. But as I said...opinion. You need better sources to begin claiming this to be a line from Kanaina. Besides, as I said the information is way off and can only be found in these few sources that conflict with mainstream, academic sources, not to mention they claim Kalama as a sister of Kanaina and that just isn't accurate from everything I am reading. I am not saying this isn't something to look into, I am saying the source cannot be used to cite a fact in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Now...Kapulaoa is listed as Kanaina's paternal grandmother. Is it your claim (or interpretation from the source that Kikiwahikalani is her father? That may be possible.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In general for anybody interested in this discussion. The source in no way says Kanaina and Kalama were sister..."and from there came Kanaina (m), the father of King Lunalilo and Queen Hakaleleponi" just means the two people shared a common descent from the person mentioned before. For example I can say "From Haae-a-Mahi descended Kinau, the mother of King Kamehameha IV and Liliuokalani." Kapulaoa is most likely an abbreviation of Kapupuulaokalani since often Hawaiian names are mispelled abbreviated, although there is not enough evidence to claim anything for certain.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to this, there may be sources that show the connection. Many sources show the abbreviated or alternate spellings etc.. As for the Kamaka Stillman genealogy claims, if there is nothing else they could be used by attributing Stillman in the prose to satisfy guidelines on the use of opinion pieces and state that "Kamaka Stillman stated in a newspaper article on "such and such date", printed in'"this newspaper" the genealogy of Kana{{okina}]ina as follows:...". Kamaka Stillman is one of those old Hawiian family names that appear in releiable sources so there may be secondary sourcing through published books, journals and magazines.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 10 December 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page, per the discussion below. This discussion should have run a bit longer, but a new request was opened by User:Mark Miller below. In the future, please do not initiate a new move request while the previous one is still open; the new information could have gone in this section. Dekimasuよ! 05:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Charles Kanaina → Charles Kanaʻina – To adhere to the proper spelling and use of the okina diacritic in this subjects name. Mark Miller (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support per typical usage at Wikipedia. The ʻokina is confirmed by sources. —  AjaxSmack  01:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

I seriously missed that this was here.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Rank

"Technically Kanaina was not Kaukaualii. His mother was of a higher rank than his father."

Multiple sources state Kanaina was a kaukau alii. Young, Osorio, Kame'eleihiwa are just a few of them. "His mother was of a higher rank than his father." So? This reason makes sense for Lunalilo because Kekauluohi was one of the highest ranking chiefess in her generation and Hawaii's emphasis on the maternal bloodline trumps Kanaina's lesser rank, the same example for Kinau and Keohokalole's children. However, for Kanaina, do we have any indication that Kauwa was of high rank and not just a kaukau alii herself thus meaning Kanaina would have inherited her kaukau alii status. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

First of all, if you are linking supposed sources to support the claim you have to add them as an inline citation to meet the burden of restoring the content. Since you did not meet the burden on the article I am removing that until it can be properly sourced. As far as you comment "So, this makes since for Lunalilo..." That has nothing to do with this. Apple and oranges. A kaukau aliʻi is a product of a mother with a lesser rank and can raise their status by marriage and by doing so they do not produce a kaukau aliʻi. There indeed is a source, the probate documents that the Hawaiian Supreme Court accepted as a valid genealogy. Eia was not a chief and Kauwa was a chiefess. Kaukau aliʻi were chiefs and chiefess'. Kauwa was the daughter of Moana and Palila. Palila is said to be of a lesser rank that Moana and that line was not Kaukau Aliʻi. Don't forget Kana'ina is the name of two figures.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I could care less at the current state. As the article currently stand it is not claiming any falsity either way because Kanaina was a chief, which is correct. So I have no reason to oppose the reverting of my edit...On top of the sources already provided for Kanaina's (the source I provided mentions Charles Kanaina not Kanaina Nui) own status. Pages in Young's book stating Palila and Moana Wahine's two daughters (including Kauwa) were kaukau alii (Young 37) and source stating Moana Wahine herself was a kaukau alii (Young 56). Page in probate stating Eia was not a chief [1]. "In comparison to the many noho of high chiefs and the various grades of chiefliness that resulted, the specific rank of kaukau alii was only bestowed in a situation when a child's father or mother was of kuhaulua rank. Moana wahine, Charles Kanaina's maternal grandmother, was of kuhaulua rank. When the other parent was of lower rank than kuhaulua like Moana's man Palila Nohomualani, then their children, in this example, Kaua, Kanaina's mother would be classified a kaukau alii." (Young 35-36).--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I said if you add the material back you have to source it. Sure....Moana and Palila being of equal rank makes sense...but unfortunately there is a primary source that states differently. Also, while Young makes the distinction of a definition of Kaukau aliʻi, it doesn't fit with Malo's definition or other reliable sources. And really...arguing both sides is annoying. All you are doing is objecting if I do almost anything. First you claim you have the Malo source defining the rank and now you want to argue against that definition because another source claims differently. Hmmm. Well, the weight of the mainstream academic opinion seems to outweigh Young's opinion but it may be worth mentioning with attribution to Young. You are not very cooperative or collaborative and argue over anything you just don't like. If you wish to maintain this attitude I want nothing to do with you and will begin making formal complaints. Stop harassing me and disrupting my editing. The next time you bring a false accusation, disrupt editing by arguing for the sake of arguing (by arguing both sides or simply being innaccurate) I will be forced to take drastic action within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. I have had enough of your insensitivity to me as a Hawaiian, your constant mean spirited comments, like when you accused me of dishonoring the memory of a man when I objected to your insensitive and insulting content to a mans biography. As I said, it is clear you do not like me and have made it a point to state so. If this is true than your constant crap is on purpose and you may need to be blocked temporarily to discourage this behavior...because I am sick of it.

Just to correct the assertion that Young doesn't fit with Malo or other reliable source. Young doesn't conflict with Malo's sources; he utilized Malo's and other traditional scholars such as Kamakau's alii ranking in Tales and Traditions of the People of Old in his book (footnotes). Malo gave one scenario for the pedigree of a kaukau alii in which a high male chief would produce a kaukau alii child with a lower ranking chiefess; it also states that a child of non-chiefly mother would be "a kulu, a drop." Malo does not state that this is the only way ourthat a kaukau alii could be born. Malo doesn't mention what is the product of a kaukau alii and another kaukau alii or a kaukau alii mother and a commoner or lower ranking father, which Young does. If I had the book in front of me I could find the actual source Young used in his footnotes. Young assessment of Kanaina's rank fits with other reliable sources (I haven't read all of them so I can't make sweeping general statements that they are the mainstream academic opinion) that he was a kaukau alii [2]. I am choosing not to address anything else in your comment. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for not addressing anything other than the issue of the content and the information. I will see that as a good faith attempt to work on the content dispute itself in a civil manner addressing the key points of the sources and authors.

• First, the Malo source:Hawaiian Antiquities: (Moolelo Hawaii)By Davida Malo" states clearly on page 82 at the very top: "19. The practice with certain chiefs was as follows: if the ‘mother was a high chief, but the father not a chief, the child would rank somewhat high as a chief and would be called an alii papa (a chief with a pedigree) on account of the mother's high rank." This would indicate that there was indeed an aliʻi rank produced from a higher ranking mother that was not Kaukau AliʻI. Considering the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom Supreme Court validated the claim that Palila was not a chief would seem to state clearly that Kanaʻina himself was an Aliʻi papa by the Malo source.

• There needs to be a source stating Kanaina himself was a papa alii for you to make this generalization and add this to the article. We have no indication that Malo would've considered Kauwa or Moana a "mother [who] was a high chief," even if their husbands fit the descriptor "the father not a chief," so I don't understand your argument here. Malo was quite literal in his use of the term high chief to mean only the first three ranks (everything above kaukau alii). Also 19th century people in Hawaii were quite prone to hyperbole and would call some of the lowest ranking chiefs commoners. Samuel Kamakau defined the criteria of chiefly marriage too in the same manner as Malo in his Tales and Traditions of the People of Old with many more ranks, but I don't have access to this book and its not online, so I can't quote anything from that. However, Young, who cites both Malo and Kamakau in his book, states that Lunalilo not Kanaina was what would've been a papa alii. Young also states that because of the obvious change in marital practices after Christianity arrived the Hawaiians had to settled with an papa alii as the highest alii they could ask for given the fact that all the fathers of Hawaiian monarchs after Kamehameha III were kaukau alii. [3].--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Second, in her book, "Hawaiian Blood: Colonialism and the Politics of Sovereignty and Indigeneity", J. Kehaulani Kauanui states that the kaukau aliʻi was a "buffer in the successive hierarchy" between the two social classes, the aliʻi and the makaʻainana (commoners), using Young as one of two sources. The author basically calling the aliʻi a "floating class" dependent on the commoners and the nobles by weight of blood to determine there scale in rank. She quotes Lilikalā Kameʻeleihiwa who writes: "Those in between were on a sliding scale, having less mana the farther down the triangle they slipped and the farther they fell from high lineage." Kauanu is very specific here. She adds [male] to this quote to clarify making this reliable source claim: "[Male] Alii Nui found it difficult to mate only with high female Aliʻi Nui. Those intermarrying with alii of lesser rank produced kaukau aliʻi who, in turn could descend in the same facility to makaʻāinana (1992:46)".

• This sounds right. Again it gives one scenario: high ranking male and low ranking female, but doesn't specifically states that this is the only manner a kaukau alii was produced. Kauanui doesn't mentions Kanaina in any context but does cites both Young and Kameʻeleihiwa, both authors called Kanaina a kaukau alii.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

At this point, with your assistance in finding the original Malo source, I was able to find mainstream academic sources, J. Kehaulani Kauanui and Lilikalā Kameʻeleihiwa that confirm what I wrote.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Your assessment of the Young footnotes...I am very sorry but you are not drawing enough of a line to verify. Exactly what footnote is being sourced to what claim of kaukau aliʻi?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to be clear here. You haven't looked into the main stream academic sources and what they are saying or claiming, or if they can support the genealogy claim with either a source directly making such a claim or in any fashion at all. In one of those sources, Moku'Ula: Maui's Sacred Island P. Christiaan Klieger, he says that Kalama was only "Considered Kaukau aliʻi by many" not that it was a fact. This is suggesting (and it would appear you now support) the idea that the kaukau aliʻi are in fact a bloodline as I had been mistaken with. It was you who faught against that and provided the source that got us to this point, but we have to remember that this is a genealogy question and that there will most likely be an genealofy explanation.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to put in my interpretations here on what is or is not main stream academic source because neither I (or you) are historians. Young, Van Dyke, Osorio, and Kame'eleihiwa (Pages 98, 185, 263 in Native Land and Foreign Desires, I listed her pages specifically because you mentioned her) all stated Kanaina was a kaukau alii. Klieger's doesn't mention Kanaina as a kauakau alii; his book just showed up in the search bar.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:42, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

We don't need an interpretation of main stream. It is or isn't based on the academic consensus. look, I went into detail. Don't just drop off page numbers in a discussion. Dude seriously....show your work more. I am not willing to attempt to figure out the minimum you give in a discussion. You have to connect the dots more. You are not attempting to demonstrate your opinion, your just leaving bread crumbs.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

And again, this is a genealogy issue. An issue of bloodlines and an issue of a sliding scale based on the higher/lower parentage which results in differing ranks. It seems easy to say these authors say he is, as that is as far as we are right now, but what about authors that say he is not?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"what about authors that say he is not?" - Find me those authors. My follow up question to that is who are those authors if any and does that give us an excuse to ignore all the others that I have listed below. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could buy these books or check them out from library yourself if you want to get this article to feature article standard. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Young

• There are too many pages in his book to cite here. You can easily search these up yourself.

• Van Dyke

• According to Professor Kame'eleihiwa, Kana'ina was a Kaukau Ali'i. Kekauluohi intended that Charles Kana'ina, of low genealogy, not receive any lands but serve as guardian for his higher-ranking son (Van Dyke 2008:325).

• Osorio

• After reigning just over a year, from January 1873 until February 1874, William Charles Lunalilo, son of the Kaukauali'i Charles Kana'ina and the high chiefess Kekauluohi, a member of the Kamehameha line,5 died of...(Osorio 2002:147).
• On the other hand, Lunalilo's father was Charles Kana'ina, Kaukauali'i of low rank (Osorio 2002:148).
• In 1851 the House of Nobles consisted of the following individuals: the Ali'i Nui Laura Konia, a wahine; haole cabinet members Richard Armstrong, Gerrit Judd, and Robert C. Wyllie; and fourteen Kaukau- ali'i: I. Y. Kanehoa, Kaisera (Caesar) Kapa'akea (father of Kalakaua), John Kapena, Abnera (Abner) Paki, John TT, loshua Ka'eo, Charles Kana'ina. Paul Kanoa, George L. Kapeau, Mataio Kekuanao'a, Beneli Namakeha, lonah Pi'ikoi, John Young, and Hakaleleponi Kalama, the king's wife. Altogether this "Council of Chiefs" symbolized the diminishing of the chiefly lineages that had once supplied all of the traditional leadership (Osorio 2002:80).

• Kame'eleihiwa 98, 185, 263. Kame'eleihiwa actually list all the ali'i who received in the Great Mahele by rank. I never knew Julia Alapai was also a kaukau alii (265) until today.

• Kana- 'ina, another kaukau ali'i who was brother-in-law to Kekuanao'a, clarified this somewhat (Kame'eleihiwa 1992: 98)
• Other Ali'i included in the Privy Council were Aarona Keali'iahonui (son of Kaumuali'i), and Abenera Paki (grandson of Kamehamehanui), as well as some kaukau ali'i, such as Charles Kana'ina, John Papa Ii, and Paula Kanoa (Kame'eleihiwa 1992: 185).
• The kaukau ali'i with substantial 'Aina prior to the Mahele were Kau- nuohua, Hakaleleponi Kalama (age thirty-one), Charles Kana'ina (age forty-seven), Kamakahonu, Asa Ka'eo (age forty-three), and Nueku Na- mau'u (Kame'eleihiwa 1992: 263).

• You still have not connected the dots to your last argument and here you again throw up a wall of references and claim them as the mainstream. You still have not even bothered to properly define what a Kaukau aliʻi is and how Kanaina would be such a rank...if it is indeed a true rank. Lets go back to the definition and go to the most referenced and mainstream author on Hawaiian History, Abraham Fornander. In his book; "Fornander collection of Hawaiian antiquities and folk-lore", Fornander says this about the Kaukau aliʻi: "divisions, which he designates by the names of laauli alii and kaukau alii, were all recognized nobles, alii of the papa alii or the aha alii; local circumstances and social conventionalities determining generally for the time being the precedence due from one to the other. Their privileges, prerogatives and kapus, be they great or small, whether derived from mother or father, were theirs by birth or inheritance. A chief of the papa alii may not deem it practicable, expedient or prudent to exact those privileges and kapus at times, but his right to their observance none could deprive him of. During the frequent wars which harrassed the country in former days a chief may have lost his lands and possessions and been driven into exile and reduced to poverty and there be no one left to do him homage, or observe the kapus towards him, or he might never have had land and subjects assigned him from his infancy. But if fortune smiled upon him and if, through the strength of his spear or the favor of his sovereign moi, he reconquered the paternal domain or obtained another, he simply resumed the rights and kapus which had been lying in abeyance during poverty and exile. Some families never recovered from such a disaster, but their descendants retain to this day their rank unimpaired and the rights which that rank conferred, though it may not be prudent or practicable to exact them."

He goes further: "There was an expression used in olden times to designate certain chiefs, male or female, which expression in those days did not mark a fixed or certain degree of nobility, but was a relative term of a large degree of elasticity. That term was kaukau-alii. In later and modern times the term has been made to imply inferiority and dependence. To illustrate: In olden time the children of Hakau-a-Liloa looked upon the children of Umia-Liloa, their cousins, as kaukau alii compared to themselves, though the sovereignty of Hawaii and the highest political kapus rested with the latter. Thus the children of Kalaninuiamamao and of Keeaumoku of Hawaii looked upon the children of Kumukoa and of Awili, their cousins, as kaukau-alii compared with themselves. Thus Kalaipaihala, the son of Kalaniopuu of Hawaii, was a kaukau-alii to his brother Kiwalao, although he was a niau-pio chief in his own right. The term was relative and did not mark a degree of nobility."

We would need to know what the exact context was of each source claiming a ranking of kaukau alii for Kanaiana and why or I believe it is reasonable to set the source aside and continue to look into why these sources are making these claims. By all I am reading this seems to say that Even though Umi conquered Hakau and killed him and became the first Alii Nui of the island of Hawaii, Hakau's, now inferior children serving the ruling line, thought of the children of their ruler as Kaukau Aliʻi. We have a basic idea from this how to look for evidence of whether or not Kanaina was truly Kaukau Aliʻi or not.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

My comments here were to listed the sources calling him a kaukau alii that is all I did. I never argued they were mainstream nor do I attempt to even guess at how they came about their conclusions because that is just my own useless opinion. Fornander's source just proves that the definition of kaukau alii was complicated in retrospect but most certainly doesn't outweigh the opinions of Malo and Kamakau (both regarded it as a rank defined by marriage) who Fornander drew heavily from. He analyzed from a vantage point when the stigma of the rank had virtually disappeared while Malo and Kamakau lived in an age when certain Hawaiians still regarded them as kaukau alii. I believe Young discusses Fornander and Umi's case in his book but I can't access those pages. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The point is not to outweigh each source but to give proper weight to what should be summarized. When you look at all the sources about this subject and his aliʻi ranking, the ranking itself and sources about others of that rank, it is clear that the sources are conflicting on this subject. that is not rare in history articles. In regards to the specific designation of this subject that call him a kaukau aliʻi, they do not specify how. Since this designation has a specific criteria and altering that criteria (such as the father being of lower rank than the mother) alters that designation for alternative designations, we would have to have a strong source that speaks to exactly why his parents social status and caste places him, at birth, to a status designated by the mother and father's genealogy as any specific aliʻi ranking or designation.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

There are ways to access those pages in preview. No need for self deprecation but also no need to point out just mentions of one part without the context of the other...which is how. Fornander calls the term elastic and not a true "rank". Malo and Kamakau both define it as a rank defined by the co-habitation of a higher ranking male aliʻI with a lower ranking female aliʻI. Young's opinion would seem to be outside the mainstream on that with the assertion that the same result would be with a kigher ranking mother. We already know that the higher ranking mother would raise the child's birth above that of the father in the ancient Hawaiian aliʻ society. There does not seem to be any ambiguity in that part. No, I think it was the best move to remove that mention for now. We really don't know if in all the academic mainstream opinion weighs to one side or another because all the google book search shows is hits for mentions of Kanaina a kaukau aliʻi. This is a caste system designation issue that isn't just complicated, but changed over time to have differing meanings and it seems for the moment the mainstream academic opinion of what kaukau aliʻs is, is determined by a matter of a higher ranking Father such as Keaweʻopala being of higher rank than his partner Moana...but was he?. The Aliʻi Nui of Hawaii by birthright to his father Alapainui who was Aliʻi Nui by conguest. He was a usurper. Alapai's lineage was from a higher ranking mother, Kalanikauleleiaiwi and his father Kauaua-a-Mahi. Funny thing though...and young discusses this in fact. Kauaua-a-Mahi's lenegae was considered powerful. Why? because he traces his line back to Hakau-a-Liloa. The first born of Liloa from the higher ranking mother compared to Umi's. Now, we would have to go one by one and look at each union up to Kauaua-a-Mahi to know exactly what the designation of Keaweʻopala was compared to Moana as clearly she has a high line descending from all 4 of Hawaii's most historic rulers. Liloa, Hakau, Umi-a-Liloa and Piʻilani. So...again, we would have to look at each union from Keākealani Kāne down to Iliki A Moana and Kauhiapiiao. I believe it would be like simple math. Once the parameters are set you simply follow them to determine the produced aliʻi designation. But in reality we need to verify the information and source it through secondary opinion. It isn't impossible. We have all the lines recorded on Wikipedia verified through reliable sources (not ancestry.com or random or even official family genealogy web sites, but both primary and secondary sources). It may take a good deal of reading and researching but...it is what is needed here and at Aliʻi. It isn't so much that its complicated...what it is, is detailed and a very long history with a caste designation which actually didn't have a stigma as much as position based on mana of the mother and then grew into a stigma, meaning to be of a lower rank. In reality the meaning simply came to be an sort of buffer between the nobles and commoners by allowing the commoners to raise into nobles and allowing nobles to descend back to commoners. Its beginnings were simply to designate by whome the aliʻi had come from by birth based on the maternal line. It was not a higher or lower thing.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Kamakau unless you actually read his book. The ambiguity lies in what was the product of a low-ranking mother that happen to be still higher ranking than the father. Higher ranking mother would raise the child's birth above that of the father but I don't think you're arguing here that higher ranking mother would raise the child's birth above the mother's rank herself. Just to correct: "Young's opinion would seem to be outside the mainstream on that with the assertion that the same result would be with a kigher ranking mother." Young's opinion is not "that the same result would be with a higher ranking mother" but that the result would be the same with a higher-ranking mother, who happens to be a low-ranking chiefess but still was higher in rank than her male spouse, and that mothers who marry lower ranking husbands can't elevate their children beyond their own ranks. But I digress. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well this been a long discussion and I'm getting tired of it, but to get back to the main point, in the end we have to either stick to the sources or not use the source (no matter how much one wants to do simple math). Leaving it open ended/not mentioning it now is just best for now as long as it doesn't claim something unsourced like your conjecture that Kanaina was a alii papa. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• "I wouldn't say Kamakau unless you actually read his book." Uhm...you can't just spell it out? This is a Wikipedia discussion. If you have some demonstration just name the book and page and I'll check it out.
• "I don't think you're arguing here that higher ranking mother would raise the child's birth above the mother's rank herself" Dooh! Of course not. But it is possible and has happened. Aliʻi Nui. I mean technically, that is the very scenario with lunalilo. It was her somewhat royal line that made her a wife of Kamehameha I and Kamehameha II, and by doing so raised her mana. This is what puts Lunalio in line to the throne which many never thought he would ever get. But he did and this raised his mana. He became the first elected monarch by the legislators but he became Aliʻi Nui, the supreme ruler of all of the Hawaiian Islands. As a mere designation or a formal aliʻi rank, Kanaina would have been raised in mana as well if still living...and he was. I believe that raised the mana of father's line in many ways as returning the paternal line to its former stature. Its reliably sourced per the above. Moana and the Kaukau aliʻi are the entire subject of Young's book. I don't have access to it directly but I live near the Davis campus and have a few connections to either borrow the book or go into the library to view it and possibly make copies of some pages for reference work. I doubt I will be purchasing it as you suggested, it's about $150. The Young book is interesting but I have to point out that the author does state how he uses Kamakau's work and I am not entirely sure he agrees or uses everything exactly as Kamakau has it. But its a fascinating book for sure with tons of information and highly cited by Wikipedia editors, including myself. I haven't even really used it that much on the Moana article yet.
• "..we have to either stick to the sources or not use the source (no matter how much one wants to do simple math)" Sigh. Look, the simple math is the way to understand what to look for in the sources. Its a matter of what sources to use. To determine that we take the source and weigh it with Wikipedia standards for identifying reliable sources. You have not demonstrated that the mainstream academic consensus is that Charles Kanaina was a kaukau aliʻi. We know there is another figure with that name that is also believed to be of that aliʻi designation and we know sources are conflicted but that there seems to be some consensus on what kaukau aliʻi is as it changed by Fornander and a current definition by J. Kehaulani Kauanui using Lilikalā Kameʻeleihiwa as a source. That is a strong reference. What satisfy me hee is to see as strong a source that can demonstrate how Kanaina was a Kaukau aliʻi and is just not getting the ranking ixed up or the sources confused.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Grandparents

KAVEBEAR you said in your summary when you reverted with a different text and inline citations that removed a great deal of work correcting a major flaw in the genealogy that I took a blind eye to for a long time. The article had the wrong grandfather listed entirely and all you said was: "Early life and marriage: Page 29 of the 2nd volume is the lineage of Kauhiahaki from Piilani. There was nothing wrong with the original paragraph or sourcing. It was just worded oddly. Both Kauhiakahi and Iliki-a-Moana descends from Piilani." First, if all you are really doing in the end is adding a single source...just add the source, don't try to reword it to your liking if it is accurate. Make minimum tweaks to respect the work and effort of others. It needed little rewording and only needed the additional source...but would you care to at least address that Kauaua-a-Mahi was incorrect?--Mark Miller (talk) 09:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

"The article had the wrong grandfather listed entirely" and "but would you care to at least address that Kauaua-a-Mahi was incorrect?" - Did you misread the original paragraph? Who wrote Kauaua-a-Mahi? It read Kauhi-a-Haki (see above), which is another spelling for Kauhiahaki (Kauhiapiiao); also could be written Kauhi-a-Piiao; Haki was his father and Piiao was his mother. Your summary claimed it was incorrect which it never was; you've obviously misread the grandfather's name. The only addition is that was made was Iliki-a-Moana was also Piilani's descendant which was not found in McKenzie's sources but in Young's source and wasn't added until now, and that they were cousins. You're other edits removed my properly cited versions of her book and mismatched the citations. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Kanaʻina was born circa 1801. His father was Eia and his mother Chiefess Kauwa. His mother's maternal grandparents were Kauhiahaki (Kauhiapiiao) and High Chiefess ʻIliki-a-Moana of Hawaii,[3] the granddaughter of King Keakealanikane of Hawaii.[4] Kauhiahaki and ʻIliki-a-Moana were cousins, both being descended from King Piʻilani of Maui. [5][4] His paternal grandparents were Kamakakaualiʻi and Kapulaoa.[6]

You removed my properly cited versions of McKenzie's books with something else entirely that does not have a parameter for the publishing location or the volume number and removed ‎Ishmael W. Stagner as the second author; instead you append it to the title of the book in the case of the second volume. Page 29 of McKenzie's second volume with Kauhiapiiao's genealogy from Piilani; this is [3]. Page 48 of McKenzie's first volume details ʻIliki-a-Moana's descent from Keakealanikane; this is [4]. Why would [3] come after ʻIliki-a-Moana's name if the source is talking about her husband's descent? Why would the second [4] come after the sentence about Piilani when it is about ʻIliki-a-Moana descent from Keakealanikane not Piʻilani? As of now only [5] and the first [4] is being used correctly. I changed them around to make more sense. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I did misread that name. I apologize for such, but my changes did not remove the sources, I just added the proper url to link directly to the page preview (some of these are fully readable as well). ‎Ishmael W. Stagner is not credited as an author but an editor, is not in the Google book credits and the formatting is set by a tool. I did add the volume numbers but publishing location can just be re-added back. I show a source after the claim of the marriage and then a source to the claim to Keakealanikane. and then re-use a citation to source the cousins and both related to Piilani.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

But why is page 29 of the 2nd volume ([3] aka Edith Kawelohea McKinzie (1 January 1986). Hawaiian Genealogies: Extracted from Hawaiian Language Newspapers 2. Honoululu: University of Hawaii Press. p. 29. ISBN 978-0-939154-37-1.), which gives us the genealogy of Kauhiahaki (Kauhiapiiao), not being used to source Kauhiahaki (Kauhiapiiao)'s descent from Piilani mentioned in the fourth sentence? Instead it is now being used to source the middle of the third sentence.

My problem is the sourcing of the fourth sentence: "Kauhiahaki and ʻIliki-a-Moana were cousins, both being descended from King Piʻilani of Maui.[5][4]" This ([5] aka Kanalu G. Terry Young (25 February 2014). Rethinking the Native Hawaiian Past. Routledge. pp. 48–. ISBN 978-1-317-77669-7) just mentions 1. ʻIliki-a-Moana's descent from Piilani and 2. ʻIliki-a-Moana and Kauhiahaki (Kauhiapiiao) were cousins; it doesn't give the detail of his descent from Piilani. Page 48 of the 1st volume ([4] aka Edith Kawelohea McKinzie (1 January 1983). Hawaiian Genealogies: Extracted from Hawaiian Language Newspapers 1. Honoululu: University of Hawaii Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-939154-28-9.) mentions ʻIliki-a-Moana's descent from Liloa, nothing about her husband's descent. The second occurrence of Number 4 is entirely unnecessary here; it is perfectly fine after "...Keakealanikane of Hawaii.[4]" because the page gives the ancestry of her from Keakealanikane. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 16 December 2014 Withdrawn

• Oppose Latin ordinals - Kanaina II is not found in reliable sources unlike Leleiohoku II or Kamehameha I-V. It is true that he is the second chief of note to bear the name Kanaina, but he was never been referred to as Kanaina II in reliable sources except for Sammy Amalu aka Kapiikauinamoku in his newspaper editorials which were later compiled under the names Story of Maui Royalty and Story of Hawaiian Royalty, but he has a habit of adding Latin ordinals to any person who shared a name in Hawaiian history... I discussed a similar case in the past with User:W Nowicki about Chiefess Kapiolani and Queen Kapiolani. And I see the same problem with individuals like Likelike who shares a name with Kalanimoku's wife Likelike (this article is in my user spaces) and Bennett Nāmākēhā who shared a name with the rebel chief Nāmākēhā of Hilo (who is more famous under the stand alone Nāmākēhā name so I moved Bennett's article to his combined Christian and Hawaiian name as a result). Just because individual shared name or were namesakes of each other doesn't imply one is the II and the other I; this is not even the case in most Western families, ancestors and descendants can share names but don't have to use ordinals. It is anachronistic to do so, ex. we have similar phenomena in the Japan with individuals like Emperor Go-Toba sharing a name with a predecessor but not necessary being Toba II. If the intent is to draw attention to the Hawaiian name which I agree with, using something like Kanaina follow by a descriptive parentheses differentiating him from the earlier Kanaina will accomplish that without deviating from reliable sources. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• There are two figures in Hawaiian History that share the same name; Kanaʻina. MOS and the MOS Hawaii all concur that we use the last name only:

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Biography:

Do not use Christian names in the article title, nor the pre-reign name.

• Examples: Kamehameha II, not Liholiho.
• Kalākaua, not David Kalākaua.

Both the figures are notable, related to each other and Charles Kanaʻina is indeed named after Kanaʻina I and was actually born as Kanaʻina, only taking the name the Christian name (which is excluded in the title for royalty) Charles when he wed. Both have articles on Wikipedia and should be titled as Kanaʻina with the ordinals as appropriate per the MOS. KAVEBEAR has demonstrated that there is indeed a source that uses the designation (and it is pretty specific -bolding is mine):

THE STYLE OF “Highness” was granted also under the grace of the monarch to Charles, the High-Chief Kanaina II, consort of Miriam, the High - Chiefess Auhea-KekauIuohi I, niee of the great Kamehameha and Kakuaana of the Kamehameha Dynasty, and Kuhina Nui of Hawaii from 1839 to 1845. Kanaina was of the princely House of Moana and the father of King Lunalilo.

But more important is that in this case the most common name does not apply. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): "4.Do not use surnames in article titles for such persons. If royals have surnames, then this information should be mentioned in the first line of the article (but care should be taken, as many do not have surnames, and personal surnames may differ from the name of their Royal House). For details, see WP:Manual of Style (biographies)#Royal surnames." Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Royal surnames we are instructed to use the The formal title in the article with the royal title and the ordinal. A Google search of the name Kanaina II returns 335,000 results. I implore KAVEBEAR to consider the general guidelines of Wikipedia in considering this new dispute so that we may begin getting the articles in line with MOS, guidelines and policy to improve the articles. The Japanese did not have a similar structure to Great Britain as the Kingdom of Hawaii did so that analogy is simply not applicable here. Also, with the Kapiolani issue, as the wife and not the reigning queen, it is appropriate and there is precedence to use "Queen Kapiolani" (or more precisely; Queen Kapiʻolani) however, there should be an article Kapiʻolani and that should be for Chiefess Kapiolani. --Mark Miller (talk) 09:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm perfectly aware of those guidelines and support them; in all my articles I emphasize the individuals Hawaiian name not their Western name unless it deviates from reliable sources. I also know from other users that I have delt with and past move request discussions I've participated in that an article's title should reflect reliable sources or what a majority of the sources states. A google book search of reliable academic sources, journal articles and books not genealogy sites, shows no result for Kanaina II only results for "Kanaina, Ii" (John Papa Ii). The quote above is from Sammy Amalu aka Kapiikauinamoku's "The Story of Hawaiian Royalty;" his name has never been favorable among the Hawaiian historical community and in the same editorials he claims to be the direct heir of Lunalilo through his ancestress Kekauluohi II and he uses names not found in any other reliable sources for example for Kamehameha IV on the same page you drew your quote from he calls him "Alexander, Prince Liholiho II" . Even if we don't question Kapiikauinamoku, this is one reliable sources vs the many other reliable sources that don't used ordinal. A person named after another just doesn't necessitate one being the I and the other being the II; Queen Kapiolani was named after her aunt the High Chiefess Kapiolani but is rarely ever referred to as Kapiolani II in reliable sources and why should she Latin ordinals are Western constructs. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Royal surnames and Wikipedia:Naming conventions royalty and nobility are written with mind toward Western royalties not Hawaiian royalties that's why Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Biography exists, which articles should follow unless the names deviates from majority of reliable sources. I don't object to following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Hawaii-related articles#Biography and emphasizing the Hawaiian name, but I object to using names and Latin ordinals not used in the majority of academic sources. The problem is there are two figures sharing the same name...I raised one point and objection questioning the usage in majority/reliable sources. You refuted it with your reasonings. I explained my reasoning again. Now it is time for me to shut up before this drags on any longer and trivialize this opportunity for other users to chime in. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I call foul here. KAVEBEAR said: "...his name has never been favorable among the Hawaiian historical community ". We don't question the life of an author to demonize them and paint them as fringe without demonstrating this to be mainstream academic opinion. We do not continue any political, racial or social dissention on Wikipedia or the idea that that a historian or other notable figure is seen in a particular way. Who are you to make such a claim? This is what I mean. You just blew of all of the policy, guidelines and procedures to propagate ill feelings about a figure in Hawaii because of your own POV. You really take the cake Kave. As sensitive as a brick through a window. You have not refuted any of the reasoning I give or changed my mind. As I said, it isn't a matter of what the majority of the sources call them as in this case we are forgetting that there are English sources...and there are Native Hawaiian sources. There is only one source that says Kanaina had two sons. It doesn't mean it isn't accurate.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• The author of the source is a controversial figure. This does not diminish the source in any way. Many authors are controversial. The specific claim here is that the Hawaiian historical community has never held his name favorable. This is certainly a POV claim. Broad and sweeping in its accusation, it attempts to take away from the accuracy of the source. However, while even reliable sources certainly attest to the controversial nature of the figure, this one also states clearly that the Bishop Museum was highly interested in the source and author of the material exactly because it was so great..that is, until they found out the name of the author, and then lost interest. Clearly that is an indication that the Bishop Museum of the time didn't hold his name favorably however, they are not the entire Hawaiian historical community nor is the fact that one Museum shied away over the name itself any indication that the source is flawed. On the contrary, the reliable source states the museum's opinion of the 1955 publication to be very high. It also states it caused a flurry of interest at the time. Lastly, your characterization of the articles as "opinion pieces" is also not accurate and is without foundation. These are simply characterized as columns by a free lance writer at the Advertiser.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. Warning: This is based off vague tourist memories, but to my recollection he was referred to as "Charles Kanaʻina" at both the Bishop Museum and the Kawaiahaʻo Church. Assuming this is correct and not me mistaking him for someone else, it'd argue to keep the article where it is. SnowFire (talk) 22:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

No, you are correct SnowFire. His name is Charles Kanaʻina. However, he was born Kanaʻina and took on a Christian name when he married. The MOS Hawaii states we are to use the last names and any ordinals. Kanaʻina I is the chief who greeted Cook and Kanaʻ II is Lunalilo's father. While it sounds odd this is actually encyclopedic. MOS for Royalty states that monarchs and others of the Royal Family should use their reigning names like Elizabeth II. Hawaii related article state to use the reign names as well when dealing with subjects of the Royal Famaily. The reason I did not propose a title like "Kanaʻina (clarifying addition)" is because there is no other legitimate, encyclopedic, clarifying addition but the ordinals that do apply to the subject. His wife as well is incorrectly titled. Per MOS Hawaii it should be Kaʻahumanu III just as Kamehameha II, Kamehameha III, Kamehameha IV and Kamehameha V. Even Kekuiapoiwa I has the ordinals titled as the aunt of Kekuiapoiwa II. Anyway, hope you will reconsider your !vote.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• In addition to the above source, there is also the Hawaiian Supreme Court decision in the Kanaʻina probate decision, used multiple times as a reliable source:

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

.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Beating a dead horse but...here is another reliable source (and this IS NOT FRINGE (sorry but I was truly insulted by that). This is the Ulukau listing of Hawaiian royalty. They list Kanaina II and Kanainanui I.[4]--Mark Miller (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Charles Kanaʻina/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==Comments from December 2014== As of =Charles_Kanaina&oldid=637930070 revision 637930070, in the lead and infobox: The lead should be expanded into a summary of his entire life and legacy, in particular mentioning his marriage. If his birthplace is Honaunau-Napoopoo, Hawaii, this can be linked in the infobox. However, the birthplace is not sourced or mentioned in the body of the article. In the "Early life and marriage" section: Should Piʻilani and Moana be linked? "had at one son" should be either "had at least one son" or "had one son". I'm confused by the description of their house: should it read "The sitting and sleeping house had a folding door entrance of green painted wood under glass upper panels. It had two rooms separated by a festooned tent door of chintz fabric and was carpeted with hand crafted makaloa mats. The front room comprised a lounge area on one side facing a sideboard and mirror on the other. In the middle..." Should privy council be linked? In the "Lunalilo" section: Please identify "Dole". In the "Death and legacy" section: The sentences between "Chief Justice Charles Coffin Harris ..." and "... claimants based on testimony and witnesses" would be clearer if they expanded on what happened at the first hearings (I presume Harris granted probate to the trustees in April and Kalakaua's petition was rejected by Cleghorn in September). What is the meaning of the "k" and "w" in brackets? Please specify "the act of 1874". Is "quite land titles" a typo? I can't fully disentangle the narrative in the second paragraph of the "Estate probate" section. It seems to assume far too much prior knowledge on the part of the reader or be missing some explanatory sentences. The first paragraph of the "Heirs and legacy" section needs copy-editing as it describes 9 parties receiving the remaining 7 shares. Ideally, how the shares are split between the parties or people should be clarified. There was no material in the article that I felt to be off-topic. It seems neutral and verifiable, and is well-illustrated with appropriate images. DrKiernan (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 05:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 14:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)