This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
At the beginning of the article it states that "Liliuokalani...was the last monarch and only queen regent of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi". Following the link indicates that a regent rules in place of the real ruler who for some reason can't rule. The article doesn't indicate that this is the case. Shouldn't it be "only queen regnant" meaning that she ruled in her own right?
Aloha kākou! One simple request I have is this....If you are going to use Hawaiian words, PLEASE, PLEASE use the correct words. One of the posters below used the words Kanaka Mahole. What he/she meant to use was maoli. Mahole means to bruise, or to skin or to scrape. Mahalo a nui! Dcbnmlt 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrigo please do not remove renaming tags until there has been a solution reached. Also please stop moving articles without waiting for the end of a naming discussion first. You do not have the authority to "deny" or "approve" or even remove renaming tags. Please abide by Wikipedia rules and Wikiquette. if you have something to say, then please give your opinion but do not take unilateral action. Gryffindor 14:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
as per Wiki convention for naming of a sovereign monarch Mowens35 22:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that Liliuokalani be moved to either Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i, Lili'uokalani, Queen of Hawai'i, or Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i. I among others oppose such moves. As can be read above, the requests received opposition and the poll went stale. Requests denied. Arrigo 12:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Readers may be interested in to know that User:Antares911 above is the former username of User:Gryffindor (also above). 217.140.193.123 20:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 02:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [1] cheers Antares911 23:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Her middle name was Kamaka'eha, but I am unsure where the glottal stops go. Chris 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
In reference to the title of the article and the use of the Queen's name alone we should at least include the 'okina in her name Lili'uokalani since it is a consonant and belongs there. Altringali 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC) --- Hello, I'm doing a research paper on her. Her name was originally Liliu Loloku Walania Wewehi Kamaka'eha. Lydia was her christian name, given by the missionaries. Paki was the name she took from her hanai parents. (kind of like adoption) She was at one time referred to as Liliulani in a song, giving her a royal suffix (lani). She was generally referred to while growing up as Liliu by the Hawai'ians, somewhere else on this page someone was complaining that the person who was reverting blahblahblah. Well, they are correct, but I actually have the documentation :)
Liliu'okalani was given to her by her brother David Kalakaua when he named her as heir to the throne, and has in itself significance of being a ruler by standards of the Hawai'ian language. (Which, there is a debate about that on here too)
My research paper is for school, and my teacher has a special documentation format, so I'm not sure of the format used here, but it's: Book: Helena G. Allen, The Betrayal of Liliuokalani, Last Queen of Hawaii, 36-40.
- Afisamule'al 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There's been a minor revert war on this article between myself, JereKrischel, and annonymous user 12.44.115.43. Revert wars are very unproductive and it would be in the best interests of this article to resolve this dispute keep the article stable.
First off, to the annonymous user: the main reason why I'm reverting your changes is because your edits aren't wikified, POV, and lack citations. Looking over your edits to the article, some of your proposed additions are very good and I would like to see many of your revisions merged into the article (for example, the information about the Liliuokalani Trust).
There are some things, however, that I don't believe are encyclopedic and don't belong in this article. For example, take this line: "She was later called Lydia K. Dominis by the American annexationists but never by the native people of Hawai'i." While the first part of this statement is technically true, the second part of the statement ("never by the native people of Hawai'i") sounds POV and by itself doesn't seem verifiable. Additionally, it is presented in a way that to me seems almost bitter towards the annexationists, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
I understand you have very strong issues with the neutrality of this article, and I share in your frustrations so this is why we need to work out this dispute. Simply engaging in a revert war will not help the quality of this article in any way.
(On a different note, I would like offer a friendly reminder to the annonymous user about the the three revert rule, which (s)he is on the verge of breaking.) 青い(Aoi) 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Contributors, please watch this page in light of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. To attempt to validate the actions of Dole and other wealthy white men, as well as the pro-annexation forces behind Morgan report, only perpetuates the historical bias that Congress recently abrogated in 1993.
On a more diplomatic note, if we accept that there are different points of view then we can't say one account was "contradicted" by another account. There is nothing that recommends privileging one first-person, 19th century testimony over the other except for one's own politics. Huangdi 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The charge by Native Hawaiians that the overthrow was illegal persisted, covertly at first for years, but then openly during the so-called "Hawaiian Renaissance" in the late 1960s and into the 1970s, as advocates, backed by the historical record, lobbied politicians for a declaration of Hawaiian rights and reparations for property lost because of the overthrow. During the 1980s, the public outcries moved political wheels, particularly with U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, himself of native Hawaiian descent. Congress finally agreed. On Nov. 23, 1993 in the Oval Office of the White House on the centennial observation of the overthrow of the Queen, President Bill Clinton signed U.S. Public Law 103-150 before the Hawaii congressional delegation, U.S. Sen. Akaka, U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, and U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, officially apologizing for the illegal overthrow and pledging to begin working out arrangements for some form of native rights for Hawai'i.'
Just to start off with some direct criticisms of the paragraph. It doesn't seem to fit in this article at all, frankly. -- JereKrischel 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
RE: reference that it was illegal: Cleveland stated so in his speech
The provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States... by an act of war, commited with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown.
page 134, aloha betrayed, Noenoe K. Silva.
- Afisamule'al 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, according to the Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare war. The War Powers Resolution in 1973 essentially ceeded decision-making authority to the President (an act that many still consider either illegal, ill-advised, or both) to carry out essential military actions, but he still has to report back and get Congressional approval within 60 days. So JK is correct on this point, that the President doesn't determine legality in regards to war (editorial comment: thank God). Arjuna ( talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
→Actually they were not a bunch of rogue Marines. They had received orders from their commander who received a request from the US Minister (Ambassador) to Hawai'i. If they did not comply with the request of the American diplomatic agent, they could have been reprimanded--though several senior officers knew what was really going on. The fault more so lies not with the marines but with the American Minister to Hawai'i--the representative of the United States president--who had conspired with a minority within Hawai'i to topple the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Islands. Also note how the other nations recognized the Provisional Government and the dates. They did not recognize the Provisional Government as being de jure. For example: “In response I have the honor to say that I comply with the above request and recognize the said Provisional Government as the de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands, so far as my authority as consul for Chile may permit me to act for and on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Chile in the premises. I have the honor to be, gentlemen, Your very obedient servant, F. A. Schaefer, Consul for Chile. ”
Later on in 1894, the consuls congratulate the Republic of Hawai'i but again they declare "same recognization" or "same status as the previous government". Some here argue that wording of diplomatic letters gives the impression that the Republic of Hawai'i was treated as de jure government, but it should be pointed out that: 1. that was the courtesy and peculiar diplomatic etiquette at the time (well some countries still use that format); 2. the United States and other countries wrote the same way to Latin American dictators that it did not accord as de jure but was in power of the police and military force ( read: de facto). Key example is the way America dealt with Mexico. Lincoln did not recognize Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico but when you read the correspondences, you wouldn't have noticed that Lincoln was helping Juarez regain Mexico City. I think that this article needs to be moderated more thoroughly. I have noticed that several historical terms are incorrect and in many cases non-existent (such as the Committee of Danger, Hawai'i Independent Party) and nicknames are used rather than formal names (i.e. Bobby Wilcox). In addition, I understand that some feel that the Morgan Report should be given some wieght as a reference--which personally is more like a gossip column than a government finding, however, the Blount report contradicts everything that Morgan later said. Therefore, it seems fair to me that if someone will cite the Morgan Report, a citation or a rebuttal from the Blount Report should be allowed in the interests of neutrality and they both were accept into the Congressional Record. In addition, since Public LAw 103-150 was passed by both Houses of Congress and is therefore a historical and legal resolution, it should be included but as a footnote and external link because it directly deals with the Queen. Certain people here are claiming that its partisan, but by excluding that resolution among other view points, that is also an act of partisanship. Also I do not see why Hawai'i's Story by Hawai'i's Queen is even debated. It is a historical document by a historical personage from a historical perspective. It does have its biases--as everyone does--but it was actually written by the subject of this article. To not to include Hawai'i's Story would be like to exclude Robert Louis Stevenson's personal letters as a reference. Also why not also use newspapers accounts as well? Especially from say the San Francisco Call and Hawaiian language papers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokulani78 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
She initially refused, and it was reported that she said she would have them beheaded - she denied that specific accusation, but admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death.
Your documentation for this is the Queen's own book, however, in the book, it does not say that, it says:
I told him that, as to granting amnesty, it was beyond my powers as a constitutional sovereign. That it was a matter for the privy council and for the cabinet. That our laws read that those who are guilty of treason should suffer the penalty of death.
He then wished to know if I would carry out that law. I said that I would be more inclined personally to punish them by banishment, and confiscation of their property to the government. He inquired again if such was my decision. I regarded the interview as an informal conversation between two persons as to the best thing for the future of my country, but I repeated to him my wish to consult my ministers before deciding on any definite action. This terminated the consultation, excepting that Mr. Willis specially requested me not to mention anything concerning the matter to any person whomsoever, and assured me he would write home to the government he represented.
It clearly says in this passage, in your own documentation, that she did not have the desire to punish them by death, and that she did not have the power to do anything, either way.
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii-5.html#XL
-
Afisamule'al 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
At the interview held Saturday, Dec. 16, I did decline to promise executive clemency, and gave as my reason that, this being the second offence of these individuals, they were regarded as dangerous to the community. That their very residence would be a constant menace; that there never would be peace in my country, or harmony amongst the people of different nations residing with us, as long as such a disturbing element remained, especially after they had once been successful in seizing the reins of government. But on Monday, Dec. 18, Mr. Willis came to Washington Place; and again acting under the advice of Hon. J. O. Carter, I gave to him a document recognizing the high sense of justice which had prompted the action of Mr. Cleveland, and agreeing that, in view of his wishes, the individuals setting up or supporting the Provisional Government should have full amnesty in their persons and their property, if they would work together with me in trying to restore peace and prosperity to our beautiful and once happy islands. [2]
I don't see anything in the given source (Liliuokalani's autobiography) that states in any clear way that she "admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death". I'm not sure I completely follow JereKrischel's argument, but it sounds like the kind of synthesis from a published source that is not allowed under WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." I think we should remove the claim that she admitted she wanted them killed, or cite a reliable source making that claim. -- Allen ( talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what is the matter of executing those missionaries. They committed treason and in the Penal Code of the Hawaiiian Islands - CHAPTER VI it states Whoever shall commit the crime of treason, shall suffer the punishment of death; and all his property shall be confiscated to the government. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
She initially refused, and it was reported that she said she would have them beheaded - she denied that specific accusation, but admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
She would never introduce the practice of beheading into Hawaii and I don't think it was ever practice in the history of the Kingdom. Hawaii never practiced beheading except in ancient times, notable prove is an ancient execution stone on the grounds of the Hulihee Palace. Hanging was more preferred for example in the case of Kamanawa Opio II who was hanged for adultery and murder. Execution by hanging was still practiced in the late 19th century, even in the United States and Europe. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! -- JereKrischel 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi JK. As for the justification for the POV tag, I noticed post facto that Kanaka maoli i puuwai added a note on your talk page about this article, but the tag also refers to the controversy over the article's continuing reliance on the Blount Report as the definitive source of historical facts on the subject of the overthrow. In addition, the mention of bombs being found at her home is potentially misleading. Daws says, "The grounds of her home...were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- a regular ammunition dump...", Daws, p. 282-3) can quite easily be read (as perhaps the author intended?) to suggest that the material was planted there and so the searchers therefore knew exactly where to look. At the very least, the evidence is ambiguous and will probably always remain so. Cheers, Arjuna 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: weapons. I mentioned this above in response to you first posing it on my talk page. As for whether or not it's a "stretch" to suggest this is a possible interpretation of Daw's meaning: Hmmm. I wonder why he would feel it necessary to add "found what they were looking for" unless he was suggesting an inkling of something. I know you know what literary irony is. As I said, it's suggestive and ambiguous but definitely not a stretch. Your answer that "To suggest that her staff were somehow in conspiracy with the Provisional Government is a real stretch" is a red herring; as though that were the only other possibility. Anyway, there's not anything more to say about this topic, since I'm not saying this interpretation is true, only that Daws was clearly suggesting its possibility. As I said previously, this is one of many events about which the truth is probably forever lost to time. As for whether it's POV, I'm agreeing with others who also feel it is not. The POV is pervasive in the use of connotative language and the selective presentation of facts. Arjuna 10:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the report of Willis to Cleveland was from a man supportive of the Queen's restoration, and can hardly be called an attempt to discredit her. Is there evidence that his direct report of that is somehow heresay, when he was in the conversation? Is there evidence that it was meant to discredit her, when he supported her aims? -- JereKrischel 05:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It says nothing about "beheadings", though now does it? Furthermore, as far as I know, lots of sovereign states -- especially then -- allow a death penalty for treason and conspiracy to overthrow a government. Oh, sorry, I forgot -- you haven't yet accepted the fact that the Committee of Safety actually overthrew the monarchy, but rather effected a mere "change in leadership". And btw, it's "hearsay", not your misspelling. Arjuna 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Mahalo to everyone who has edited recently to improve this article, and has brought to light the work that still needs doing. I want to help, but I'm having a hard time keeping track of who edited what and so I think an advisory role is out for me. So just to let you guys know I'm gonna just start from the top & do some general "finish carpentry" without looking at who contributed. If I mess up anybody's edits I'm sorry; I don't want to undo anyone's hard work, but I really think it's best that I don't even look at who edited what at this point, in order to get a more cohesive flow going. I'm not a trivia-meister by nature, so I'm just gonna stick to the basics. If anyone has a problem with this approach, please let me know as soon as you can. Aloha, -- Laualoha 01:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I really want hand-editing to be the standard. If anyone reverts me I will do the same. Aloha, -- Laualoha 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
JK, you recently reverted a consensus edit with the tag "remove POV category - Liliuokalani not a political prisoner or victim as per Mandela". Instead of simply removing that political prisoner category, which might have been seen as fair enough, you reverted wholesale back to a version you know to be unsupported by the consensus, as well as extremely POV. Please explain to me why this should not be considered vandalism. Arjuna 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge the validity of some of these objections, and have re-added or made edits accordingly. The main objection "we" had is that you seemed to be using these relatively minor issues to attempt to justify a revert that included larger amounts of POV material. c/m/t Arjuna 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Did she actually Abdicate? Coojah 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It may just be my pickiness, but the image of Liliuokalani is not a very good resolution for the size it is blown up to. If we could get an image with a higher resolution, I think that would be ideal (especially for the main picture of the queen on this page). - Kanogul ( talk) 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone find a better picture of Liliuokalani? I mean come on, she is ugly in this one and she looks kind of like an ape. No offense to her majesty but I have seen better picture of her like this one or this one. 63.3.21.2 ( talk) 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The greatest picture of Liliuokalani is probably this one. I believe it was taken when she was made Crown Princess.
I'm working on removing the copyediting tag. I would appreciate help with the neutrality problem. Viriditas ( talk) 06:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article says "chieftess". Keohokālole says "chiefess". Which is correct? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 00:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Its Chiefess that was the term used by all 19th century historians. I think the chieftess might came from priestess. It just Chief + ess, a woman chief. The proper term is High Chiefess which is a translation of the Hawaiian term for the nobility and royalty, Ali'i. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
references 2 and 3 are from a child's book Sharon , Linnea (1999) Princess Ka'Iulani: Hope of a Nation, Heart of a People Eerdmans Young Readers and make some strong claims. The whole following section of rather purple prose should probably be deleted unless someone comes up with a better citation. To start with, cite Victoria's journal. Also cite Hawaii's value to Britain during Victoria's reign. this should be quite easy.
" Britain had long been a valued ally of Hawaiʻi, and it was thought proper that Queen Kapiʻolani, along with Crown Princess Liliʻuokalani and her husband John Owen Dominis, attended the festivities celebrating Queen Victoria's fifty years on the throne.[2] It seemed to be a great success, with the Hawaiian royals accepted as equals of the reigning family of the civilized world. This was especially important because Kamehameha IV had met with much prejudice in America just after the Civil War because of his dark skin color. All of Liliʻuokalani's reports of the Jubilee were glowing as were the newspaper accounts of the honors bestowed upon the Hawaiians. Never had so many ruling monarchs and heads of government gathered in one place as descended upon London in 1887. However, Queen Victoria's journals, which were made public decades later, add a sobering footnote. She reported that both the King of the Belgians and the King of Saxony refused to accompany Princess Liliuokalani to the Jubilee Supper because she was "colored". This created a behind-the-scenes furor until Queen Victoria herself commanded her son Albert to accompany the Hawaiian princess.[3]" Hate to be anonymous, I don't have my nom de plume to hand as I do this sort of thing infrequently but I hope someone will tidy this up. Many thank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.17.92 ( talk) 04:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Her attendance in the celebration had helped Buddhism and Shintoism gain acceptance into Hawaiʻi's society and prevented the possible banning of those two religions by the Territorial government. unreferenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.159.253 ( talk) 05:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed the religion area on the infobox. Liliuokalani seemed to have tried a variety of religions and was baptized an Anglican in 1896 and a Mormon in 1906:
All her life she was deeply concerned with religion. She could not correlate the many happenings in the world about her with the Christian doctrine as it had been taught her. She moved through the orthodox Protestant religions, Catholicism, Mormonism, Metaphysics and both Eastern and Western mysticism to a renewed interest in Christian-Kahunaism. At the end of her life she came to a synthesis of her own, which she felt was the basis of mysticism, hidden in all religions. (Helena G. Allen 1982:19)
I wish there is someone who is really interested in Queen Liliuokalani and who like to improve this article furhter maybe even making it a feature article on Wikipedia. There is not of expanding need to be done about her early life, her marriage and other details about her life. Also her reign and what she did in her two years in power should be noted.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I changed Kaolupoloni K. Dominis to Lydia K. Dominis. There is no source that says Kaolupoloni was her name.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I also removed the assertion that her birth name was Lydia Kamakaʻeha Kaola Maliʻi Liliʻuokalani when in actuality it was Lydia Liliʻu Loloku Walania Wewehi Kamakaʻeha. She wasn't born Liliuokalani but Liliu with no kalani at the end; her brother later made her add the kalani when she became Crown Princess. There is only a few sources of Liliuokalani being call Kaola Maliʻi (actually it's Kaolamaliʻi) but not as her birth name. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
In Allen, Helena G. (1982). The betrayal of Liliuokalani, last queen of Hawaii, 1838 - 1917. Honolulu, Hawaii: Mutual Publ. ISBN 0-935180-89-3. I could find only these names:
Therefore I suggest to delete all names without reliable sources. -- ThT ( talk) 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This change seems not to answer my question: was Lydia a part of her traditional birth name? She was named in a very traditional way, and as far as I understand, she got the Christian name Lydia, when she was baptized. I searched for Lydia in the citation, but there was no Lydia found on p. 232, although there are search results for other pages without preview as well. Moreover here are no results for Loloku or Walania at all, therefore I'd assume, there's no mention of her full birth name in this book (or the Google search is wrong). Could you please check, KAVEBEAR? Best, -- ThT ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
...she named the infant Kamaka'eha, “Sore Eyes,” preceded by Lili'u Loloku Walania, “Painful Tearful Burning,” with Lydia being her first name, and her oft-used surname, Paki, that of her hanai father.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)) again, and it's quite clear, that it was the program in the Chiefs Children School to give the children Western education including to enforce the use of their Christian names. I'll just clean up the names in the box as well. Best, --
ThT (
talk) 11:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)"Liliʻuokalani (pictured) was proclaimed the last monarch and only queen regnant of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi."
Oh really ? So the grand vizier/court chamberlain (whatever) steps up to the podium and states "Oye Oye I hereby proclaim Lili'uokalani to be the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii" ?
I am 100% certain that she was not "proclaimed" as the last monarch at the commencement of her reign. Eregli bob ( talk) 07:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It is on the Main Page under On this day... It is indeed very misleading. We should also not predict the future and say there will never be another, no matter how certain we are, given the various nationalism movements. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It's also misleading in that, before English came to the Islands, there was already a Kingdom of Hawaii (and in two senses; the main sense being the Kingdom of the Island of Hawaii). It had many Queens. I find the opening very odd, it panders to people who think that monarchies can only be established with modern Western governmental models in mind.LeValley 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The article says that 'Several things have been named in honor of Liliuokalani' and then names one, an aeroplane. Surely more than one example should be given here if we are saying there are several.
An image used in this article,
File:Liliuokalani at Capitol.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
Should her two quotes of accepting annexation "The best thing for (Native Hawaiians) that could have happened was to belong to the United States" and "Tho' for a moment it (the overthrow) cost me a pang of pain for my people it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people." be included along with the fact that she raised the American flag at Washington Place in honor of five Hawaiian sailors who had perished in the sinking of USS Aztec by German submarines in 1917.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Specifically regarding this edit, could Peaceroy please reiterate what it is specifically about the MMfA link that is worthwhile for that specific section? I see it's controversial, so we should talk it out here. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 02:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"There you go again" -Ronald Reagan
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether a Media Matters for America citation is valid or not. The discussion is over whether the particular web site makes it unworthy for citation, or whether the content & citations within the source can continue to be used to support a statement in the article. ): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Liliuokalani and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Reliable sources need not be neutral sources, and can be biased, that being said WP:NEU applies. For instance the Huffington Post is a reliable source, just as much as the Daily Caller is a reliable source (YMMV depending on what editors one asks). Content verified by the sources should be neutrally weighted and worded. In this instance it does not appear that the the MMfA source is used in given undue weight, or is the Hawaii Reporter source. May I suggest that the multiple sources be bundled as not to to appear to be a cite bombing target. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
The piece is well cited and its author has a degree in history, a far better and more comprehensive source than some random article from a local newspaper. I fail to see the problem with using this source. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
So I read the article, and I read the talk page, and I still don't know why her name is spelled "Liliʻuokalani" but the title of the article is "Liliuokalani" (no okina). Did I miss something? Can anyone explain? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Just trying to sort out who was who during the house arrest, because just "Mrs." so-and-so leaves a gap in the narrative. According to her book, it was originally "Mrs. Clark", and I'm wondering if this is Mrs. Charles Clark.
My companion could not have slept at all that night; her sighs were audible to me without cessation; so I told her the morning following that, as her husband was in prison, it was her duty to return to her children. Mr. Wilson came in after I had breakfasted, accompanied by the Attorney-general, Mr. W. O. Smith; and in conference it was agreed between us that Mrs. Clark could return home, and that Mrs. Wilson should remain as my attendant; that Mr. Wilson would be the person to inform the government of any request to be made by me, and that any business transactions might be made through him.
Was Mrs. Charles Wilson, the the wife of Charles Burnett Wilson? — Maile ( talk) 13:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
They might also be listed as sources, but you can't click on them and read the entire book. It is not incorrect to list as an External Link to the Internet Archive. And you do the reader a disservice by not letting them know these are out there in their entirety for free. The photos in the first are wonderful.
— Maile ( talk) 20:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Uhm.......some of the later images may not be able to stand up to copyright. Perhaps and perhaps not. We do need to look closer. Unknown photographers at, and after 1891 may not be public domain.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 08:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I tend to remove these from biographies as trivia but they are not strictly prohibited. Thoughts?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I did my best in summarizing the important points and also structuring in someways like Queen Victoria's introduction in having details follow a basic generic opening paragraph not the same topic paragraphs since Liliuokalani's marriage is not as prominently part of her life as Victoria for example . I understand parts would probably need to be expanded or trimmed or removed as we move forward. It is really difficult summarizing the overthrow. Points that I left out and am aware of: Cleveland's involvement, the Blount and Morgan Reports, her trips to Washington, etc, etc. User:Maile66 and User:Mark Miller please input and change. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The book "Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen" is autobiographical and not a third party source. Since it is not an independent source but has immense value, I believe it necessary that all claims of fact being attributed to this source have at least one other, independent, third party source as a second inline citation. All opinion of the subject taken from the book should be attributed in the text in some manner such as simply; "In her autobiography, Liliuokalani stated:..."It won't really be as hard as it sounds but is something we need to address before we get too far. Basically, citations 25 through 36 are mainly cited from her own book.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
As I'm going through looking for sourcing on John F. Colburn, I find that when Liliuokalani died, Kuhio was making waves about fighting her estate...before they'd even held her funeral. Over all, he doesn't seem like somebody you'd want as a next of kin. — Maile ( talk) 22:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Article created
|
---|
John F. Colburn, (1859–1920) ultimate cabinet minister as Minister of Interior; had 5 children by his wife and an estate worth $100,000, manager of Kapiolani's estate , cousin of Lahilahi Webb; maternal great-grandson of Don Francisco de Paula Marín and his Hawaiian wife; also redlinked as John Francis Colburn
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
At the beginning of the article it states that "Liliuokalani...was the last monarch and only queen regent of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi". Following the link indicates that a regent rules in place of the real ruler who for some reason can't rule. The article doesn't indicate that this is the case. Shouldn't it be "only queen regnant" meaning that she ruled in her own right?
Aloha kākou! One simple request I have is this....If you are going to use Hawaiian words, PLEASE, PLEASE use the correct words. One of the posters below used the words Kanaka Mahole. What he/she meant to use was maoli. Mahole means to bruise, or to skin or to scrape. Mahalo a nui! Dcbnmlt 03:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Arrigo please do not remove renaming tags until there has been a solution reached. Also please stop moving articles without waiting for the end of a naming discussion first. You do not have the authority to "deny" or "approve" or even remove renaming tags. Please abide by Wikipedia rules and Wikiquette. if you have something to say, then please give your opinion but do not take unilateral action. Gryffindor 14:45, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
as per Wiki convention for naming of a sovereign monarch Mowens35 22:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that Liliuokalani be moved to either Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i, Lili'uokalani, Queen of Hawai'i, or Queen Lili'uokalani of Hawai'i. I among others oppose such moves. As can be read above, the requests received opposition and the poll went stale. Requests denied. Arrigo 12:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Readers may be interested in to know that User:Antares911 above is the former username of User:Gryffindor (also above). 217.140.193.123 20:41, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 02:51, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
hi there. i´m trying to get a discussion going to change the rules on naming consorts, monarchs, etc.. it´s a bit of mess at the moment. maybe you wanna join in and give your opinion? feel free [1] cheers Antares911 23:44, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Her middle name was Kamaka'eha, but I am unsure where the glottal stops go. Chris 06:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
In reference to the title of the article and the use of the Queen's name alone we should at least include the 'okina in her name Lili'uokalani since it is a consonant and belongs there. Altringali 20:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC) --- Hello, I'm doing a research paper on her. Her name was originally Liliu Loloku Walania Wewehi Kamaka'eha. Lydia was her christian name, given by the missionaries. Paki was the name she took from her hanai parents. (kind of like adoption) She was at one time referred to as Liliulani in a song, giving her a royal suffix (lani). She was generally referred to while growing up as Liliu by the Hawai'ians, somewhere else on this page someone was complaining that the person who was reverting blahblahblah. Well, they are correct, but I actually have the documentation :)
Liliu'okalani was given to her by her brother David Kalakaua when he named her as heir to the throne, and has in itself significance of being a ruler by standards of the Hawai'ian language. (Which, there is a debate about that on here too)
My research paper is for school, and my teacher has a special documentation format, so I'm not sure of the format used here, but it's: Book: Helena G. Allen, The Betrayal of Liliuokalani, Last Queen of Hawaii, 36-40.
- Afisamule'al 22:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There's been a minor revert war on this article between myself, JereKrischel, and annonymous user 12.44.115.43. Revert wars are very unproductive and it would be in the best interests of this article to resolve this dispute keep the article stable.
First off, to the annonymous user: the main reason why I'm reverting your changes is because your edits aren't wikified, POV, and lack citations. Looking over your edits to the article, some of your proposed additions are very good and I would like to see many of your revisions merged into the article (for example, the information about the Liliuokalani Trust).
There are some things, however, that I don't believe are encyclopedic and don't belong in this article. For example, take this line: "She was later called Lydia K. Dominis by the American annexationists but never by the native people of Hawai'i." While the first part of this statement is technically true, the second part of the statement ("never by the native people of Hawai'i") sounds POV and by itself doesn't seem verifiable. Additionally, it is presented in a way that to me seems almost bitter towards the annexationists, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.
I understand you have very strong issues with the neutrality of this article, and I share in your frustrations so this is why we need to work out this dispute. Simply engaging in a revert war will not help the quality of this article in any way.
(On a different note, I would like offer a friendly reminder to the annonymous user about the the three revert rule, which (s)he is on the verge of breaking.) 青い(Aoi) 17:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Contributors, please watch this page in light of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias. To attempt to validate the actions of Dole and other wealthy white men, as well as the pro-annexation forces behind Morgan report, only perpetuates the historical bias that Congress recently abrogated in 1993.
On a more diplomatic note, if we accept that there are different points of view then we can't say one account was "contradicted" by another account. There is nothing that recommends privileging one first-person, 19th century testimony over the other except for one's own politics. Huangdi 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
The charge by Native Hawaiians that the overthrow was illegal persisted, covertly at first for years, but then openly during the so-called "Hawaiian Renaissance" in the late 1960s and into the 1970s, as advocates, backed by the historical record, lobbied politicians for a declaration of Hawaiian rights and reparations for property lost because of the overthrow. During the 1980s, the public outcries moved political wheels, particularly with U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka, himself of native Hawaiian descent. Congress finally agreed. On Nov. 23, 1993 in the Oval Office of the White House on the centennial observation of the overthrow of the Queen, President Bill Clinton signed U.S. Public Law 103-150 before the Hawaii congressional delegation, U.S. Sen. Akaka, U.S. Sen. Daniel Inouye, U.S. Rep. Patsy Mink, and U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie, officially apologizing for the illegal overthrow and pledging to begin working out arrangements for some form of native rights for Hawai'i.'
Just to start off with some direct criticisms of the paragraph. It doesn't seem to fit in this article at all, frankly. -- JereKrischel 03:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
RE: reference that it was illegal: Cleveland stated so in his speech
The provisional government owes its existence to an armed invasion by the United States... by an act of war, commited with the participation of a diplomatic representative of the United States and without authority of Congress, the Government of a feeble but friendly and confiding people has been overthrown.
page 134, aloha betrayed, Noenoe K. Silva.
- Afisamule'al 21:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, according to the Constitution only Congress has the authority to declare war. The War Powers Resolution in 1973 essentially ceeded decision-making authority to the President (an act that many still consider either illegal, ill-advised, or both) to carry out essential military actions, but he still has to report back and get Congressional approval within 60 days. So JK is correct on this point, that the President doesn't determine legality in regards to war (editorial comment: thank God). Arjuna ( talk) 20:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
→Actually they were not a bunch of rogue Marines. They had received orders from their commander who received a request from the US Minister (Ambassador) to Hawai'i. If they did not comply with the request of the American diplomatic agent, they could have been reprimanded--though several senior officers knew what was really going on. The fault more so lies not with the marines but with the American Minister to Hawai'i--the representative of the United States president--who had conspired with a minority within Hawai'i to topple the constitutional government of the Hawaiian Islands. Also note how the other nations recognized the Provisional Government and the dates. They did not recognize the Provisional Government as being de jure. For example: “In response I have the honor to say that I comply with the above request and recognize the said Provisional Government as the de facto Government of the Hawaiian Islands, so far as my authority as consul for Chile may permit me to act for and on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Chile in the premises. I have the honor to be, gentlemen, Your very obedient servant, F. A. Schaefer, Consul for Chile. ”
Later on in 1894, the consuls congratulate the Republic of Hawai'i but again they declare "same recognization" or "same status as the previous government". Some here argue that wording of diplomatic letters gives the impression that the Republic of Hawai'i was treated as de jure government, but it should be pointed out that: 1. that was the courtesy and peculiar diplomatic etiquette at the time (well some countries still use that format); 2. the United States and other countries wrote the same way to Latin American dictators that it did not accord as de jure but was in power of the police and military force ( read: de facto). Key example is the way America dealt with Mexico. Lincoln did not recognize Maximilian as Emperor of Mexico but when you read the correspondences, you wouldn't have noticed that Lincoln was helping Juarez regain Mexico City. I think that this article needs to be moderated more thoroughly. I have noticed that several historical terms are incorrect and in many cases non-existent (such as the Committee of Danger, Hawai'i Independent Party) and nicknames are used rather than formal names (i.e. Bobby Wilcox). In addition, I understand that some feel that the Morgan Report should be given some wieght as a reference--which personally is more like a gossip column than a government finding, however, the Blount report contradicts everything that Morgan later said. Therefore, it seems fair to me that if someone will cite the Morgan Report, a citation or a rebuttal from the Blount Report should be allowed in the interests of neutrality and they both were accept into the Congressional Record. In addition, since Public LAw 103-150 was passed by both Houses of Congress and is therefore a historical and legal resolution, it should be included but as a footnote and external link because it directly deals with the Queen. Certain people here are claiming that its partisan, but by excluding that resolution among other view points, that is also an act of partisanship. Also I do not see why Hawai'i's Story by Hawai'i's Queen is even debated. It is a historical document by a historical personage from a historical perspective. It does have its biases--as everyone does--but it was actually written by the subject of this article. To not to include Hawai'i's Story would be like to exclude Robert Louis Stevenson's personal letters as a reference. Also why not also use newspapers accounts as well? Especially from say the San Francisco Call and Hawaiian language papers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hokulani78 ( talk • contribs) 17:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
She initially refused, and it was reported that she said she would have them beheaded - she denied that specific accusation, but admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death.
Your documentation for this is the Queen's own book, however, in the book, it does not say that, it says:
I told him that, as to granting amnesty, it was beyond my powers as a constitutional sovereign. That it was a matter for the privy council and for the cabinet. That our laws read that those who are guilty of treason should suffer the penalty of death.
He then wished to know if I would carry out that law. I said that I would be more inclined personally to punish them by banishment, and confiscation of their property to the government. He inquired again if such was my decision. I regarded the interview as an informal conversation between two persons as to the best thing for the future of my country, but I repeated to him my wish to consult my ministers before deciding on any definite action. This terminated the consultation, excepting that Mr. Willis specially requested me not to mention anything concerning the matter to any person whomsoever, and assured me he would write home to the government he represented.
It clearly says in this passage, in your own documentation, that she did not have the desire to punish them by death, and that she did not have the power to do anything, either way.
http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/liliuokalani/hawaii/hawaii-5.html#XL
-
Afisamule'al 21:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
At the interview held Saturday, Dec. 16, I did decline to promise executive clemency, and gave as my reason that, this being the second offence of these individuals, they were regarded as dangerous to the community. That their very residence would be a constant menace; that there never would be peace in my country, or harmony amongst the people of different nations residing with us, as long as such a disturbing element remained, especially after they had once been successful in seizing the reins of government. But on Monday, Dec. 18, Mr. Willis came to Washington Place; and again acting under the advice of Hon. J. O. Carter, I gave to him a document recognizing the high sense of justice which had prompted the action of Mr. Cleveland, and agreeing that, in view of his wishes, the individuals setting up or supporting the Provisional Government should have full amnesty in their persons and their property, if they would work together with me in trying to restore peace and prosperity to our beautiful and once happy islands. [2]
I don't see anything in the given source (Liliuokalani's autobiography) that states in any clear way that she "admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death". I'm not sure I completely follow JereKrischel's argument, but it sounds like the kind of synthesis from a published source that is not allowed under WP:NOR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." I think we should remove the claim that she admitted she wanted them killed, or cite a reliable source making that claim. -- Allen ( talk) 18:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand what is the matter of executing those missionaries. They committed treason and in the Penal Code of the Hawaiiian Islands - CHAPTER VI it states Whoever shall commit the crime of treason, shall suffer the punishment of death; and all his property shall be confiscated to the government. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
She initially refused, and it was reported that she said she would have them beheaded - she denied that specific accusation, but admitted that she intended them to suffer the punishment of death. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
She would never introduce the practice of beheading into Hawaii and I don't think it was ever practice in the history of the Kingdom. Hawaii never practiced beheading except in ancient times, notable prove is an ancient execution stone on the grounds of the Hulihee Palace. Hanging was more preferred for example in the case of Kamanawa Opio II who was hanged for adultery and murder. Execution by hanging was still practiced in the late 19th century, even in the United States and Europe. KAVEBEAR ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please explain specifically what sentences the POV tag was added for. Mahalo! -- JereKrischel 01:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi JK. As for the justification for the POV tag, I noticed post facto that Kanaka maoli i puuwai added a note on your talk page about this article, but the tag also refers to the controversy over the article's continuing reliance on the Blount Report as the definitive source of historical facts on the subject of the overthrow. In addition, the mention of bombs being found at her home is potentially misleading. Daws says, "The grounds of her home...were searched, and in the garden the searchers found what they were looking for -- a regular ammunition dump...", Daws, p. 282-3) can quite easily be read (as perhaps the author intended?) to suggest that the material was planted there and so the searchers therefore knew exactly where to look. At the very least, the evidence is ambiguous and will probably always remain so. Cheers, Arjuna 05:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Re: weapons. I mentioned this above in response to you first posing it on my talk page. As for whether or not it's a "stretch" to suggest this is a possible interpretation of Daw's meaning: Hmmm. I wonder why he would feel it necessary to add "found what they were looking for" unless he was suggesting an inkling of something. I know you know what literary irony is. As I said, it's suggestive and ambiguous but definitely not a stretch. Your answer that "To suggest that her staff were somehow in conspiracy with the Provisional Government is a real stretch" is a red herring; as though that were the only other possibility. Anyway, there's not anything more to say about this topic, since I'm not saying this interpretation is true, only that Daws was clearly suggesting its possibility. As I said previously, this is one of many events about which the truth is probably forever lost to time. As for whether it's POV, I'm agreeing with others who also feel it is not. The POV is pervasive in the use of connotative language and the selective presentation of facts. Arjuna 10:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is that the report of Willis to Cleveland was from a man supportive of the Queen's restoration, and can hardly be called an attempt to discredit her. Is there evidence that his direct report of that is somehow heresay, when he was in the conversation? Is there evidence that it was meant to discredit her, when he supported her aims? -- JereKrischel 05:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
It says nothing about "beheadings", though now does it? Furthermore, as far as I know, lots of sovereign states -- especially then -- allow a death penalty for treason and conspiracy to overthrow a government. Oh, sorry, I forgot -- you haven't yet accepted the fact that the Committee of Safety actually overthrew the monarchy, but rather effected a mere "change in leadership". And btw, it's "hearsay", not your misspelling. Arjuna 19:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Mahalo to everyone who has edited recently to improve this article, and has brought to light the work that still needs doing. I want to help, but I'm having a hard time keeping track of who edited what and so I think an advisory role is out for me. So just to let you guys know I'm gonna just start from the top & do some general "finish carpentry" without looking at who contributed. If I mess up anybody's edits I'm sorry; I don't want to undo anyone's hard work, but I really think it's best that I don't even look at who edited what at this point, in order to get a more cohesive flow going. I'm not a trivia-meister by nature, so I'm just gonna stick to the basics. If anyone has a problem with this approach, please let me know as soon as you can. Aloha, -- Laualoha 01:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I really want hand-editing to be the standard. If anyone reverts me I will do the same. Aloha, -- Laualoha 22:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
JK, you recently reverted a consensus edit with the tag "remove POV category - Liliuokalani not a political prisoner or victim as per Mandela". Instead of simply removing that political prisoner category, which might have been seen as fair enough, you reverted wholesale back to a version you know to be unsupported by the consensus, as well as extremely POV. Please explain to me why this should not be considered vandalism. Arjuna 19:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I acknowledge the validity of some of these objections, and have re-added or made edits accordingly. The main objection "we" had is that you seemed to be using these relatively minor issues to attempt to justify a revert that included larger amounts of POV material. c/m/t Arjuna 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Did she actually Abdicate? Coojah 03:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It may just be my pickiness, but the image of Liliuokalani is not a very good resolution for the size it is blown up to. If we could get an image with a higher resolution, I think that would be ideal (especially for the main picture of the queen on this page). - Kanogul ( talk) 02:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Could anyone find a better picture of Liliuokalani? I mean come on, she is ugly in this one and she looks kind of like an ape. No offense to her majesty but I have seen better picture of her like this one or this one. 63.3.21.2 ( talk) 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The greatest picture of Liliuokalani is probably this one. I believe it was taken when she was made Crown Princess.
I'm working on removing the copyediting tag. I would appreciate help with the neutrality problem. Viriditas ( talk) 06:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article says "chieftess". Keohokālole says "chiefess". Which is correct? -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 00:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Its Chiefess that was the term used by all 19th century historians. I think the chieftess might came from priestess. It just Chief + ess, a woman chief. The proper term is High Chiefess which is a translation of the Hawaiian term for the nobility and royalty, Ali'i. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 03:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
references 2 and 3 are from a child's book Sharon , Linnea (1999) Princess Ka'Iulani: Hope of a Nation, Heart of a People Eerdmans Young Readers and make some strong claims. The whole following section of rather purple prose should probably be deleted unless someone comes up with a better citation. To start with, cite Victoria's journal. Also cite Hawaii's value to Britain during Victoria's reign. this should be quite easy.
" Britain had long been a valued ally of Hawaiʻi, and it was thought proper that Queen Kapiʻolani, along with Crown Princess Liliʻuokalani and her husband John Owen Dominis, attended the festivities celebrating Queen Victoria's fifty years on the throne.[2] It seemed to be a great success, with the Hawaiian royals accepted as equals of the reigning family of the civilized world. This was especially important because Kamehameha IV had met with much prejudice in America just after the Civil War because of his dark skin color. All of Liliʻuokalani's reports of the Jubilee were glowing as were the newspaper accounts of the honors bestowed upon the Hawaiians. Never had so many ruling monarchs and heads of government gathered in one place as descended upon London in 1887. However, Queen Victoria's journals, which were made public decades later, add a sobering footnote. She reported that both the King of the Belgians and the King of Saxony refused to accompany Princess Liliuokalani to the Jubilee Supper because she was "colored". This created a behind-the-scenes furor until Queen Victoria herself commanded her son Albert to accompany the Hawaiian princess.[3]" Hate to be anonymous, I don't have my nom de plume to hand as I do this sort of thing infrequently but I hope someone will tidy this up. Many thank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.17.92 ( talk) 04:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Her attendance in the celebration had helped Buddhism and Shintoism gain acceptance into Hawaiʻi's society and prevented the possible banning of those two religions by the Territorial government. unreferenced —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.211.159.253 ( talk) 05:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I removed the religion area on the infobox. Liliuokalani seemed to have tried a variety of religions and was baptized an Anglican in 1896 and a Mormon in 1906:
All her life she was deeply concerned with religion. She could not correlate the many happenings in the world about her with the Christian doctrine as it had been taught her. She moved through the orthodox Protestant religions, Catholicism, Mormonism, Metaphysics and both Eastern and Western mysticism to a renewed interest in Christian-Kahunaism. At the end of her life she came to a synthesis of her own, which she felt was the basis of mysticism, hidden in all religions. (Helena G. Allen 1982:19)
I wish there is someone who is really interested in Queen Liliuokalani and who like to improve this article furhter maybe even making it a feature article on Wikipedia. There is not of expanding need to be done about her early life, her marriage and other details about her life. Also her reign and what she did in her two years in power should be noted.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 04:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I changed Kaolupoloni K. Dominis to Lydia K. Dominis. There is no source that says Kaolupoloni was her name.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 17:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I also removed the assertion that her birth name was Lydia Kamakaʻeha Kaola Maliʻi Liliʻuokalani when in actuality it was Lydia Liliʻu Loloku Walania Wewehi Kamakaʻeha. She wasn't born Liliuokalani but Liliu with no kalani at the end; her brother later made her add the kalani when she became Crown Princess. There is only a few sources of Liliuokalani being call Kaola Maliʻi (actually it's Kaolamaliʻi) but not as her birth name. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 20:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
In Allen, Helena G. (1982). The betrayal of Liliuokalani, last queen of Hawaii, 1838 - 1917. Honolulu, Hawaii: Mutual Publ. ISBN 0-935180-89-3. I could find only these names:
Therefore I suggest to delete all names without reliable sources. -- ThT ( talk) 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This change seems not to answer my question: was Lydia a part of her traditional birth name? She was named in a very traditional way, and as far as I understand, she got the Christian name Lydia, when she was baptized. I searched for Lydia in the citation, but there was no Lydia found on p. 232, although there are search results for other pages without preview as well. Moreover here are no results for Loloku or Walania at all, therefore I'd assume, there's no mention of her full birth name in this book (or the Google search is wrong). Could you please check, KAVEBEAR? Best, -- ThT ( talk) 16:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
...she named the infant Kamaka'eha, “Sore Eyes,” preceded by Lili'u Loloku Walania, “Painful Tearful Burning,” with Lydia being her first name, and her oft-used surname, Paki, that of her hanai father.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)) again, and it's quite clear, that it was the program in the Chiefs Children School to give the children Western education including to enforce the use of their Christian names. I'll just clean up the names in the box as well. Best, --
ThT (
talk) 11:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)"Liliʻuokalani (pictured) was proclaimed the last monarch and only queen regnant of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi."
Oh really ? So the grand vizier/court chamberlain (whatever) steps up to the podium and states "Oye Oye I hereby proclaim Lili'uokalani to be the last monarch of the Kingdom of Hawaii" ?
I am 100% certain that she was not "proclaimed" as the last monarch at the commencement of her reign. Eregli bob ( talk) 07:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It is on the Main Page under On this day... It is indeed very misleading. We should also not predict the future and say there will never be another, no matter how certain we are, given the various nationalism movements. W Nowicki ( talk) 17:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
It's also misleading in that, before English came to the Islands, there was already a Kingdom of Hawaii (and in two senses; the main sense being the Kingdom of the Island of Hawaii). It had many Queens. I find the opening very odd, it panders to people who think that monarchies can only be established with modern Western governmental models in mind.LeValley 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The article says that 'Several things have been named in honor of Liliuokalani' and then names one, an aeroplane. Surely more than one example should be given here if we are saying there are several.
An image used in this article,
File:Liliuokalani at Capitol.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 05:09, 2 November 2011 (UTC) |
Should her two quotes of accepting annexation "The best thing for (Native Hawaiians) that could have happened was to belong to the United States" and "Tho' for a moment it (the overthrow) cost me a pang of pain for my people it was only momentary, for the present has a hope for the future of my people." be included along with the fact that she raised the American flag at Washington Place in honor of five Hawaiian sailors who had perished in the sinking of USS Aztec by German submarines in 1917.-- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Specifically regarding this edit, could Peaceroy please reiterate what it is specifically about the MMfA link that is worthwhile for that specific section? I see it's controversial, so we should talk it out here. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 02:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
"There you go again" -Ronald Reagan
Response to third opinion request ( Disagreement about whether a Media Matters for America citation is valid or not. The discussion is over whether the particular web site makes it unworthy for citation, or whether the content & citations within the source can continue to be used to support a statement in the article. ): |
I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Liliuokalani and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. |
Reliable sources need not be neutral sources, and can be biased, that being said WP:NEU applies. For instance the Huffington Post is a reliable source, just as much as the Daily Caller is a reliable source (YMMV depending on what editors one asks). Content verified by the sources should be neutrally weighted and worded. In this instance it does not appear that the the MMfA source is used in given undue weight, or is the Hawaii Reporter source. May I suggest that the multiple sources be bundled as not to to appear to be a cite bombing target. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC) |
The piece is well cited and its author has a degree in history, a far better and more comprehensive source than some random article from a local newspaper. I fail to see the problem with using this source. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:53, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
So I read the article, and I read the talk page, and I still don't know why her name is spelled "Liliʻuokalani" but the title of the article is "Liliuokalani" (no okina). Did I miss something? Can anyone explain? Kendall-K1 ( talk) 20:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Just trying to sort out who was who during the house arrest, because just "Mrs." so-and-so leaves a gap in the narrative. According to her book, it was originally "Mrs. Clark", and I'm wondering if this is Mrs. Charles Clark.
My companion could not have slept at all that night; her sighs were audible to me without cessation; so I told her the morning following that, as her husband was in prison, it was her duty to return to her children. Mr. Wilson came in after I had breakfasted, accompanied by the Attorney-general, Mr. W. O. Smith; and in conference it was agreed between us that Mrs. Clark could return home, and that Mrs. Wilson should remain as my attendant; that Mr. Wilson would be the person to inform the government of any request to be made by me, and that any business transactions might be made through him.
Was Mrs. Charles Wilson, the the wife of Charles Burnett Wilson? — Maile ( talk) 13:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
They might also be listed as sources, but you can't click on them and read the entire book. It is not incorrect to list as an External Link to the Internet Archive. And you do the reader a disservice by not letting them know these are out there in their entirety for free. The photos in the first are wonderful.
— Maile ( talk) 20:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Uhm.......some of the later images may not be able to stand up to copyright. Perhaps and perhaps not. We do need to look closer. Unknown photographers at, and after 1891 may not be public domain.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 08:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I tend to remove these from biographies as trivia but they are not strictly prohibited. Thoughts?-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I did my best in summarizing the important points and also structuring in someways like Queen Victoria's introduction in having details follow a basic generic opening paragraph not the same topic paragraphs since Liliuokalani's marriage is not as prominently part of her life as Victoria for example . I understand parts would probably need to be expanded or trimmed or removed as we move forward. It is really difficult summarizing the overthrow. Points that I left out and am aware of: Cleveland's involvement, the Blount and Morgan Reports, her trips to Washington, etc, etc. User:Maile66 and User:Mark Miller please input and change. -- KAVEBEAR ( talk) 21:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
The book "Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen" is autobiographical and not a third party source. Since it is not an independent source but has immense value, I believe it necessary that all claims of fact being attributed to this source have at least one other, independent, third party source as a second inline citation. All opinion of the subject taken from the book should be attributed in the text in some manner such as simply; "In her autobiography, Liliuokalani stated:..."It won't really be as hard as it sounds but is something we need to address before we get too far. Basically, citations 25 through 36 are mainly cited from her own book.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 00:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
As I'm going through looking for sourcing on John F. Colburn, I find that when Liliuokalani died, Kuhio was making waves about fighting her estate...before they'd even held her funeral. Over all, he doesn't seem like somebody you'd want as a next of kin. — Maile ( talk) 22:29, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Article created
|
---|
John F. Colburn, (1859–1920) ultimate cabinet minister as Minister of Interior; had 5 children by his wife and an estate worth $100,000, manager of Kapiolani's estate , cousin of Lahilahi Webb; maternal great-grandson of Don Francisco de Paula Marín and his Hawaiian wife; also redlinked as John Francis Colburn
|