Talk:James VI and I/Archive 3

message: There's a dispute at List of English monarchs, concerning this matter. Was James, King of Great Britain and Ireland or was he King of England, Scotland and Ireland? GoodDay 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see Talk:James_I_of_England#Glaring_Mistake above --Philbarker 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Was James, King of Great Britain and Ireland?

message: As a layman from Holland, not at all up to date about the history of Great Britain, but after watching Helen Mirren's excellent performance as Queen Elisabeth I, I was wondering about the religion of King James of Scotland. His mother was a catholic and decapitated for it (to make a long story short), but how about James? The story here says he was born a catholic, but then it becomes vague. If he still was a catholic, how could he be accepted as king of England? Perhaps this matter needs some elaboration. From the main story and the discussion I gather that James may have been instrumental in bringing the churches of England and Scotland closer together, so creating the Anglican church? - Marco Bleeker www.ecocam.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.143.145 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Marco, Mary Queen of Scots was not executed for her Catholicism, but for her alleged role in a conspiracy against Elizabeth I, her cousin.  James was brought up and educated in the reformed Church of Scotland, whose basic doctrine was Calvinism, though the form of Church government veered between Presbyterianism and Epicopacy during his lifetime.  Even when they shared the same model of church government the Church of Scotland and the Church of England were quite distinct entities.  There was never a British national church.  James was not a Catholic and never practiced as one.  There was nothing in law, though, to prevent a Catholic becoming King of England at this time.  James' grandson and namesake James VII and II succeeded to the throne in 1685, his Catholicism notwithstanding.  It was not until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the subsequent Act of Settlement of 1701 that Catholics were banned from the succession.  Clio the Muse 02:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  religion 

message: I've protected the page for 4 days in response to an edit war. Please use the talk page to hash out the dispute. If you reach consensus before the 4 days are up, you can list the page on WP:RFPP and request early un-protection. MastCell Talk 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: It's been suggested at a discussion at List of English monarchs, that James I/VI was King of Great Britain and Ireland NOT King of England, Scotland and Ireland. Which is it? GoodDay 01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This question also relates to James' Stuart successors. GoodDay 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He only united the two kingdoms in a personal union - legally they remained totally separate until the Acts of Union 1707. Johnbod 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought so. Thanks for the reassurance John. GoodDay 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not James I of Great Britain

message: The footnote that qp10qp refers to above was accidentally removed by User:Smackbot with this edit on 7th September. I've notified the bot owner on the bot talk page, and I've restored the footnote. Hopefully this will adequately cover the issue. Note that the footnote was written by qp10qp, who wrote most of the article as it now stands when it passed featured article review back in April of this year. In my opinion, that is enough to cover the issue here. Wider coverage should go in Personal relationships of James I of England. Only summaries are needed here, and that is provided by the footnote I just restored, and the section titled "Favourites". Carcharoth 12:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also agree with your new edits. We have a new person to the discussion who took it upon himself/herself to reverse your edits -- so I've restored the edit you made. I also added the correction that qp10qp added shortly after Allstarecho. -- Korismo (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This one is good. I like the addition of the footnote. Plus, this restores us to the featured article status. I think this should be an acceptible solution for all parties. -- DSuchet (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sorry to disagree, but I don't believe any compromise is needed. The Wikipedians who have made these incredible claims are not historians and can not provide reliable sources. Moreover, they refuse to be reasonable about the issue. I will support the new changes made by Carcharoth, but I don't like the idea of a footnote compromise. - -- ICarriere (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in this case, I would argue slightly in the opposite direction: the homosexuality material was poorly sourced in the sense that the books were marginally about the subject or taken from inferior sources or awkward sources (King James, by Bergeron, for example, is subtitled "A Novel"). However, it is no trouble to source more effectively the opinion that James was a practising homosexual. But there is no such thing as a reliable primary source for his homosexuality (for example, take the English report about James and Lennox). There are no facts about James's homosexuality to state, only interpretations of documents and incidents. The latter are, however, admissable to a historical article to show the range of analysis.-- qp10qp (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Qp10qp, I know you are a historian and I respect your opinion on the subject. But what is to prevent the LGBT activists from adding a section or footnoot on homosexuality to every biography on Wikipedia? After all, people can speculate about the sexuality of others as much as they want, yet it doesn't make it true. Moreover, there is no reason that we should entertain every fanciful notion that people have by giving it reference in the article. As Clio the Muse said, "We proceed by by the sources, and only by the sources; and by this I mean primary sources. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent." - -- ICarriere (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we may use secondary sources too, and those may contain scholarly opinions that we are entitled to report. However, in an article like this, that sort of reference should be kept very brief, I think—as it is in the biographies and general histories. It's the specialist books that go into detail and into idiosyncratic theorising; and this isn't a specialist article.-- qp10qp (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely most historical figures don't have nearly the amount written about their sexuality that James has had.  I will note also that here at wikipedia we proceed, in fact, not by the primary sources, but by the secondary sources.  Secondary sources on James tend not to focus much on the issue, but it has certainly been written about and debated.  I tend to agree with Qp10qp, broadly. john k (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could you provide me with a link to where such a debate can be found? That is to say, other than a link back to this page. Thank you - ICarriere (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this really debatable?  The idea that James's relationship with Buckingham, at least, had, at the very least, homoerotic undertones, can hardly be controversial.  Read just about any mention of the relationship and you'll see that the implication of homosexuality is there, and has to be dealt with in one way or another. Also, what the hell is with the red font?  Incredibly annoying. john k (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring original footnote 

message: The tone of this discussion is too hostile in some quarters, and it's not too hard to decipher where the unnecessary rise in temperature originates.  Please review WP:TALK and WP:CALM.  In particular, please note "avoid excessive markup"; the color-coded commentary is not helpful.  Please try to assume good faith and remain civil.  Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added templates to the top of the talk page and encourage some participants in this discussion to read them thoroughly.  The excessive color-coded markup on talk page commentary should be removed; see Good practice.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Sandy. Calmer debate would undoubtedly help and perhaps more outside views - an article RfC perhaps? I have removed the coloured comments. Lets not make this a contest as to who can make their point the "loudest". WjBscribe 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is that qp10qp has argued convincingly for the state of the article that existed before the latest eruption of this dispute. This seems more a generalist versus specialist dispute, with editors with an interest in LBGT issues and LGBT history wanting a large focus on sexuality and personal relationships in an article about a King and his reign, to say more about the sexuality and personal relationships than other aspects of his reign, and to highlight this in its own section rather than tie it in with the politics of the court and the relevance to his reign. I hope that qp10qp's points (and mine) have been made calmly. The most egregious breach of civility I saw was someone referring to the article being 'raped'. That and the accusations of people promoting anti-gay agendas. An article RfC may help, if only to have something to point at when this dispute erupts again. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the "rape" was a bit over the top :-)  Yes, QP's arguments and yours were calm and cogent.  Perhaps a review of due weight is in order.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one that posted the "rape" comment, and you all can call it what you will but shit still stinks no matter how deep you bury it. The ridiculousness of removing any and all references whatsoever of even a minute (small, not the time) romantic, much less sexual, involvement with another man is unjust and is exactly what I called it. It went from pointing out homosexual relations to making it seem like "family" relationships talking mostly about his wife "mother of his children" (hello heterosexual agenda!) and his mom and dad! --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 03:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are missing the point. It is not about removing anything, or about any agendas. It is about balance, context and detail. Simply having a section that effectively says "JAMES WAS GAY" is overly simplified, misleading, and distorts the balance of the article, which needs to say a lot more about the rest of James's life as well. Several reputable historians have been unable to come to definite conclusions on this topic, or deemed the matter unworthy of detailed attention, and the summary here of the main article (Personal relationships of James I of England) should reflect that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Review of WP:UNDUE? Not quite sure who you are referring to here. There are two distinct (though maybe related) flavours of WP:UNDUE here. One involving the sources (LGBT history books could be considered a minority viewpoint here) and one involving the content (not favouring LGBT topics over other history topics). The connection is clearest when saying that the content balance of a general article should reflect the general sources. Are you saying that the general/specialist distinction is not clear, or not made in WP:UNDUE, or are you saying that people should read WP:UNDUE before commenting here? Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying that QP gave very good arguments for keeping the entire issue in balanced, historical context, taking into account knowledge of the bias in the sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:TALK]] reminder 

message: ::I read footnotes! Anyway, I've integrated the footnote. See what you think of this wording: "Throughout his life James had close relationships with male courtiers, in particular Esmé Stewart, 6th Lord d'Aubigny (later 1st Duke of Lennox), Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. There has been debate among historians about the nature of these relationships: "The evidence of his correspondence and contemporary accounts have led some historians to conclude that the king was homosexual or bisexual. In fact, the issue is murky." (Buckholz, 2004)[103] In Basilikon Doron, James lists sodomy among crimes "ye are bound in conscience never to forgive". (Sharpe, 2000)[104] "The same pattern repeated itself with these men [Carr and Villiers] as had earlier been the case with Esmé Stuart. The evidence suggests that both had a physical liaison with their sovereign". (Barroll and Cerasano, 1996)[105] As well as his relationships with his male courtiers, James married Anne of Denmark, with whom he fathered his children." Is that suitable as a temporary placeholder while Personal relationships of James I of England is brought up to scratch? Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is OK with me as a placeholder. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Works for me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also happy to sign off on that paragraph. Wow. It seems without the sockpuppets, we can actually come to consensus! Jeffpw (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I as well find this more acceptable. Thanks. --  ALLSTAR  ECHO 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general it is an improvement, but I think we all know there is zip actual evidence of any physical liason in the normal modern sense.  I would prefer emphasis on emotional relationships or dependence, for which there is ample evidence.  Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree. But can we say for now that this is OK as a temporary placeholder while work takes place on laying out all the sources at Personal relationships of James I of England and deciding what exactly to say? Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Thank you for reworking the paragraph, Carcharoth. I, too, see this as simply a placeholder and a show of your good faith. Jeffpw (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just edited the placeholder version to add details about the royal bedchamber that qp10qp mentioned above - something I'd forgotten about. I've just realised though that this may break the possibly fragile and hard-won consensus, so if people are happier reverting to the previous version, that is fine with me. I'll add it to the daughter article instead, including more of what qp10qp says above, and then when that article is satisfactory, we can return to include it here if it is deemed a necessary part of a summary of that article. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The "placeholder version"