Talk:James VI and I/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

Compromise Suggestion to Requested Move: James VI and I

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by Brendandh (talk · contribs). Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


James I of England → James VI and I – This is a proposed "Compromise" vote that encompasses ideas from editors of various countries including, but not limited to: US, Canada, England, Scotland and New Zealand. The shortened title James VI and I, is Historically accurate, Chronologically accurate, meets criteria of WP:Article title, WP:Article scope, WP:Notable, WP:Verifiability and is a neutral title for all English-speaking countries. We are also trying to follow Jimbo Wales stated hope that we can find " ... a solution which is satisfactory to all, or at least which creates the least dissatisfaction...". Can we just re-start voting since it is already been discussed within. I think this title may be a worthly compromise solution. Mugginsx (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

  • Support for reasons directly above. Mugginsx (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support James VI and I is the version favoured in the modern nomenclature, supported by multiple WP:RS it is WP:V and clearly not WP:OR. See [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10],[11],[12]. Continuing to make allegations of WP:OR in light of overwhelming evidence, which has been put forward on this page many times, is simply not a sustainable argument. Anyone alleging that should withdraw their comments. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. Great solution and definitely NOT OR as this reference at The Official Website of the Royal Family proves [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjmullan (talk • contribs)
  • (edit conflicted) Support I prefer this to the current, if only because the British Monarchy's site uses James VI and I. I know the convention is to use country names, but it's not like that would be left out of the article (and there are plenty of examples where we don't use the country name, see Elizabeth II for one). As an aside, I called the previous proposal (James VI Scotland and James I of England) OR because no RSs use that title, whereas this one is fairly common. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as a sensible resolution to a discussion which otherwise threatens to become interminable.45ossington (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as above it is a sensible resolution. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support an excellent alternative, and a workable as well as historically-accurate title.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
NOTE:Above in this section under vote "Strong Support" someone's signature did not print. Maybe an edit-conflict occurred or something?Mugginsx (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
It was by Bjmullan. I fixed it with {{unsigned}}. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:25, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Hot Stop. Mugginsx (talk) 18:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support as unambiguous and avoids the England/Scotland priority argument. My only slight misgiving is whether this might be cited as a precedent for moving Charles I of England and Charles II of England (which I would oppose), who were also Kings of Scots. Opera hat (talk) 17:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I had the same feelings about that too. But there are stronger arguments to be used against moving those titles. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with you Hot Stop. They are different. Mugginsx (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Britannica, World Encyclopedia, and Columbia all call him "James I". Parliament referred to him as, "King James the First". The KJV bible is dedicated, "To the most high and mighty Prince James, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, etc." No mention of Scotland. Whether he is considered as king of England or Great Britain, he would still be "James I." England "James I" yields 133,000 post-1980 Google Book hits, compared to 12,500 for "James VI and I". This ngram shows "James I" as the overwhelming common usage. Kauffner (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      • But the current title is not simply "James I", it is "James I of England". If we tweak your ngram to compare "James VI and I" with the actual title, "James I of England", we can see that since the mid-1990s, "James VI and I" has been the more common name. Jenks24 (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
        • "of England" is a disambiguator from WP:SOVEREIGN. I say get rid of it. Then we wouldn't have choose between "England" and "Great Britain". But that is separate from the numbering issue. Also, take a look this ngram. "James VI and I" didn't even get started until about 1890. Kauffner (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
          • This ngram supplied by Kauffner has a fundamental flaw. Since it also brings up King James I of Aragon, James I of Sicily, James I, Count of La Marche, King James I of Cyprus and of course King James I of Scotland whilst conveniently ignoring any mention of King James VI of Scotland the very subject of the article. The ngram supplied by Jenks24 is superior in that respect as you compare like with like. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
            • I'm sorry but are you serious? You're rejecting this title because it only began to be used in 1890? The point in using it, is it the most common modern term and by your own argument its been used for over a century. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
              • The slobbering, tobacco-hating, bible translating dude got 107656 page views in the last 30 days. But of course the "serious" know that the term "James I" properly refers to either a king of Aragon (4000 views), or one of Cyprus (611 views). Kauffner (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Comment: Editors with the same objection in previous proposed titles have actually recommended this title because it is WP:Verifiable. See discussion of previous vote. Also see directly above two previous voting editors examples: [14],[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25] as well as [British Monarch Site] . It was European, Canadian, American and other good faith editors, having previously had this objection, who themselves recommended this compromise. It is now WP:Verifiable. Mugginsx (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Just to point out, the three encyclopedia articles listed above are all over or about 40 years old. The Britannica article was written by David Mathew (bishop), who died over 30 years ago, and if you look at the Columbia article all the sources at the bottom were published before 1968. Yes, the articles have been reprinted, but they have not been revised, as you can tell by looking at older versions published in the 60s, which are the same as the ones online. More recent articles are: [26][27]. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Excellent points, previously stated in other discussions. Main point being, the WP:Verifiability critera is now met. Mugginsx (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Accurate, verifiable, common and (at least relatively) non-controversial. Ben MacDui 09:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support seems decent compromise and supported by some sources Nil Einne (talk) 11:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for the above explored reasons. nota bene This may, whether foreseen or not, have implications for policy (perceived or actual) by setting a sort of precedent. Particularly, will his grandson move to James II and VII? DBD 15:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Of course not! But Charles II of England will have to be moved to Charles II, II and II (of England, Scotland, and Ireland). Kauffner (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Since the Kindgom of Scotland will have already be incorporated, I do not think it would be applicable for any later kings. Just my opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 15:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with your opinion; also I have never seen James II called James VII in any academic works or royal genealogies. I don't think it'll be an issue.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Yep, his Stuart successors should 'likewise' have their article titles changed. They're as munch Monarchs of Scotland, as they're Monarchs of England & Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Now GoodDay, you know you DON'T mean that. You're just trying to taunt us. My word is good and I would have to argue against that eventuality This situation is completely different. Title would never work anyway, too long, King of England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and ..... (Falklands?) Mugginsx (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
The others will need to be moved. GoodDay (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you cite academic sources to support this massive move?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The prospect of "James VII and II" doesn't actually fill me with horror; but one potential distinction from his grandfather is that James VI and I was James VI of Scotland for a significant period of time before he became James I of England.45ossington (talk) 07:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to withdraw my support, if we're not gonna attempt page moves of the others. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for all the above reasons. It's a lot more accurate than the Status Quo, and seems to be the best compromise - I'm surprised it's been blocked in the past. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; this is a reasonable compromise. It's can't perfectly satisfy all the naming conventions and guidelines, but it's probably the best available option out of a number of options, none of which are perfect either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support; this feels right to me. Powers T 11:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This isn't a compromise at all - it's the same RM that failed a couple of weeks ago. WP has clear guidelines (WP:COMMONNAME, WP:SOVEREIGN) which this move would contravene. If the guidelines are wrong, that is a reason to change them, not to ignore them. There is nothing special about this particular case. --FormerIP (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:SOVEREIGN allows for exactly this kind of compromise solution: "In a few cases consensus has been reached that the country can be omitted, because it is unnecessary, against usage and possibly problematic" Powers T 11:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No it doesn't, because it allows for only one ordinal. Omitting the country name would leave us with "James I". --FormerIP (talk) 11:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Several references above and elsewhere have shown that WP:COMMONNAME no longer applies to this title. Your second objection seems to also essentially be your first. This is different in many ways not the least of which is because it encompasses the viewpoints of many english-speaking countries and the modern usage of the title. Also see above two previous voting editors from two different countries who give examples of modern usage: [28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39] as well as [British Monarch Site] . It is also different in that our Founder has specifically stated that he hoped to find " ... a solution which is satisfactory to all, or at least which creates the least dissatisfaction...". Several previous attempts show that this is it and many other editors (again from many other countries) have also indicated they agree. Mugginsx (talk) 12:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
All that's been shown above is that if you ask google meaningless questions you get meaningless answers. But "James I" gets 4.7 million Google Books hits compared to 16,800 for "James VI & I". Even if you skew the odds by using "James I of England" it wins the commonname battle by a factor of 10. so it's abundantly clear that the latter is not the more commonly used. "James VI & I" is not even eligible for consideration in any case, because it contravenes WP:SOVEREIGN. --FormerIP (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This rationale for WP:SOVEREIGN is disingenuous because, along with what the editor Powers stated, at the very top of the WP:SOVEREIGN or rather it's better known title: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) it states: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Mugginsx (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
All WP guidelines carry the same notice. But there is no common sense reason to divert from policy in this case which wouldn't apply generally (i.e. to cases like James II, Philip II of Spain and so on). --FormerIP (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
With respect, that just is not true. Mugginsx (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
There is a very good common sense reason to divert from the guideline you suggest we follow slavishly. As was shown earlier, the more common name in recent publications is James VI and I. You're arguing for a name that is now considered anachronistic. Particularly since the main reason for the change is to address issues of neutrality and WP:NPOV is a core policy. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No such thing has been shown, it has only been claimed, quite implausibly. --FormerIP (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The academic convention is James VI and I. AGK [•] 12:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I would say to the opposers: you may be convinced in your own mind that you are "right" in a narrow technical sense, but in the spirit of Wikilove I think it would be best to accept this suggestion. It's not really that important -- with redirects, users will have no problem finding the article, and it's the article contents that really matter. So I implore you to accept this and move on. Herostratus (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, since similiar page moves aren't being proposed for Charles I of England, Charles II of England, Mary II of England, particularly James II of England & William III of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • Rather an odd reason to oppose, there is nothing to stop you proposing it, if there is academic evidence of use. In addition, if you change you vote, you should strike through your original comment rather than deleting it. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, GoodDay, but the difference is that there was NO precedent set when the others became Sovereigns as there was when James VI became King of England AFTER he was King of Scotland, as you well know. Mugginsx (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
We can't have James VI and I, with James II of England. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not? It is not like the articles are going to be presented side by side to look at. Besides, the father has a unique title because of the unique circumstances - not true of the son who "inherited" his title King of Scotland only when he became King of England.Mugginsx (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
James VII/II, was separately Monarch of Scotland, England & Ireland. As were the 2 Charles', Mary & William. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This should be a joint-RM for the 6 related articles. GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This situation is UNIQUE. What you suggest would NEVER get a consensus and you are too smart to propose it. It seems to me that this is the time to vote for this decision. If you are conflicted, I'm sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it isn't unique; only extreme focus on Scotland would lead to that conclusion. Kings routinely succeed to neighboring thrones; but we do not call Henry IV of France Henry III & IV, or Phillip II of Spain Phillip II & I. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).
It is unique. This was a man who was King of Scotland before he became King of England. Your examples do not apply. Mugginsx (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Why not? Henry was King of Navarre before he became King of France; Phillip was King of Spain before he became King of Portugal. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).
Comment: Strange rationale for someone who states on his talkpage: "I am opposed to all efforts to impose uniformity on Wikipedia; imposition of national or political PoV are the worst". The guidelines provide for exceptions and common sense where a clearly unique situation exists. It would seem that you are voting against the very thing you state you are for. Also, as stated many times before this title is used in at [British Monarch Site]Mugginsx (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The British monarchy has reasons to conciliate professional Scots; the SNP has republican antecedents, and might well return to them. Wikipedia, however, should have much less concern with politics, and does have enormous concerns beyond the British Isles: communicating with anglophones worldwide. This is far from unique; another bunch wants Henry IV of France and Navarre on the same grounds; all of these are efforts to wave some flag, even when it is in front of the reader's eyes.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).

Pmanderson: Your supposition that the British Monarchy Site uses James VI and James I as a concilliatory measure is obviously designed to be inflammatory, is condescending, not credible, unlikely and irrelevant to this vote. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Well I wondered how long it would be before someone made the accusation of Scottish nationalism, rather difficult since the proposer is American, but here it comes. In response, I have observed that most of the objections to this in the past stem from English nationalism, including doozies like England was his most important kingdom. The plea from Jimbo, was this shouldn't dissolved into nationalism, so I won't join you. But I do hope any admin closing this views your comments in that light and weighs them accordingly. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • You miss the obvious flaw in your ngram. We're comparing James VI and I to James I of England. See [40], if you frame your ngram correctly you find that currently James VI and I is more prevalent. You miss another obvious flaw in the James VI and I will give a false positive for James I in your ngram and as I pointed out above without disambiguation terms there are multiple monarchs with the title James I so you get many false positives in your search. The fact that we keep going through this is down to the strength of argument in favour of a move to the more modern nomenclature is being ignored and the reasons for avoiding the move don't stack up. I would point out that the flaws in you ngram were pointed out above, so it seems disappointing to me that you have not considered the arguments put forward to repeat an a priori position. Wee Curry Monster talk 16:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
    • No, comparison with James I is not a flaw. It does produce false positives; but the difference between James I and James VI and I is two orders of magnitude - most of that is signal, not noise. As with the last five times this objection has been raised, of England is disambiguation, as WP:NCNT says. Those who wish only to get rid of it should support moving this article to simple James I, as primary usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).
Editors, even Senior editors do not agree with you. Here, it seems that your own words on your talk page, do not even agree with you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The argument from authority is the penultimate recourse of those who lack both reason and evidence; the argument that those who are opposed to nationalist arguments must therefore support the speaker's national position is even less persuasive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).
You say above that: "all of these are efforts to wave some flag". Perhaps you are right, but in what way is the current title then exempt from such criticism? The proposal is one that seems to me to minimise, rather than maximise this. Ben MacDui 18:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
James I is what ordinary, flag-free, writers call this King; that's why it's more common. The same is true of Henry IV of France or Phillip II; much the same is true of Edward the Confessor. That's the difference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).
I would prefer James I to the present title, but sadly although the former is less ensign-like in its enthusiasms, it is still an epithet that flies a pennant - as you can perhaps see were I to suggest "James VI" instead. I prefer something genuinely neutral. Ben MacDui 19:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree with you that "James I" is how he is more commonly known - after all, there have been more English historians than Scottish historians. But, given that this can be such an emotive subject, I think the proposed title - which couldn't possibly refer to anyone else, unlike James I - is the best option to avoid repeated move nominations from nationally-minded contributors in the future. Opera hat (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Pmanderson: Your quote is not applicable and unimpressive. Your supposition that the British Monarchy Site uses James VI and James I as a concilliatory measure is condescending, not credible, unlikely and irrelevant to this vote. Mugginsx (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Quote? What quote? and this is not a vote. WP:Voting is evil. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).
There is no need to caste aspersions on the British Monarchy site. The way they do it is rather clever. "James VI and I" is given as his "Scottish monarch" name. As king of the "United Kingdom", he is given as "James I". BBC says "James I and VI," which is not the proposed form either. Kauffner (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - still don't see a great improvement. Deb (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Comparing the relative popularity of "James I of England" and "James VI and I" makes no sense. The only reason we use "James I of England" is because it is a Wikipedia convention. The most common usage is simply "James I". A Google Books search (removing Aragon, La Marche, and Cyprus) shows about 350,000 results for "James VI and I", but over 4 million results for "James I". And feel free to peruse those latter results to find James I of Scotland - I found one result for him in the first thirty. Google Books and ngrams are not infallible, but they give strong evidence that the most common name of this monarch - by far - is James I. As such, the title of this article should be "James I of England" under WP:NCROY, or "James I" under WP:AT and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. "James VI and I" fails under any of those guidelines. Dohn joe (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
If James I attracts any support from those who support the present request, I would be happy to join in.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).
James I is the present title. Please comment on this vote. It is disruptive to propose a vote for an article that is already the present title.
We have already determined that the guidelines allow for exceptions to unique situations (which this clearly with regard to with James VI and I See: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) states: It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply - all the reasons have been stated and the applicable guidelines you have stated are within the same. Mugginsx (talk) 18:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm genuinely surprised you found it difficult to find any books entitled James VI and I, since I've already quoted about a dozen above and simple google search turns up plenty See [41]. The whole point of the proposed move is that the name proposed reflects modern nomenclature. It might have been more common in the past but it isn't anymore. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I presume this article is not the primary topic for James I because James I is a dab page.

    If WP:NCROY still favors a WP-contrived title like the current title over one commonly used in modern scholarly sources, like the proposed title, that guideline needs to be updated to comply better with the WP:CRITERIA section of WP:AT. Kudos to DrKay (talk · contribs) for his compelling arguments (Search for DrK on this page). What he said.

    That said, I would favor the move to James I if this topic is primary for that title. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Unsound, for many dab pages should be moved to X (disambiguation). It exists because he is not the only meaning of James I. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).
B2C, I'm surprised that you support this move. As far as I can tell, everyone here (including DrK) agrees that "James I" is the common name of this monarch. And "James I of England" is not contrived by Wikipedia. It has historically been used much more often than "James VI and I", and over the past twenty years, they have been used with almost the same frequency, as this ngram shows. That it also happens to be the form suggested by WP:NCROY does not mean that its current real-world usage should be discounted. Dohn joe (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
This is a disruptive comment. Your "Everyone here" comment is trying to INFLUENCE the vote. At Wikipedia:Canvassing It clearly states "...(however) canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour." Please strike your comment or be reported. Mugginsx (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I responded to your charge of canvassing on my talk page. Meanwhile, I added "As far as I can tell" so that the influence of my statement would be greatly lessened. Dohn joe (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
The charge was canvassing on this vote page. Not hardly. JohnDoe -Read your talk page. Mugginsx (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Changing to oppose because I've been convinced this topic is primary for James I and that's the most common name for the topic of this article, so that should be its title. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
If the primary meaning of "James I" is the subject of this article, that would only mean James I should redirect here, not necessarily that this article should be moved to that title. Also, even if James I is the most common name, that doesn't always mean that's where the article should be - compare Princess Diana. Opera hat (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - "National" meaning of the United Kingdom, not of England or of Scotland - titles its article James VI and I. Even the original version gave precedence to the VI. Opera hat (talk) 21:17, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strongly support as neutral, verifiable, concise and a very reasonable compromise. Alkari (?), 28 October 2011, 23:24 UTC
  • Support, as WCM shows, this is the conventional name and it also happens to be the one that is most neutral. Nightw 12:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Seems far fairer and more accurate to show both in the name.RafikiSykes (talk) 13:38, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. James VI and I is not common in the literature. If anything it should be moved to "James I" or "James I, King of England" which are the forms most commonly used. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Cough, cough, ahem, [42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48],[49],[50],[51],[52],[53], Royal Website [54], and a ngram [55] shows the proposed title has been more common in recent times see also [56]. Are you sure about that claim? Wee Curry Monster talk 20:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
We can all find links to support our own case (BTW 2 of yours are the same) but the graph shows the overwhelming use of James I, King of England until around 2000 when James VI and I became slightly more popular for a few years. So there's fad and fashion in historical naming too. Smile! --Bermicourt (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Because nobody calls them that. Whereas James I is known as James VI and I. (It would be Queen-Empress Victoria, by the way.) Opera hat (talk) 07:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually you can find Charles V and I and Charles I and V in the literature. Srnec (talk) 22:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It appears that there is little bit of sockpuppetry here by User:64.148.59.44 and user Calvinleeterecessaide. Brendandh (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a sockpuppet - just an uninformed user. I struck the vote, Dohnjoe unstruck, I struck again then was informed by Dohn Joe that the editor could vote so left it alone. Who is user User:64.148.59.44? Mugginsx (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
It's not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so a contribution saying merely "support" or "oppose" is worthless and should be ignored in any case. Opera hat (talk) 01:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
We do call it a vote or a poll, but the closing admin looks at the arguments rather than just counting them. It's still a system of voting I guess! Works well mostly. Striking out valid votes (which this appears to be), or even striking out invalid votes (which this does not appear to be) without very good reasons (such as consensus), could well be seen as disruptive. I strongly recommend not to do it. Andrewa (talk) 19:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. James VI and I is a recognized appellation for this monarch who was a King of Scots who then became king of England. It is not possible to have a wholly systematic policy for naming monarchs and this proposed title is a good compromise that is not over-long; does not give undue precedence to one territory over the other; and is well used in the acadmic literature as well as on TV history shows etc. I see a discussion above that James never used that title, well many regnal numbers have been allocated posthumously (Elizabeth I was never called that pre 1952) so that is a red herring. To call this person a "king of England", nothing more, in the title is plain wrong. Sussexonian (talk) 19:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment. So the overwhelming bulk of literature on this subject (see above) is wrong and you are right? Not hugely convincing. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Evidentally, Bermicourt, it is you that has not read the overwhelmingly bulk of literature on this subject, the numerous examples of which are listed above. Also, there are many others reasons for this title being the best compromise and most appropriate title besides the literature. They are again, listed above from various editors. Mugginsx (talk) 22:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to James VI and I. The object of the title, remember, is to make the article easy to identify. This works very well. It's also logical, unlike say Elizabeth II the current Queen of Australia. There was no Elizabeth I of Australia of course. Andrewa (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I doubt that in America, where Scottish nationalism is irrelevant, "James VI and I" is more readily identified with the king that everyone in the Bible belt knows authorised (sic) the KJV. Also, "James I of England" is no less logical than the proposal. 216.8.129.2 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I assure you that, as an American, nationalism IS important to us, no matter the country.
  • Support I see no valid reason to oppose. The suggested target is recognizable, natural, precise, concise, and consistent with Elizabeth II, George VI, Edward VIII, etc. "James VI and I" is neutral and twice as common in ghits as "James I of England", and is more common in scholarly sources of the last 15 years. It meets all the Wikipedia:Article titles criteria. DrKay (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • But there are three times as many ghits for "james i" + "king of england" as for "james vi" + "king of scotland". What about a move to "James I"? If you'd support that, then shouldn't you oppose this? 216.8.129.2 (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, seems if anything more commonly used than the current title, and avoids the unnecessary appearance of national bias.--Kotniski (talk) 09:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The latter part of your answer is the real reason for this proposal and for the very recent change in scholarly taste. A certain group (Scots in the UK) is demanding their place in the sun. Nothing more than that. He would be about as famous as James V if he were not a monarch of England. I support the status quo bias rather than the chronological bias (as in putting VI before I). Srnec (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • A certain group (Scots in the UK) is demanding their place in the sun. Oh deary, deary deary me. (with the weight of 1163 long years of weariness in that, although as an alternative name for a popular Sex Pistols 1976 hit maybe, but I doubt Braxfield would've approved!) By the way Srnec, who are you to denude that renaissance prince James the Fifth of Scots of his great fame, are you as famous? Did you count a King of Scots and a Princess of England as parents, or did you carry enough 'cool' to marry two of the most eligible girls of the Kingdom of France? I think James VI would have you 'wirreit' with the piliwinks were you to suggest that his Grandfather was any less as glorious as himself. Brendandh (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Nothing I said denudes James V of any of his "great fame". I am certainly not as famous, but did I claim I was? My claim was that James VI is a much more famous person than James V. Please try to respond to what I wrote instead of strawmen. Srnec (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh deary me, nationalism rears its ugly head yet again. I do hope anyone closing this move request takes note of how many opposes are based on nationalist ideals and discount them accordingly. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My opposition is certainly not based on any "nationalist ideal" (or idea, if that is what you intended). My opposition is to the Scottish nationalism lying behind the demand that James's ordinal as King of Scotland have at least as much space in the title of the page as his English ordinal, and, indeed, more prominence, since it will be placed first. I call this Scottish nationalism (although I am emphatically not calling all those who support this move Scottish nationalists, which would be as ridiculous as labelling me a British or English nationalist) because it is based on considerations about the right or need of mentioning his Scottishness. Nobody cares that all our articles on Aragonese monarchs use the Aragonese numbering, even though academic sources (in English) frequently prefer the Catalan numbering. Is it maybe because we don't have near as many Catalan editors as Scots? Srnec (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comments based on nationalism, however they are dressed up have no place in this discussion. This is a perfectly reasonable compromise suggested by modern academia and I find it difficult to see why it was not done a very long time ago. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Let me make clear that I would be less dissatisfied with a move to James I than a move to the proposed title, which I strongly oppose (above). Srnec (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I !voted above for James VI and I, because that is the convention used by a majority of academic texts on the topic. I have some supplementary remarks to offer. First, I do not see what the nationalism dimension has to do with this article at all: it is well-known that the kingdoms of Scotland and England existed as separate entities before James' Union of Crowns project. However, I am unsure if the comments about nationalism refer to the modern movement for Scottish independence. Second, to name the article James I of England is to not give weight to James' role as a king of Scotland before Elizabeth's death. Third, to depart from historical convention and draw on my perception, I understood that James' title was the format of sixth and first because, unlike his predecessors, he united the two British kingdoms. The naming is a useful way of reflecting this. Regarding this discussion, I rather fear that it has become unwieldy, and think some form of mediation might be useful here. Mediation by its nature allows us to set down clearly the different arguments (and the bases for these arguments), whereas the discussion in its present form is nothing more than an array of bullet points with "Nationalism!" or "Not unless articles X and Y are renamed too!" thrown in. That said, I must commend the participants for their level-headedness so far: being used to slamming the banhammer around at I/P, this makes a refreshing change... AGK [•] 22:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Comment to AGK and others: I believe we have MORE than enough right here to justify a title change 24-10. Well meaning as it may be to propose, it is unthinkable that editors should have to go on and on enduring insults back and forth, trying to keep their patience and their dignity and it is completely unnecessary to do it all over again. Your comments about how editors have handled themselves here is true so why would you want to make them start us over again? I have read the various comments on ALL the previous attempts and tried along with all of the editors to devise a compromise which would address the stated concerns on ALL sides of the issues. I also try to bring in Jimbo Wales stated hope to find " ... a solution which is satisfactory to all, or at least which creates the least dissatisfaction...". With all due respect, I think this is the closest to consensus we will every find. We have done this here.
There comes a time when everything has been said and further attempts by mediation at that point will only tend to "weaken" every editor's resolve and will produce discouragement for the editors here who have compromised time and time again. I have seen this happen both here on Wiki and elsewhere where mediation is used. I believe it is an integral part of human nature. We are all familiar with the cliché "talking a matter to death". Enough said.
Editors on all sides and from five different countries have made compromises, as evidence by the dramatic change in attitude and quality of the comments you yourself referred to. The only other comments do not represent compromise but complete capitulation. With respect, I think mediation will not get us any closer than we are here and, quite possibly, take us all the way back to the beginning.
I think mediation at this time and in this particular case would be destructive rather than productive for the reasons cited, and the determination and great work and resolve made here will be lost. The discussions have run their course, the compromise and the criteria is met by the evidence that the compromise is likeable to various editors on ALL sides in a much larger number than was ever before achieved and finally Mr. Wales hope is within grasp as well.
Request close and title change be implemented. The suggested time for discussion has been almost doubled and move to title clearly reached by Consensus. Mugginsx (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


About time too. Now on to the House of Stewart article, and its ancilliaries. It seriously needs a broom in there also (Whoops, Planta genesta was the dynasty prior to the one that died out causing all the heated debate above!) .Brendandh (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

A note about the close

While I have noted that the close may not have been done in an optimal manner (specifically, that it would have been best if someone not involved in the discussion proper had closed the discussion and effected the move); it seems fairly clear to me that there was consensus for the move.

I would suggest that it'd be counterproductive to further argue points of procedure. Things could have been done better, but the end result would clearly have been the same despite this particular faux pas. — Coren (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Now, hopefully the rest of the Stuarts will be moved. Then on to the rest of the monarchs on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
No, this wasn't consensus; this was a coup by a majority which did not have consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).

For persons holding numerous titles and regnal numbers, the ruler is usually, widely referred to under the most prestigious title held. An example would be Charles of the House of Habsburg, known as Charles I of Spain and Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Since emperor is clearly the more prestigious title, he is usually referred to as Charles V, rather than Charles I, which is used frequently only in Spanish-speaking countries. Usually I'd settle with James I of England, but "James VI and I" serves the higher purpose of not alienating the Scots. Emerson 07 (talk) 17:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

In what way is the suggestion that England is "clearly more prestigious" than Scotland supposed to avoid alienating the Scots? -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
And your point Emerson? The monarch of England was not a Kaiser but 'just' a King/Queen, much like their colleagues in Scotland, prior to the latter's succession due to the formers dying out. Brendandh (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Even if England and France are equally royal titles, France is the greater of the two. This is shown in the coat of arms worn by the English kings when they claimed the French throne - the arms of France occupy the first quarter, the position of honor. [...] There is inevitably a hierarchy even among "equal kingdoms". The Kings of England had paid homage to the Kings of France for their French lands, and the Kings of Scotland had paid homage to early Kings of England for their English lands. Sorry if anyone has been offended; sometimes my sentences are badly phrased. Emerson 07 (talk) 09:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Emerson, your first sentence immediately above is a contradiction in terms. If they are equal one cannot be greater. You are stretching credulity to the very limits of one's thinking. Though your facts may be individually correct stated separately, they cannot together make that final jump to prove any point beyond being separate facts. I hope you are not offended but it just doesn't make sense in the context in which you are using them. As an American and not a Scot, I would have to also find your other remarks as somewhat prejudice against the Scots though cleverly veiled by using France as an example. Perhaps it was unintentional. Mugginsx (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
There is such a term as primus inter pares - first among equals. Emerson 07 (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Primus inter pares is an intellectualization of an ideal which, in this application, relates only to your natural desire for your country to be superior. Most of us have it for our own country. Unfortunately, it means nothing to the rest of the English-speaking world except that one loves their country of origin. Another ideal was used by the Romans is a different way, i.e., to pacify the people. People want to be deceived, therefore let them be deceived. (Ceasar) and Libenter homines id quod volunt credunt (Comentarii De Bello Gallico, III.18) Men gladly believe that which they wish for. Ceasar. Our modern day politicians are teethed on these principles, but that's another story. Mugginsx (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
If you assume that I am English, please do not, for I have not identified myself as such. On the rest of your statement, I could not understand its connection to primus inter pares. The US Chief Justice is a good example of a primus inter pares - he has "considerable administrative powers, and can assign the writing of decisions in cases in which he is in the majority, but he has no direct control over the decisions of his colleagues on the Supreme Court of the United States". Emerson 07 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
We seem to be talking at crossed purposes. The US Chief Justice is no more than a "spokesman" for the others and in no way is he considered anything but equal and is appointed as such usually because he has "outlived" the others. I was thinking of the second line in the second paragraph in the Primus inter pares article, i.e.,..."However, in some cases it may also be used to indicate that while the person (my addition - or country) described appears to be an equal, they actually are the group's unofficial or hidden leader, and thus the reference to this person being "equal" to the rest is intended to be sarcastic." Perhaps I am wrong, but what I seem to be seeing here is a bias which is heavily veiled in philosophy. It is a concept which is absent in American teachings and our Constitution and deliberately so. The fact is that is this article there was a King of Scotland who became the King of England and that was the bottom line. There was no more important or less important in my eyes nor in the eyes of the multinational editors who voted. It is a dead issue to me now. You are free to think whatever you wish of course, as are we all. See my new User page if you wish. Mugginsx (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The president selects a Chief Justice based on personal choice, and if he has none, only then would he resort to seniority. The position has some prerogatives not enjoyed by the other justices, making it clearly more prestigious than the others. The United States has become so sensitive about bias only after several generations' worth of discrimination against minorities, so I don't think it should be a good example of a country that believes in equality. Emerson 07 (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
No, he selects "a Justice" not a "Chief Justice" unless a Chief Justice dies in office at which times he nominates one. That selection has to be radified by Congress and is not alway agreed to. As for discrimination, that applies to all countries, U.S. no more and no less. There is all kinds of slavery. The feudal system is one form but in fairness, our country is no better than many, just younger. Mugginsx (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Please click "Show Preview" first before "Save Page" to check for errors or consider whether you still want to add something. Emerson 07 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I am doing several different things at the same time I am having this discussion. My apologises. (I even spelled apologies the English way because I know someone is just going to correct it.) See how accomodating I can be? . Sorry, I had to look for that so I added it late. Mugginsx (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
This does not mean, incidentally, that I believe that the "British" spelling of apologizes (apologises) is the correct one, or the superior one, but rather that it is an item I do not wish to debate about. Mugginsx (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
British or American spelling? I don't care about them very much, and I would not debate with anybody about simple grammatical mistakes on the talk page. Emerson 07 (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe you, but you would be surprised how many times my spelling of that and a few other words were corrected to conform with "their countries" (not naming anyone country in particular but it sort of rhymns with "jinglin"). You must forgive me but I am in a holiday spirit and so I cannot help myself but be light-hearted about this discussion. That does not mean I do not take it seriously. Mugginsx (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
As to the US Supreme Court Justice, he does preside over the oral arguments but with the full court able to voice their opinion as well. As to choosing who writes up the opinions "majority opinion" and "minority opinion", since the opinions have already been stated by all justices, it is a mere formality as to applying it to U.S. Law and the precedents that came before or were used in the oral arguments. It is merely "secretarial" in nature and no power or precedent applies to it. I believe it is actually performed by the law clerks. Mugginsx (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
As a complete aside, if you want to know what is really difficult, it is the "legal briefs" that are created in support of an issue and in argument against the opposing viewpoint. They give one a migrane to just research and transcribe them. I know because I have done them though, not for the Supreme Court but in New York State Criminal Court in Brooklyn. Mugginsx (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
All your statements actually support the thesis that the US Chief Justice is a primus inter pares. His powers are only slightly greater than the others, making them all "equal", yet preserving his primacy. The US Constitution, in fact, only refers to one Justice - the Chief Justice; modern convention has given the others the title "Associate Justice", even though no such term exists in the Constitution; they are simply "Judges". Emerson 07 (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Not greater, just different! These things he does changes absolutely nothing with regard to the case being heard, nor does it limit anyone elses ability to question or argue any argument or present new arguments. It is as if they give him unimportant things to do which may to a laymen seem important but are really not. He is merely a figurehead. He cannot countermand any other justice; he cannot change any decision or any part of it, he cannot even decide to hear or refuse to hear a case without the other judges permission. He simply sits in front of the other judges like a statute. Believe me, with the egos of these judges or justices or whatever you want to call them (them have supreme egos of their own) they would not tolerate anyone upstaging them in any material way. The choice to decide who presents oral arguments is akin to deciding who sits where in the room. That is how important it is. So too the other little things he can do. They do not in any way decide a case, design the way a case is memoralized (oops) memoralised or even how the trash is disposed of. He is not more important. (As an aside, I am using my laptop as I am having some repair done to my desktop so my answers will not be very forthcoming today as I actually hate typing on this small keyboard and have to take my other to the shop.) I think you have to be an American to understanding what I am saying and have a little knowledge of the law to know that his little choirs are just that. Nothing more than legal housekeeping. As to their titles - no doubt a throwback to English law or a variation of it. Yes that's it! I should have thought of it before! Seriously though, again, only a title, though an empty one in this case. Mugginsx (talk) 11:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Alright, not greater. They're equals, but the Chief Justice is first among them, that's why he's "Chief", even if nominally, while the others are just "Associates". Emerson 07 (talk) 14:01, 28 December 2011
This reminds me of a supposively true story of a missionary who sought to make the native women wear blouses to cover their breasts. He thought he had succeeded in making them understanding the Christian principle of purity and modesty when the next day they came to him with blouses on and he was extremely pleased until he realised they have cut holes in certain places so they could breast feed their babies should they have any in the future. The Concept you describe is absolutely foreign to Americans. It is not talked about except perhaps in some obscure philosophy class which kids take when they really don't want a job and have to keep going to college to avoid getting one. We call them career college students. Sooner or later they run out of subjects and wind up taking this one! I repeat, it is useless in the United States. Mugginsx (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There is no need for the US government to actually recognize the Chief Justice as the primus inter pares among the Justices of the Supreme Court. Primus inter pares is simply a term, which requires no legislation or recognition in order to be applied. As you had so conveniently described, the Chief Justice is a good example of this. Emerson 07 (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
It was convenient but it was also fact. Perhaps I mistook your meaning. We are seriously off topic here but I will say that by the time a case reaches the Supreme Court (barring some imperative case which needs immediate decisive action like a presidentional election result which are "fast-tracked") that case has gone through many courts and has been heard many times and simply appealed over and over again until it reaches the highest court in the land. Now of course the court picks and chooses what it will hear. It should be noted that of course the Supreme Court does not hear every case, but every case it hears (with exception noted) has been, in fact, tried over and over again. The arguments are basically the same, the discussion basically the same. It is just that the Supreme Court is the final bite at the apple so to speak, until and unless another similar case comes up which does not happen often and if it comes up is usually not heard by the Supreme Court, not the US Supreme Court anyway. Mugginsx (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Looking again at the definition of Primus inter pares "...but looked upon as an authority of special importance by their peers." I cannot say since the other Justices have ever to my knowledge, said what they think of their chief justice. It may be true but, due to the fact that many decisions may be said to be decided "political" and they are definitively of different political views, I rather doubt that ALL of the justices like the Chief Justice. They are really equal in every way as to their powers and his vote in no more important than another one else's vote so I cannot conceive that all of them like the Chief Justice It would be supposition to say so. If the Chief was chosen by them then perhaps one could make that leap, but his only peers are the other justices so, I doubt that they all like him. I have read somewhere that they have pretty heated disputes sometimes but it is always behind closed doors and to my knowledge no one has ever written a book about the Supreme Court which goes in depth about their personalities or relationships with each other.
You need not explain the US judicial branch to me as if it's a completely foreign concept. My country has a similar system in place, so I'm familiar with it. Emerson 07 (talk) 15:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I rather thought so. To sum up, no, I do not think the principle of Primus inter pares applies to US Supreme Court as you described it. Mugginsx (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
It does, for the points given above and in the article itself. Emerson 07 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

I've started a discussion at James I as to whether or not "James I" and "James II" are the WP:PRIMARYTOPICs for those terms. Feel free to add to the discussion. By the way, note that I explicitly said over there that the primary topic decision should be separate from what we name this article. Dohn joe (talk) 21:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

English spelling vs Scottish spelling

I have seen articles of all kinds that mention both spelling the first time the name is used either in the opening paragraph or elsewhere and then continue with the just the modern spelling throughout. This is the way it is handled in many online and printed materials today. This is also very helpful for those of us who read medieval texts that often have the older spelling. Their are too many examplesto cite. I would suggest we do that. It does not just apply to Scottish and English names but medieval and modern names that were originally Norman French and then angelized and others as well.

Example: Mention the first time used and just once in this manner: Spencer (formerly Dispencer) Darnley (formerly Dairnley), Stuart (formerlyStewart).

PS I know Dispenser and Spencer is not in the article - It is just one of many examples stated in literature. Mugginsx (talk) 10:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Stewart is the English spelling, and Stuart is the French spelling. ðarkuncoll 10:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Right then, English and Gaelic, English and Norman French and/or middle French, English and Scottish, etc., whatever., Just once. It would be helpful to other English-speaking countries. It is done many other places, including Wiki.Mugginsx (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason in this article to provide alternative spellings. We should just use the normal names used for the individuals. Darnley, for example, is always Darnley, even though he was actually Albany. DrKay (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I am not speaking of titles but names although I have occasionally seen that done as well. Very well, if you say that Darnley is always spelled as such, fine. There is Stuart and Stewart. Mugginsx (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Given we have both Stuart and Stewart in the article, I can see the benefit of working that in somehow. DrKay (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
The way I have seen it is to state it once (usually the first time it is mentioned). If that does not work for some reason than somewhere else near that first mention. But the first mention is almost always used (at least in my experience). Mugginsx (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Reredundanancy

Is there a contest to see how many times the words James, England, Scotland and Ireland can appear in the first paragraph? Srnec (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No there isn't but it is distinctly disruptive to specifically remove the title assigned to this article from the lede, particularly so when we've see a WP:RM that you opposed. It really does smack of WP:POINT. Wee Curry Monster talk 07:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I tried mixing up the verbiage in the first paragraph - see how you like it. Dohn joe (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"James VI and I ... was ... James VI ... and ... James I" is stupid English. That's my point. Mentioning England/English and Scotland/Scots by name three sentences in a row is equally silly. The article didn't say "James I of England was ..." before. In fact, when it had that title by consensus the lede started off with the current title! Srnec (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
We're getting into the common trap of "try to squash to whole article into the first sentence", I think. How about a rethink? Replace the first paragraph as follows:

James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was a Scottish monarch whose Union of the Crowns in 1603 made him King of Scotland, King of England and Ireland. The states of England and Scotland retained their individual sovereignty, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James. As King of Scots he was known as James VI and as King of England and Ireland as James I.

Thoughts? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I like the sound of it Chris. Mugginsx (talk) 10:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
It wasn't "his" Union of the Crowns. "He was known as James VI as King of Scots, and James I as King of England and Ireland." is one less "as". DrKay (talk) 11:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we can escape the redundancy without loss of meaning or explanation. DrKay (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
If we say that he was James VI as King of Scotland and James I as King of England, does it really need to be explained why the article is titled James VI and I? Srnec (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a strong opinion on that personally, but Wee Curry Monster complained about removing the double version. DrKay (talk) 10:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe it does need to be explained - and I have no problem with the text that is being suggested. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:35, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Why does Wee Curry's complaint carry more weight than mine? His argument is based on the title of the article, but the lede in dispute existed before the article had its current title. My argument is based on good English and not assuming our readers are stupid. (As an aside, how is this a good title if readers can't be expected to know why it is used when told that he was James VI of Scotland and James I of England?) Srnec (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
The existing version (including James VI and I) has precedence because it's the long standing version. Typically, the previous consensus holds until there is consensus for a change. DrKay (talk) 09:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

James VI and I (19 June 1566 – 27 March 1625) was King of Scots as James VI from 24 July 1567 and King of England and Ireland as James I from the union of the English and Scottish crowns on 24 March 1603. The kingdoms of England and Scotland were individual sovereign states, with their own parliaments, judiciary, and laws, though both were ruled by James in personal union.

He became King of Scotland at the age of thirteen months, succeeding his mother Mary, Queen of Scots, who had been compelled to abdicate in his favour. Four different regents governed during his minority, which ended officially in 1578, though he did not gain full control of his government until 1583. In 1603, he succeeded the last Tudor monarch of England...etc.

Sounds fine to me. Dohn joe (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Me too. Brendandh (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I will defer to Wee and the rest who agreed here. It sounds right to me. Mugginsx (talk) 19:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of mere fact, the article began with James VI and I because it wasn't the title; it was compensatory weight for a verifiable name which wasn't at the top of the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC) — in-appropriate, objectionable and possibly trolling comment by a now blocked user (for abusive use of account and for suspected sockpuppetry).

What is the plantation of America?

What does this sentence mean?: "James began the Plantation of Ulster and of North America." Nitpyck (talk) 07:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

See here, Plantation (settlement or colony) and here, Plantation of Ulster. It's just an alternative word for colonisation. Brendandh (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
"The term "plantation" transferred to the large farms that were the economical basis of many of the 17th-century American colonies." By the time James died it had been replaced by colonization and should also be replaced in this article. Nitpyck (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Words can have several meanings. Brendandh and you are both correct. Mugginsx (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Plantation of Ulster is used much more frequently than colonisation of Ulster so the usage is absolutely correct here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

James' religion in Infobox - Church of Scotland; Church of England

This article (along with those of most other monarchs) uses "Template: Infobox royalty", which has a line for "Religion". My first two tries to add a religion for James was reversed without appropriate comment. My third try was changed to simply "Church of Scotland"; "Church of England", without any comment. My edits were intended to indicate that James was brought up in the Church of Scotland, and subsequently became head of the Church of England only as a title upon inheriting the throne of England. Thus, "| religion = Church of Scotland; titular Defender of the Faith of the Church of England upon accession to the English throne". Could other editors comment, especially those with expertise in this portion of history? Thanks! Facts707 (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Both reverts were accompanied by full and explanatory edit summaries. So, the statement that they were "reversed without appropriate comment" is false. As indicated in the edit summaries, infoboxes are for basic facts; they are not designed for nuance or complexity. Secondly, he was not Presbyterian. It should not be implied in the infobox that he was.
On the new issue, all British monarchs are titular Defenders of the Faith of the Church of England upon accession to the throne. The infobox should relate to James personally, not the monarchy. The parameter is optional and can be removed. DrKay (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Like all subsequent monarchs, James was Presbyterian when in Scotland and Anglican when in England. I think the evidence is clear that he was happier as the latter. He was also presumably baptised as a Catholic, but removed from his mother's care before that could have made much impact. I agree the infobox should not attempt to say anything, except perhaps "Protestant" which is the key point (and, like his contemporaries, James would have failed to understand modern Anglicans who reject that term). Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Comments like "James was Presbyterian when in Scotland" and "presumably baptised as a Catholic" when the Scottish church was episcopalian for most of his lifetime and the article clearly states he was baptised in a Catholic ceremony merely demonstrate that comments are being made by people who have neither read the article nor are familiar with the history. "Protestant" is correct. DrKay (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Not recently, no. I should have said Calvinist Episcopalian perhaps. "Protestant" in the infobox would fulfill a useful purpose. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Grand Master Mason

King James I was a member of the Society of Freemasonry and was a Grand Master Mason (GMM) <ref] http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/james_vi/james_vi.html </ref]. I'll find some other resources as well. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's another: <ref]The Secret Founding of America - The Real Story of Freemasons, Puritans, & the Battle for the New World p. 34 by Nicholas Hagger (Watkins, 2009)</ref]. I'll check other pages in this book and other books. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wow! 13:34 EDT and someone with an agenda has already removed the info from the article even though I have two very reliable sources. I'll gather others and post it again later. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no published evidence of any society of non-operative masons in Britain during the lifetime of James I of any kind. There is evidence for the existence of stonework craft organisations, which may have had an element of ritual in their proceedings, and had their origins in medieval stone-cutting lodges at castles and cathedrals. A good book is The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotland's Story, David Stevenson, Cambridge (1988), which identifies earlier mason-craft organisation recognised by William Schaw in the 1590s in Scotland, and explores the beginnings of later 17th-century societies which appear to be 'masonic' in character.Unoquha (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Your source freemasonry.bcy.ca also has this: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/james_vi/agreement.html saying that "Edward Macbean claims that the initiation of James VI, King of Scotland, is apocryphal, and it must be noted that there is no primary source documentation". This is the most likely option, since proper Freemasonry didn't really exist before the 18th century. Grand Lodge of England was established in 1717. 94.101.2.145 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Sexuality

Others argue that the relationships were not sexual. James's Basilikon Doron lists sodomy among crimes "ye are bound in conscience never to forgive", and James's wife Anne gave birth to seven live children, as well as suffering two stillbirths and at least three other miscarriages.

I understand that James having written against sodomy is evidence against his relationships with men being sexual. But I don't understand why the number of children borne by his wife is relevant at all. Can someone explain? Marnanel (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Restoration of Apethorpe Hall, undertaken in 2004–08, revealed a previously unknown passage linking the bedchambers of James and Villiers.[129]

The article cited doesn't say anything at all about bedchambers or secret passages. Is this the wrong article or has the 'discovery' since been reassessed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.203.100.26 (talk • contribs) 06:06 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It says "Workers uncovered a passage connecting the pair's bedchambers during the recent renovations." DrKiernan (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

James writing against sodomy is hardly evidence of heterosexuality. Christians, even today, preach one thing and do another. This entire page is blatantly biased to protect the image of the bearer of Christianity's beloved King James. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.105.187 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

This wiki reads like it was written by a Public Relations staffer.

This wiki needs a full NPV overhaul. It is ridiculously biased towards the official narrative, even though James's Homosexuality is, according to the wiki itself, generally agreed-upon.

There isn't even a criticism section, but don't add one.

This article needs a *full revision* that has NPV and evaluates the accuracy of the many claims made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.169.152 (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems fine to me on both neutrality and verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. How anyone can call this article neutral is beyond me. A full NPV overhaul is indeed needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.105.187 (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Citations

The citations are at the moment a mess. I propose to homogenise them as was done for the articles Charles I of England and Charles II of England. -- PBS (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Title

I think it not correct to say: 'In Scotland, James was "James the sixth, King of Scotland", until 1604.' His title would have been Rex Scotorum - "King of Scots" rather than "Rex Scotiae" - king of Scotland. Likewise his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, was Regina Scotorum rather than Regina Scotiae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.220.6 (talk) 08:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

They were used interchangeably, though the form rex Scotorum was more common in Latin especially in the early medieval period when rex Anglorum, rex Francorum, etc., were also commonly used in Latin documents. DrKay (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It states in thecEntrh for James 6th/1st that his son was Charles 1st King of England. He was not :- He was King of the United Kingdom( Scotland, England and Ireland) Reaoch (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_VI_and_I/Archive_7&oldid=1136834973"