http://www.coinnews.net/2008/03/28/...-heritages-april-central-states-auction-4023/ *facepalm.jpg* Wrong monarch!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalākaua
well, i dont know which is the correct one.. but i would NEVER use wikipedia to settle an arguement unless it also matches some welknown publication. Dont get me wrong, i use Wiki all the time, but keep in mind, any yahoo with a pc can write anythign they want on wiki ... just food for thought.
Well yeah, but that yahoo will be reverted within a matter of minutes if it's not well sourced. Heck, you should have seen how much sources I had to provide to support my correction that the woman that modeled for the Sacagawea coin was not the first or only person to be depicted on a coin while still alive. (Thomas Kilby and Calvin Coolidge were both on commems while still alive... if you extend the definition to people who posed as models and not depicted as themselves, there's actually many people who have held that honor). Irony was that assertion was contradicted by Wikipedia's own articles and I still got accused of vandalising because my edit contained a minor spelling error. It's not perfect but they have about as good a batting average as any print encyclopedia... and when a print encyclopedia makes a mistake it won't get corrected for at least a year.
i knew for Wiki you had to provide and site sources, but wasnt sure of the level, and at what time. I have seen alot of articles that were 100% wrong, and they have it listed several times in the article "citation needed". dont get me wrong, i m NOT bashing wiki. I like it. I am just saying, i would never use it as my primary source to settle a bet or arguement. I do, however, use wiki as source material for some historical backgrounds on figures depicted on world notes. Its a good source, but you have to look at the source differently for different situations.
i can imagine its difficult. Hawaii was little known until we forced them to sign the country over to the US. And then Boom, instant tourist spot.
