Jump to content

Talk:Keʻelikōlani

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life Of Tragedy

[edit]

I think the "Life of Tragedy" section needs a little bit of rewriting. The information is good, but should probably be presented better. I took a first stab at it, but it needs more.

Also, I corrected the spelling of Leleiohoku and linked it to the appropriate article. Among other things, this should probably remain as "William Pitt Leleiohoku" to distinguish between heir-to-the-throne Leleiohoku and Princess Ruth's-first-husband Leleiohoku.

--Salor 02:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Po'olua

[edit]

I noticed that Kahalaia was mentioned as her father which I don't hear much of. Usually Kekuanaoa is credit as the father although they mention Princess Ruth having a poolua, or 2 fathers. Kahalaia being the other husband of her mother Kalanipauahi. It is through Kekuanaoa that Ruth is credited as an older sister to Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V and Princess Kamamalu. And the fact that she is a great-granddaughter of Kamehameha I was always acknowledged via her mother Pauahi, probably because she had a po'olua and as always it is via the mother that the lineage is more reliable at least when it comes to rank which is how it is recognized. Kahalaia like Pauahi were both grandchildren of Kamehameha. Also, the issue of first or second wife to Kamehameha, etc....I'd personally leave that out since Kamehameha had numerous wives. Off the top of my head there was Kalakua, Kaahumanu and Namahana, all sisters. Only Kalakua is known to give Kamehameha children and of whom Kamamalu and Kinau comes from. Kinau was the mother of Kamehameha IV, Kamehameha V and Victoria Kamamalu. Mamoahina 02:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV?

[edit]

This article is very anti-Western in my opinion. The second half of the article deals with the "so-called" problems the Hawaiian people (apparently mostly the women) had with their self-image etc., and claims this was caused by the westernization ans christianization of Hawaii. Besides the fact this is total BS, this is not the right place to discuss this. There must be an article about the history of the Hawaiian people. A description of this woman's "strong" personality, fine, but with reliable and (preferably multiple) sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.46.8 (talk) 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess the author of Pacific Diaspora: Island Peoples in the United States and Across the Pacific was anti-Western. I only wrote what I looked up. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He or she probably is, but I'm just saying that I believe this is not the place to discuss such matters and that it should be based on more and independent sources.(213.10.46.8 (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

To finally follow up: Actually I think the point made in the "diaspora" book is relevant and consistent with other sources, but verbatim copying from a copyright source it not a good idea. The point was that she kept some ancient practices, but was amazingly modern in other ways. I tried to parahprase and integrate these thoughts into the article. Hope this is better now. W Nowicki (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

[edit]

I think there is even more than just a few dozen seeing as how you could find more photos of her on google than Kamehameha V or Kaahumanu IV.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No title or style

[edit]

I have found a reliable source that clearly shows that Ruth only held the informal title of Governess after she held that position but was never granted any formal title or style. It was only a courtesy title for both Ruth and Bernice. Forty Third Annuel Report, Hawaiian Historical Society. 1934, page 23. Ruth was never given title or style. In note 10 it also speaks of Fornander and another's mistakes in other styles used.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers from the Kalakaua era listing members of royal courts at events or the opening of legislature called her HRH or HH Ruth Keelikolani, rarely ever princess except a few account where it must have been an informal reference. So no title but she did have the royal style like Kanaina. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
She was still known as her excellency during Kamehameha V's reign but as highness in Lunalilo and Kalakaua's reign. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe "excellency" may refer to her Governorship.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The style was sometimes used, and sometimes not, but I do have a reliable source that shows H.H. so I can see that it is acceptable for the style to be shown, but we would need a source to show that it was granted to make the claim. In other words, the source I found would be good enough to place that as a style in front of the name in our article following the MOS, but it wouldn't be a reliable source to claim the style was formally granted. A source making that statement would be needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Mrs. Bishop's marriage in 1850 indicated that she was previously known as "Miss" Bernice Pauahi. Ruth, then Governess of Hawaii, was married in 1856 as "her Excellency." In 1880, Fornander refers to Ruth as "Her Highness" and to Mrs. Bishop as "Hon." [18, p. 313]. Alexander, in 1891, ignores both designations, although applying "Princess" to Likelike in the same paragraph [1, pp. 306, 330]. It is obvious that the title "Princess" found in more recent years attached to the names of Ruth and Mrs. Bishop was only a courtesy title, and has been misleading.

The footnote in question. Just a note on this for the record. The answer is not as straightforward than it seems or as John Stokes want to present it is. The odd thing is that nearly all reference to Keelikōlani at the time of her death and funeral calls her a princess or HRH princess. I need to see if any calls her a Princess before. Bernice Pauahi Bishop was never called a princess until after her death, not even in her obituaries. Liliuokalani, a person who lived and interacted with both these women was a member in the Kalakaua's court where these things matter, in her autobiography calls Ruth Keelikolani a Princess when she had no need to do so, in fact calling her a high chiefess or the former Governess or Mrs. Davis or Mrs. Leleiohoku would have been more appropriate since Liliuokalani had a tendency to play down the importance of the Kamehameha line and promote her own family. European titles were scarcely used by Hawaiians except for the closest members of the royal court and I don't think any primary records are ever kept of investiture. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just listing sources which called her princess in her lifetime:
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keʻelikōlani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Keʻelikōlani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 December 2017

[edit]
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: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  sami  talk 23:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keʻelikōlani → Princess Ruth Keʻelikōlani – Princess Ruth Keʻelikōlani of the Kingdom of Hawaii is not known as simply Keʻelikōlani, and there are very little sources to support that as WP:COMMONNAME. Kamehameha Schools, as well as other sources, use "Princess Ruth Keʻelikōlani" or simply "Princess Ruth". Move to the proposed title per WP:NCNOB, which states 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). CookieMonster755✉ 06:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:33, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose because of the use of Western title and Western names. Hawaii MOS have been to use the native name unless to distinguish between two individual with the same name (i.e.Victoria Kamāmalu). Keʻelikōlani was not a surname nor did the alii nui use surnames during her lifetime. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:24, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Correct age

[edit]

Someone needs to check their math with the Princess' age. 2600:1700:4640:43D0:9C9:F115:4682:9C43 (talk) 03:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self published WP:RS/SPS per guidelines

[edit]

Kristin Zambucka is the author and publisher of a limited series of books. One being "The High Chiefess Ruth Keelikolani" however, her reputation as an expert in royal biographies and having been published by other publishers, is acceptable as reliable for this article per WP:RS/SPS; "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications."

Google books description: "New Zealand born author/artist/producer Kristin Zambucka has won international acclaim for her inspirational and shamanistic books and her definitive biographies of Royal Personages. Queen Elizabeth II awarded her The Queen's Service Medal."--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image change

[edit]

I remove this image and return the original image of a retouched photograph by 19th-century royal photographer James J. Williams. It can be argue that Williams' image also needs to be replaced but it is more contemporaneous to her life. I don't think the modern portrait's colorization can be authenticate nor is it a contemporary piece. KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Wikimedia illustration donated by the author and can be used. Also, the image colors were researched and the cors were taken from a contemporary, colored image of the exact dress design from that period.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I even research the fan she is holding, its a silk fan with plumage on the ends.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Making images yourself; "You may upload photographs, drawings, or other graphics created with a camera, scanner, graphics software, and so on. When photographing or scanning potentially copyrighted works, or creating depictions of persons other than yourself, be sure to respect copyright and privacy restrictions".
We have other modern artistic depictions on other articles. I do not own the portrait and am not promoting. The portrait will likely be on display in Hawaii at Huliheʻe Palace but not sure when.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh...Also, I do not own a business. Most portraits are donated.--Mark Miller (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a published work of art or a historic portrait and this is a history biography. We have many photographs of the princess. Similar articles such as Queen Victoria features painted contemporary portraits and black and white photographs but not imagined colorized works such as this. Are there surviving articles of the princess's clothing and the silk fan at Huliheʻe to corroborate the choice of color? Do we have surviving furnitures from what looks like either Menzies Dickson or H.L. Chase's photographic studio in Honolulu to corroborate curtains, table cloth and cushion color choices? Can you point to an example where we permit the use of a modern 21st-century imagined work of art when contemporary images exist of a historic individual? You're the artist and I think there is a conflict of interest when it comes to this topic and think it best to seek a 3rd opinion on this issue. KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KAVEBEAR said; "It is not a published work of art or a historic portrait and this is a history biography.". Photos on Wikipedia are all considered original research and allowed by policy and guidelines. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, all biographies are history biographies in one way or another. It is about notability of the subject. As for the portrait itself, I did not even own the copyright. I had to request the copyright owner's permission. This can be OTRS confirmed if needed. "Similar articles such as Queen Victoria features painted contemporary portraits and black and white photographs but not imagined colorized works" That is a consensus issue for each article. Not the bases for an argument about policy and guidelines.
The chair is part of a photographer's studio set of "props". These were all sold by a single company. I can confirm that the chair is used in many photos of the period in the US. The chair would only be of a few colors for that period and would likely be options for the studio purchasing the chair. To be honest, I really believe you are over objecting and using essay information as a bases to your objecion. With respect, as you are a great editor but you have never understood Wikipedia image use policy very well. As a good faith, I suggest you narrow your objection to my being the artist itself. Yes, I did in fact research even the tapestry and curtain coloring for that period. This was probably the most researched image I ever painted. I treated it as a Wikipedia project.--Mark Miller (talk) 11:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for saying; "you have never understood Wikipedia image use policy very well". That was not in good faith. I believe many of your past arguments involving modern painting images here on Wikipedia have been more lenient than right now. The discussion over the portrait of Elizabeth Kekaʻaniau that is displayed at Kawaiahaʻo Church was painted in 1985 but you were very supportive of its inclusion. So much (as was the other editor) that I researched the artist's daughter so the other editor could get OTRS permission from the copyright holder. And the artist added content to the image that is not in the photo she used to paint the image. You can see that on the Wikipedia page. I updated the image with a photo I took in 2016. That is a consensus you helped form. I believe it is precedence of your own past support for modern paintings on Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The modern image of Elizabeth Kekaʻaniau is used in a specific section about the modern portrait. I have never argued for its inclusion as a lead image and believe I objected to its placement as a lead in past edits. If historic photograph and contemporary images exist they should be used as the lead image. KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why? I mean, what policy or guidelines are you basing your opinion on or is this just what you like or feel appropriate from your own experience? I mean, I also remember your support of an image I described as an "oil smear" however, just because it was a supposed historic painting and the only "depiction" of the subject, you argued for inclusion. Remember the Kamehameha portrait. While you won support of its use there, it is not the original work the subject posed for. That one is a copy by the artist that went into a book and colorized by memory.
Each image on each article is based on a consensus of editors unless clear violations of policy, guidelines and the core pillars of the community are being violated. There is no violation in using a modern, well researched illustration basing colors of the fashions on the exact dress design's in full color "catalogue" images.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Image use policy#Diagrams and other images; "user-made images may be wholly original. In such cases, the image should be primarily serving an educational purpose, and not as a means of self-promotion of the user's artistic skills. The subject to be illustrated should be clearly identifiable in context, and should not be overly stylized. See for example File:Checker_shadow_illusion.svg..".--Mark Miller (talk) 10:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please caption, date and attribute the image then so a casual reader know this was made in 2018 and not the 1870s. KAVEBEAR (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I replace the 2018 portrait with a high-resolution scan of the historic 19th-century photograph from the Hawaii State Archives. There is more detailed in the photograph. Besides the two of us, there hasn't been any other input, so if this is something you oppose, I will have to seek a third opinion or request for consensus. KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I return the image that was created, per Wikipedia guidelines for the page.Mark Miller (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Keʻelikōlani&oldid=1230096252"