Talk:Haʻalelea

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Hawaii Low‑importance

	Hawaii portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hawaii, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hawaii on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HawaiiWikipedia:WikiProject HawaiiTemplate:WikiProject HawaiiHawaii articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Move

This should be moved to Haʻalelea like all other Hawaiian chiefs who had Christian name Kekuanoa, Kekauonohi, Kealiiahonui, Kapaakea; the only reasons why we've used both name is when we have two people with same name like Charles Kanaina vs his ancestor Kanaina I. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could I can get an opinion on this one? I don't want to make the decision and then have you revert it. If you agree, we can ask an administrator to move this since titles with okina are blacklisted. If you disagree, my option is to start a request move. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper format

Let's compare. Why do you insist on using empty parameters from the space and calling the newspapers agencies instead of newspapers. My versions

Using "PCA1864Death" for ref name
- "Another Chief Dead". The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaii. October 8, 1864. p. 2. Retrieved December 15, 2014.

I didn't use a ref name
- "In Society". The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaii. May 1, 1904. Retrieved December 15, 2014.

I didn't use a ref name
- "In Society". The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu, Hawaii. May 1, 1904. Retrieved December 15, 2014.

You don't compare a dispute. You avoid it by not reverting improvements that use full formatting. You did not remove the unused portions, you removed parts that were filled in and only because of a few mistakes that could have been fixed.

The only parts I removed were the reprint part and the language section. I don't see how these are reprints. They are digitized versions of the originals. Everything else, location, page number I included in my final edits. The difference in my editing is that I don't remove all the contribution by the previous editors which you have done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It aint about what you want. It says anything not re published by the source! That is a reprint!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 07:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well then reprint should be added I guess. My problem is you just revert everything I added including edits in line with your changes. Actually take the time to compare edits when a edit conflict occurs instead of reverting everything that the previous editor has added. I may have removed the reprint and language parameter on one and all the empty spaces not being used but I added location, accessdates, pages and corrected the newspapers on the ones you edited and even the ones you haven't gotten to or left out. In the process of reverting you reverted the changes made to the ones that you hadn't gotten to or left out such as the PCADeath and the last one from the Gazette. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

KAVEBEAR, this is the second article I have created that you have followed me to and begun edit warring with me over everything you can think of, revert my additions or improvements and otherwise become a pain. I think this time you need to chill out and begin collaborating and working together.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop thinking that I am out to get you this is the last I will talk about this...I had intention to create this article all along and had one in my userspace since 2011. You create it and I noticed it on my watchlist since I have all the red links of the names of Hawaiian chiefs and figures without articles on my watchlist. It is clear here that I am not reverting anything. Unlike you I don't revert all the edits made by the previous editor, I incorporated the changes I thought made sense and left those that didn't.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You unilaterally reverted all my edits on the format even though I added pages, location to the second Hawaiian Gazette.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dude...you added bare urls. I began fixing them and YOU reverted me and removed my work STOP!!!--Mark Miller (talk) 07:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of editing when you conflicted with my edits. I had already made the 1864 newspaper link with the cite newspaper template before you made the change and was in the process of creating the other ones when the edit conflict occur. I notice in your edits you brought up the parameter of location, page, and accessdate which I added to the ones I made after the edit conflict.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The way it is supposed to work is as a collaboration. You add something and I see the addition as a net positive but something needs to be added or adjusted...as long as it is within policy and improves...yadayadyada...you know the drill you revert me enough. You make mistakes and I fix them. I make mistakes and you fix them. Why? Because we are the only two editors working on the article. Respect me and I respect you. I created the article because it is red linked on at least one article I also created and it is part of the area of my general genealogy and Hawaiian history research.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Malo

Thus, Kekau'onohi would give instructions to Leleiohoku, who would pass them on to Malo and Ha'alelea (Malo was Ha'alelea's maternal uncle; see figure 1 3), both of whom were kahu of Leleiohoku. Sometimes, however, she would speak ... (Kame'eleihiwa 1992:114).

This is interesting. Still the Malo in the tree can't be David Malo because David Malo's parents, according to his own book Moolelo Hawaii, were Aoʻao and Heone not Kipa's parents. Need to look into what is on figure 1.3 in her book one day. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:50, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ha'alilio's uncle was Native Hawaiian historian David Malo.121 (Klieger 1998:47). - Klieger cites the same thing in Moku'ula: Maui's Sacred Island but he is citing it from somewhere else hence the footnote. Maybe Kame'eleihiwa.

We have two sources stating David Malo was his uncle. But that doesn't imply David Malo's parents were Kuaina (Haaleleaina) and Ahumaikealake, which there is no source for, and contradicts existing sources on his parentage. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't David Malo. One of the sources says that.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:05, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What source?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which one, but it was one without a preview and had only a snippet view. It said that the Malo related to Kipa was not the same as the Historian Davida Malo. I'll look trough. It may not have been one that was used.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. "This Malo is a brother of Kipa, Ha'alelea's mother, and is not Davida Malo" (Kame'eleihiwa 1992:356). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Lilikalā Kame'eleihiwa.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information from the tree is ultimately from page 114 Kame'eleihiwa's book where whoever made the PDF got the information from. I am seeing snippets of word like "Ahumaikealahaka (k) = Kua'ena (w) Ko'ele'ele (k) = i) Kipa" but not the tree itself. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the PDF file has page "22" at the top.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. It is page 22 from the Alii Mahele Indices translated into English. The host site is not RS (its a blog) but isn't the source just hosting the convenience link.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Slow down

Re-writing this and taking it over it seriously annoying. You are dominating this article, What the frack?--Mark Miller (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with my changes tell me the specific reasons why and don't state expect me to respond to things like "You are dominating this article, What the frack?" I don't want to care about that or discuss this...If you see the process is going to fast. You layout on the talk pages why the edits or changes I made are negative and I will try to defend them like I've been doing with you on Kanaina's talk page. Sources, format, grammar, layout, and etc. are the only things I want to discuss. Keep it strictly about business. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I expect you to be civil, collaborate and work with others. I am going to stop discussion on the talk page for now. It is useless, becomes walls of text and nothing works with you when it comes from me in discussion anyway.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait by Enoch Wood Perry Jr.

KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:51, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources