Talk:Calafia

Calafia has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 19, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 20, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Queen Calafia, fictional ruler of the Island of California, was the subject of a sculpture garden designed by Niki de Saint Phalle?

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Major changes

I moved the article from Califia to Calafia because that's the spelling taken from the book by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo. I removed a lot of text revolving around the hajj of Mansa Musa to Mecca in 1324 as none of it was supported by mainstream sources; it appeared to me to be original research. I added a great big section which describes the character and actions of Calafia in de Montalvo's novel. I added some text discussing the etymology of Calafia. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Calafia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Noleander (talk · contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do this. Looks interesting. --Noleander (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"penned" - may not be understandable to non-native speakers of English. A bit colloquial/artsy.
How major of a character? - "In the book The Adventures of Esplandián, after many pages of battles and adventures, the story of Calafia is introduced as a curiosity, an interlude in the narrative." Can you clarify if she is a major character in the book from that point onwards? or does she appear for the interlude, then disappear?
quote marks: "There can be no question but that a learned man like Ordóñez de Montalvo was familiar with the Chanson de Roland ...This derivation of the word "California" - I think MOS:QUOTE suggests single quote 'aaa' when used within an outside double quote "zzz".
Title? - "Dr. William E. Hoskins .." - I'm a bit fuzzy on thus, but I think WP:CREDENTIAL says that "Dr." is not supposed to appear.
Wording - " under the Christian banner". The word "banner" is a bit confusing here. Not sure if it is meant in a literal or figurative sense. Can you reword it with plainer terms?
That's all for now. ... I'm having a hard time finding any suggestions for improvement :-)

--Noleander (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding whether Calafia is a major character: No, she is not. None of our best book sources say she is that, and they do not say she is a recurring character in the series. She is not called a minor character, either. She gets a lot of attention in the story but then she is put away forever by the author.

I fixed the "penned" bit and I fixed the quote marks.

The first instance of "Dr" is allowed by MOS but I took it out anyway.

The "Christian banner" was figurative in my intent, and possibly true in the story (I haven't checked), but the main impulse is that the new California was to be Christian upon Calafia's return. I put that wording into the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's all I can find, so I'm passing it. --Noleander (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick list

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

--Noleander (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Veracity of the depiction?

The image for this article is called "aztec_man.gif" on the website it came from. I asked the uploader about this here (permalink). 107.215.218.145 (talk) 11:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Aztec Man file name is wrong. The figure is the central character in a 1937 triptych mural titled "The Origin and Development of the Name of the State of California" painted by Lucile Lloyd. It is commonly called the Califia mural. Binksternet (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The original triptych is on this page: https://capitolmuseum.ca.gov/exhibits/murals/ and if one looks at the whole image here: https://capitolmuseum.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/wpa_murals1.gif , the context is clearer. Renaming the image would be nice. Glennglazer (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

EMBRAER 145 DE CALAFIA AIRLINES (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rivera's mural Allegory of California

I submit that Diego Rivera's mural in the City Club does not show Calafia, despite a couple of outlier sources saying otherwise. Most of the literature about this female figure describe her as the Spirit of California or a goddess of California. She is an allegorical figure rather than a fictional character. Rivera's painting shows the embodiment of abundance, holding a full sheaf of agricultural products. The fictional warrior queen Calafia has nothing to do with abundance. I hold that the outlier sources should not be highlighted in this article. Binksternet (talk) 21:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Diego Rivera's autobiography, the large, looming female figure represents Calafia, for whom the state is named"; the SFWeekly article claims that the representation of the figure as Calafia comes from Rivera's autobiography. That would not be an outlier source. Provide contrary evidence. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cristiano, source is good and the opinion of the artist is canonical. Glennglazer (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the SFWeekly author is wrong. Rivera's autobiography does not make any such claim. He talks about Helen Wills, the tennis star, as the inspiration for the image, and then he says it was altered to look less like Wills and more generally like an allegorical figure. The SFWeekly author links to this page as proof that the figure is Calafia, but the link does not support such a claim. The SFWeekly source is flat wrong.

Every major piece of literature covering the City Club mural by Rivera talks about how the central figure is an allegory of California's abundance. None of them say Calafia. It's ridiculous to propose honoring the ephemeral SFWeekly while ignoring the major literature. Binksternet (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the historic landmark resolution from the SF Board of Supervisors states "WHEREAS, According to Rivera’s autobiography, the large, looming female figure represents Calafia, the Spirit of California, with her right hand mining the earth for hidden treasures of the State of California, and her left hand holding the treasures that grow on its surface;" On top of that, even the City Club itself states the figure is Calafia. But if that's not enough heres another source from the Helen Wills Institute at UC Berkeley referring to the figure as Calafia, a USF art history professor doing so in her book's blog, and even an Atlas Obscura article for the little that is worth too. I don't know what more is needed. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The SF Supervisor resolution is also wrong, because nowhere in Rivera's autobiography appear the words Califia or Calafia. He never said this. He said it was the Spirit of California, or words to that effect. This is like an echo chamber of errors, with one idiotic source making shit up, and others parroting it. All of your sources are recent, and all of them suffer from the Woozle effect. They are all faulty and all of them should be thrown out in favor of sources from before the fucking internet poisoned this topic. Calafia is a fictional warrior queen. Rivera's painting shows peacetime abundance. Not the same. Binksternet (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem taking what you're stating as a fact, if you were to provide any sources that contradict these ones presented. We cannot simply take your word that "every major piece of literature" states that these are all incorrect, especially in the face of the presented statements from the the City Club, Helen Wills Institute at UC Berkeley, the Board of Supervisors, and numerous other publications like SFWeekly or Atlas Obscura. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As to your point on Calafia being a warrior queen and this being an allegorical figure, I see no contradiction. Calafia has been used in various pieces of art as allegory of California simply by virtue of the name and its connection to California's history and myth. Calafia can be whatever the artist desires her to be and not necessarily always depicted as a warrior. In fact, the Calafia statue in Sacramento depicts her as supporting a workloads on her head, while the Calafia statue in Turlock is quite peaceful and un-warlike. This mural in Riverside depicts her as a little girl honoring immigrants and this mural in San Luis Obispo depicts her in a sort of art-pop way. Your argument on this level means nothing. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of the literature on the topic, art historian Celia Stahr wrote in Frida in America that Rivera could have chosen to represent Calafia who was black, and that he was probably familiar with the Calafia origin story of California, but he instead chose to portray a white figure: "Instead, this Communist sympathizer chose to do the exact opposite—to reaffirm Western concepts of beauty and power by emphasizing a Greek connection. Perhaps he wanted to appease the predominantly white stock traders..." This is on page 63 of the 2020 book. Stahr is a PhD in art history at the University of San Francisco. Binksternet (talk) 01:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't refer to her as not being Calafia, but merely mentions Rivera's choice of skin tone. And considering the variety of skin tones used to this day in murals depicting Calafia, that is hardly an argument to its dismissal as Calafia. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Stahr book is definitive as it asserts that Rivera could have chosen to represent Calafia but he did the "exact opposite". It's a complete denial of your position here. Binksternet (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well it says the "exact opposite" of "elevate the status of African Americans" is to "reaffirm western concepts of beauty". It says nothing of changing the thematic personification of the figure to be or not be Calafia. I hardly consider this definitive evidence the mural is not depicting or inspired by Calafia. Also, the skin color in the mural is not too different from other depictions which have used indigenous or Mexican templates for Calafia's image. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this blog post from your very same Celia Stahr, PhD states that "Diego's mural references Calafia, a black woman warrior who ruled over a Queendom of black women on the mythic island of California. Apparently, Diego was familiar with this queen, yet he made his allegorical female figure white. " AKA you are reading too much into her words in the previous citation of her. She remarks on the oddity of his changing her skill color but does not change her assessment that it is Calafia. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:56, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need some community input from anyone other than myself and Binksternet. Thoughts anybody? @Glennglazer: Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stahr's carefully considered book text, subject to editorial oversight, is much more authoritative than her blog. Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The historiography of this issue

I looked for the earliest instance of a writer connecting Rivera's Allegory of California with Calafia or Califia and found that none of them happened in the 20th century. During the first 70 years of people writing about the mural, none of them thought that the central figure was Calafia. A late-century example of this is mural expert Masha Zakheim (1931–2014) who wrote an essay about the mural included in her 1998 book Diego Rivera en San Francisco. Nothing in Zakheim's book connects the mural to Calafia. The 1997 book Rivera by art historian Andrea Kettenmann is a masterwork biography. On page 46 Kettenmann describes the mural without naming Calafia or Califia. Exactly the same as scores of Rivera studies preceding it.

The earliest instance of Califia/Calafia tied to Rivera that I found is this self-published webpage which Google search indicates is from February 2003. The author is Elisa Rolle, known for covering LGBTQ issues, but not considered an expert on Rivera, or art, or myth. Rolle writes that Califia is "the Earth Mother" which is wildly inaccurate.

Another self-published webpage I found is identified by Google search to be from September 2009. It is a Diego Rivera biography published by the self-identified Rivera Experts who make money from evaluating Rivera artworks. The "Experts" write that Rivera "metamorphosed her [Califia] into Mother Earth, a goddess of abundance with her giant hands gathering up the rich plenty of the State of California." So if these unnamed folks can be considered actual experts of art and myth, they would be saying that Rivera ended up not painting Califia, but Mother Earth instead.

After these appeared online, a few more showed up in blogs and public relations webpages. A photographer made the connection to Califia in 2010, and the City Club publicity team made the connection in 2011. Finance guy and magazine reader Kevin Moss of Berkeley was quoted by Sports Illustrated in July 2011. These folks are starting to prove the power of the internet to shape discourse. More such webpages are found in 2012 and later. The Woozle effect builds. People see the previous blogs and copy those ideas forward.

What I'm trying to do here is remind everyone that the first 70 years of literature on the topic represents the mainstream viewpoint. The mainstream viewpoint doesn't cite false words as belonging to Diego Rivera's autobiography. The mainstream viewpoint doesn't conflate a fictional black warrior queen with an allegorical light-skinned goddess of abundance. Binksternet (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here we are again, replaying the issue. I have to remind folks that neither Calafia nor Califia appear connected to the Rivera mural for the first 70 years of scholarship about it. Only until some amateur blogged about it in 2003 does the connection appear. So the mainstream position of scholarship is that Calafia is not portrayed in the Rivera mural. I can't deny that some unthinking persons have repeated the nonsensical connection, which is why the article should explain the position of these folks. But no Rivera book has said anything about it. The 2000 biography Rivera by Andrea Kettenmann describes the mural as depicting California, with Helen Wills as the model. The 2012 book My Art, My Life: An Autobiography (by Rivera) says on page 107 that the mural depicts the figure of California. The book Diego Rivera: Legendary Mexican Painter from 2005 says that the figure is Mother California. The 2003 book Mestizo Modernism: Race, Nation, and Identity in Latin American Culture, 1900-1940 says on page 150 that the central figure is "a mother-earth figure holding the bounty of California in her arms." The author writes about how the San Francisco Chronicle called the central figure "California... the artist's ideal of California womanhood". In the 2016 book American Arcadia: California and the Classical Tradition, the author says on pages 339–340 that the mural has a mother earth figure of California steeped in the tradition of depictions of the Roman goddess Pomona. Nowhere in these books is any mention of Calafia or Califia. Nothing about a black warrior queen, fictional or mythical or allegorical. WP:WEIGHT and simple common sense are the guides for us to prevent an overemphasis on the mural in this article. We should not have an image of it, and we should reduce its mention as much as possible to correspond with the way the mural is described in the best literature. Binksternet (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Califa

Queen Califa was not a fictional, but a nonfiction character. A lot of references and research have been published in the book “They Came Before Columbus”! Please wait falsehood from U.S school books. In is disappointing to call a “Wikidata” of facts, when you spread false information. I learned back about Columbus or any other European discovered this continent because they’re were people on is!! 2600:8801:12AD:4600:64B4:D4BD:1BD1:60AB (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite a specific page of They Came Before Columbus, or quote a passage about Calafia? Because I'm not seeing support in that book for your assertion. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting Wiki Representative,

In response to the definition,California is named for her. There are several spellings, specifically with a K. Khalifa,Kalifa, along with Califah.

Part of the definition claimed to be "fictional" has part of the truth, "an island of California ". The State's name is part of the "facts". If possible, replace the word "fictional", for She is a real woman and was a real living being, not a myth or story.

Thank you and thank you for your time. 75.142.10.60 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calafia is a fictional character. She never existed in California or anywhere else. The fictional island she ruled was close to Asia, not North America. Binksternet (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Categories