Template talk:Lunalilo family tree

There is too much emphasis on the Kamehameha line and very little on the maternal side of Kanaina which actually has some great importance. I have begun to add that information and will be expanding to at least include Moana Wahines parentage and some descendants that have encyclopedic value. The line to the last two monarchs and to Bernice Bishop is needed to demonstrate the relationship per the will and designated heirs.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The thing is Charles Kanaina's ancestors are not notable enough to even have articles and only exist in Hawaiian oral traditions. The Moana family was important but not many people know about them and historians generally don't give much attention to them either. It is also best to simplify these family trees because they can become wider than the article page. How about just including Kauwa's parents since Eia's ancestry is even less important?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC).

Also can you please send me those sources you keep talking about?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is, yes the descending line is important and has some encyclopedic value to some expansion on the legacy and will of Lunalilo and his father Charles Kanaina. That has significance to the surviving royal lines and is interesting in that all of the more notable heirs. Kilinahe is not really that notable in and of himself, however he plays a part in the proceedings as the father to a number of heirs himself. Also his son or grandson from his first wife eventually made a statement to the US Congress I believe. Other information that has EV is that Bernice Bishop received two shares from the estate because she was descended from two people directly descended from Moana Wahine. And the notability of that descending line is established through an entire book on the subject I just discovered. Both King Kalākaua and Queen Liliuokalani were descended from Moana Wahine through a different husband. The point of continuing the Moana line is not to start adding non notable family members that do not have wiki articles just because they are related, but that there is more information about this family line and how they were important Muai Moi and how the family began as a service family of lower rank and was raised to a higher rank when the Kamehameha line died out. I think we should leave the tree as you changed it for now with out the descending line until I have begun the expansion on the Kanaina article that I plan under the Legacy section.

By the way, I have discovered at least one notable person that does not have a Wiki article. I have begun to get sources together for that.

As for the sources you keep asking me to send you, as I said, you have the main part in that one book source we both discovered a few months back. I have not had time to read through the lengthy court documents. I have not used these sources to cite anything, but it contains lots of information that is in other sources that are secondary, so I am getting my ducksin a line and will share the sources with you when I get it all together and complete a little more research to get better aquainted with our articles and the history in general.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Kavebear stated: "The thing is Charles Kanaina's ancestors are not notable enough to even have articles and only exist in Hawaiian oral traditions.". That is incorrect and the whole point here is not to limit the articles based upon our own opinions but what is actually written in reliable sources and one source even you have used is an entire book on Kanaina's ancestors and as the entire royal family is very inbred to say that is very inaccurate. There are many of Kanaina's ancestors that already have articles and some that don't. Just because they are this man's ancestors does not mean they are automatically non notable. Sure...many of them are, but notability for mention in an article and notability for an entire article are two different levels.

Kavbear stated: "The Moana family was important but not many people know about them and historians generally don't give much attention to them either" That statement is opinion and should never be the basis for excluding information. Don't cut of your nose to spite yourself. What is or isn't what "Historians" believe is not as simple as that. Besides...the name Moanahas great notability and will probably be increasing in he next few years. While that is speculation...it is based on the fact that even Disney Studios seems to find the name important enough to create a new Disney Princess on it alone. Please do not hold back my efforts due to your own opinion. While I hold your opinion in some regard, never the leass it is not how we determine what is notable.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Base on what we have now Moana (2016 film) is not a film about this family; it doesn't seem like it will even be set in Hawaii if it was 2000 years ago, maybe the end result would be the discovery of Hawaii. Moana is a common Polynesian name meaning ocean so it make sense that the director chose it to refer to a girl from a chiefly navigating family. I found this comment extremely weird back then and glad to know it is wrong now. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Moana Wahine line

Reliable sources do show that the Moana Wahine line has importance. The reason is that, she had 4 husbands most of whose children descend to become the Royal family or distant relatives of her line which leads directly to Umi, Liloa and at least one popular Hawaiian creation myth. I plan to include some of this.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

==Unfinished tree==× What do you plan to do with this tree? Do you understand Lunalilo derived his chiefly rank and right to rule from his mother not his father? This is not my opinion but a conclusion supported by most contemporary sources and modern secondary sources. I can list them if you want. The tree was originally to show his mother's lineage and his relation to Kamehameha in the most direct way. His father's rank is important too but not as important as his mother's. A few of his father's ancestors were included to balance out the tree. I didn't support your inclusion of the entire Moana line because it is suppose to be a simplistic tree that doesn't overstretch the article and showing the relations of his mother, the person he derive his right to rule from. You are also welcome to create a seperate Moana family tree or a tree that can be used for his father's article highlighting Kanaina's family's descent more prominently. Kekauluohi's family has been simlply cut out and left in the cold even though that was the line which was most important to Lunalilo's life as a royal prince and later a king. Also have the decency of finishing it if you wanted to change it to your own liking. The ton of white spaces is pushing articles like Charles Kanaina out of proportion.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You are incorrect about Lunalilo deriving his chiefly rank and right to rule from his mother. That is not how it worked. Had Kanaina been a commoner Lunalilo would not have had a right to rule. What gave him that was being named an heir and he was named an heir because of his parentage on both sides, but he was a Kamehameha on his mother's side. You would have me believe otherwise? The tree is not to show how he had a right to rule or show only his Kamehameha family side. Both sides need to be shown and not just the Kamehamehas.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Please source that statement you made that his father's ancestry gave him the right to rule too. I am not talking about your speculation/hypothetical situation (Had Kanaina been a commoner...). Thank you.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Did I make that statement? No. What you stated was that he derived his chiefly status and right to rule, which are separate. His chiefly rights come from both sides. His "right to rule" did not require he be a direct member of the House of Kamehameha. Many of the pupils from the chiefs school were not directly related to Kamehameha. The chiefly line is the al'i'i line themselves and Kanaina has a very interesting chiefly line and Lunalilo was one line of the secondary chiefly lines to have their mana raised to the level of King. This was a direct result (his mana and his being most fit to rule) of his mother and her line. But I have to agree that using the entire ancestry is to cumbersome and creates page load issues.

I will work on fixing this and see if it acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes his father's line is important. Showing his mother's genealogy is as important (if not more). I leave it up to you to improve this. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

His mother's line is as important but I simply stopped the direction I was going sue to the limitations of page size and coding. Some further research into how to use the family tree mark up has helped.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)