Talk:James I of Scotland

Article is difficult to read and follow

This article could stand a good editor. It is turgid and difficult to follow some of this text. The opening summary is longer than the whole article was a few years ago. There are lengthy passages that seem out of focus. I don't edit Wikipedia any more because I am tired of the fights. But whoever owns this page ought to consider having some help editing it for readability --Blue Tie (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ransom 1420 - Return 1424

is there any specially reason why he stayed 4 years in England even if the Ransom was payed? I think it would be a good idea telling this. -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 12:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted Image

The photo previously used (Portrait of King James I & VI.jpg ) (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:King_James_I_of_Scotland.jpg) is copyrighted and can't be used on Wikipedia. It should not have been uploaded. Just because something is expired does not mean that the photographer can't claim copyright.

Here's info I got from the owner:

While the painting is out of copyright the National Galleries of Scotland have copyright of this photography. Therefore all of the images on the NGS website are in copyright. If you wish to use any on your site please apply by completing a returning the attached application forms. I have also attached a list of fees and our terms and conditions.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best wishes,

Phil

Philip Hunt Photography & Licensing Assistant National Galleries of Scotland

Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art 75 Belford Road Edinburgh EH4 3DR T: + 44 0131 624 6258 F: + 44 0131 623 7135 E: phunt@nationalgalleries.org www.nationalgalleries.org

The National Galleries of Scotland Collection is available to view online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam00 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

• See this extremely similar dispute: National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. Wikimedia Foundation is based in the United States, and under U.S. law, the photo cannot be copyrighted. OCNative (talk) 01:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Nominee for GA

Almost 3 weeks ago, I nominated this article for GA quality, and it has yet to reach reviews to see if it deserves GA status. Is there anyone who would like to review this? I personally didn't work on this article, but felt that it deserved critique from the best editors Wikipedia could assemble. Please contact me as soon as you can, and thanks for readingLeftAire (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

@ 76.115.116.50

I am reverting you for the last time before I take this to the Admin noticeboard.

Answering your edit summery: 1. I did not write that he WAS most of the time at the English court & 2. As I said before, produce a source to back up your misinformed opinions regarding his enforced attendance with Henry V's forces; nowhere is it said that he "loved Henry V" and source your assertion that he was detained at the Tower of London for almost 10 years.--Bill Reid | (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead section too long

The article is very well written but I am afraid there is another case of a too long lead section, as also noted by Blue Tie in #Article is difficult to read and follow. Can we please have it shorter? Surtsicna (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Shaved 20% off the section. Bill Reid | (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What? This is not well written, it is one of the most baffling Wikipedia pages I have ever come across. So many people are named with no clear explanation of who they are. I am none the wise about King James I’s life after reading this other than to be aware that there were a lot of people in Scotland who argues with each other. This article should be re-written from scratch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:B074:FE01:D156:37A8:E27:B4B7 (talk) 13:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Timeline

The timeline is impressive, but seems misplaced. Events of James I's reign are laid out in a section that deals with his childhood. His death is mentioned much earlier than it occurs in the text. His wife is pictured in a section in which she is not mentioned at all. The chronology is thus entirely broken. In fact, the nature of the timeline is such that it does not fit into any section (which is probably why such timelines are not normally included in biographies). Surtsicna (talk) 16:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Although I chose to name the table of significant events of James I as a timeline it is not a timeline as per the various wikipedia timeline templates. It is placed where it is (near the top of the article) as an adjunct to the infobox (same background colour, width, etc) to perform a similar function i.e. quick glance details of James I.

The section that contains information on his childhood by no stretch of the imagination covers all of the events of his life.

You say His wife is pictured in a section in which she is not mentioned at all. Section titled King in captivity has the depiction of Joan Beaufort and the last paragraph of this section has: James's relationship with the House of Lancaster changed in February 1424 when he married Joan Beaufort, a cousin of Henry VI and the niece of Thomas Beaufort, 1st Duke of Exeter, and Henry, Bishop of Winchester. So how does this break the chronology of the 'timeline'?

Can you direct me to the MoS that says that a table of significant events are not normally included in biographies? Thanks Bill Reid | (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

What I mean is that the timeline is placed in James I of Scotland#Prince and Steward of Scotland. This section is supposed to deal with the subject's childhood, and the text does so exclusively, but the timeline contained in the section lists every notable event up to his death. This section, thanks to the timeline, also contains a depiction of Joan Beaufort, even though she does not appear in the text until much later on. All the chronology issues stem from the placement of the timeline. I do not dispute the inclusion of a table of significant events, but the way it is presented in this article does not work well. On mobile phones, it does not work at all. Surtsicna (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Sidebars (and Navboxes) don't appear on mobiles and just like an Infobox, a Sidebar can span sections (see Tokyo). However, on reading the doc page of the Sidebar template, I can see that the Sidebar is intended to link to other similar articles and not in the way that I have used it so I will try and think of a way of presenting this info differently. Bill Reid | (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

You are right, it does not appear on mobiles! Still, the issue of chronology is prominent. Could we have something horizontal, like List of English monarchs#Timeline of English monarchs? Surtsicna (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thinking I'll experiment with a collapsible box in a separate section named 'Timeline' placed just above the 'Ancestors' section to see how it looks. Bill Reid | (talk) 14:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I am only now seeing the new timeline. It looks very nice! Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Jacques de Boucq Sketch

I wanted to raise the possibility of using the Jacques de Boucq sketch (James_II.png) as the primary image for this article. Although the exact identity of the figure depicted in the sketch is debated (the inscription leaves it ambiguous whether James I or James II is the depicted person), I believe a convincing circumstantial case can be made that James I is the person depicted:

1) James II was known to sport a large red birthmark on one side of his face, as seen in the von Ehingen miniature (James_II_of_Scotland_(by_von_Ehingen).jpg). No such birthmark is visible in the de Boucq sketch, making it unlikely that James II is the depicted person.

2) The bowl haircut evidenced by the sketch appears to have been more popular with men of James I's generation (such as Henry V of England and Ferdinand I of Aragon) than those of James II's generation, increasing the likelihood that James I is the sitter.

3) The inscription (roughly reading "Jacques, roy d'Ecosse") makes more sense in reference to James I than it does James II. If the sitter depicted was indeed James II, then a qualifier such as 'James son of James' or 'James, second of that name' would likely have been proffered, as with the same artist's copy of a portrait of James IV (James IV by Jaques le Boucq.jpg). Since James I was at that time the only James to reign in Scotland, it makes more sense that his name would be left to stand alone, as no ambiguity would have been present.

Admittedly, all of these arguments can go both ways; perhaps the birthmark was omitted for purposes of flattery; bowl haircuts are hardly unheard of after 1394, and in the event James II was the only living Scots king named James at the time the original portrait was made before it was copied, it is not unthinkable that the identification of the portrait would have been obvious to those living at the time without need for a qualifier. Nevertheless, given that the current image is evidently a posthumous portrait anyway, perhaps the sketch (being drawn from life) would improve the article despite the risk of mistaken identification.

As a result, I do not advocate any changes be made to the article until a consensus has been reached. The current portrait, while posthumous, does suit the needs of the article perfectly fine. Even if the de Boucq sketch wins favour, I would suggest a caption along the lines of '16th century sketch by Jacques de Boucq, copied from a lost contemporary portrait, believed to be James I or perhaps his son James II.'

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.122.40 (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Unverified information being added

For User:Reefyj. I notice that you are adding content that isn't covered by the original citation provided. The added material needs a separate citation. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)