Talk:Paʻao

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Hawaii High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Anthropology: Oral tradition This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

Thanks Gerald for filling out this stub. I just added some extra info. If you think it's too detailed you can pack it down a bit.

Zora 09:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I was looking at the Pa'ao legends and they say that Pa'ao's brother killed Pa'ao's son, and that Pa'ao then retaliated. I think that you could call this a feud, rather than murder. So I dropped the reference to murder and also the name of the brother, which seems an unnecessary detail.

When I have time, I'll add references to Malo and Kamakau, so that people can look up the original stories. Zora 10:50, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You've removed all the paragraph breaks. The article is now an unreadable mess. Zora 4 July 2005 10:31 (UTC)

Much of the discussion under Historicity is entirely unsourced. In particular - and most egregiously - the statement " Academic historians and archaeologists have now abandoned the two migrations theory.^{[citation needed]}" was unsupported when written and remains unsourced a full six years later. I think it unprofessional to write such a significant statement at all without a source, it smacks of nothing more than personal opinion. But to leave it for years, well, that is unacceptable. Either source it or in 30 days I will remove it and the entire preceding paragraph. CTLandman (talk) 05:11, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is much to be gained by reading books. Unfortunately, both information and misinformation. When dealing with polynesian history, written works of foreigners as well as native authors have led to many inaccuracies. The unbiased oral tradition devoid of western and christian influence should be considered with as much if not more credence. The present article with the exception of a portion of the section refering to Hewa, has been edited by a direct lineal descendant of Pa'ao. . Laeanui 4 July 2005 3:26 (HST)

Yes, and there's no proof that it's anything more than a fairytale. I don't care if the article was written by a descendent of Paao, the Kamehamehas, or the chiefs of Kaua'i. Bloodline is not a guarantee of veracity. Oral tradition is notoriously slippery historical material. Especially in this case, where the "oral tradition" seems to be derived from late 19th century printed material. In any case, adding uncorroborated material from a supposed family tradition breaks the "no original research" rule for Wikipedia.

Oops, sorry, I realize that I was thinking of Hawaiiloa rather than Paao. Paao IS clearly a pre-European story and documented in Malo. The only question is whether or not it is to be considered history or myth. The archaeological record is key here. I'm working on the article. Zora 5 July 2005 03:19 (UTC)

Just to be clear -- I don't reject all oral tradition, and I don't accept it uncritically, either. It has to be weighed and judged, just like any other historical evidence. Zora 5 July 2005 02:47 (UTC)

I spent the afternoon -- when I should have been doing real life stuff -- pulling books down and writing a more detailed version of the Pa'ao story. There are still many cites to add, particularily to the archaeological material and current Native Hawaiian beliefs. I'm afraid that the account of these beliefs might be considered "original research", in that it's mainly derived from angry exchanges with various Hawaiian activists on Usenet, Wikipedia, etc. I am sure that these beliefs can be documented from websites, however, and will add references when I have time. Zora 5 July 2005 05:55 (UTC)

Laeanui, I don't care if you claim that it's an "oral tradition" -- you can't just use Wikipedia to publish your version of the Pa'ao story, which differs in many particulars from the various published versions, and tell us that it's old and venerable. Frankly, it doesn't read as old and venerable -- the phrasing is novelistic, and extremely far from the style of the documented oral traditions that survive.

IF you want to post the story on your personal website, we can insert a link to "A modern retelling of the tale" or whatever you want to call it. Zora 6 July 2005 23:19 (UTC) (also posted on your talk page)

Gee, Zora I think "oops, sorry" says it all much better than I possibly could!!! Laeanui