Talk:Union of the Crowns

message: I really don't know what to make of this article: it is either a bad translation from a foreign language, or  it has been written by someone who is not an native English speaker.  As a possible alternative, it might, I suppose, have been co-written by a panel of minor bureaucrats at the Ministry of Circumlocution.  It is so badly phrased that it breaks down at several points into complete incoherence.  Given the importance of the topic it is in urgent need of rescue.  I'm not sure if I have the time or the inclination.
Rcpaterson 00:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if I have the time or the inclination. Why not, if you think its so important?
Yes, I suppose you are right; its wrong to raise a problem and assume others will attend to its resolution-thanks.  Time is still an issue, though, but I will do my best.  I have to say, in fairness, that I would come as a 'resurrectionist' rather than a surgeon; the patient in his present condition is beyond saving.  I am, I should also say, new to this whole project, and am not sure if it is legitimate to submit articles to wholesale substitution?
Rcpaterson 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Bad Translation? 

message: Having found the time-and the inclination-I have built the ship anew.  It's an important story, worth telling and worth understanding.
Rcpaterson 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Union and Crowns 

message: I've reverted this to the original.  My reasons for doing so can be found in the talk page history of  Rcpaterson 00:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert to Original 

message: I've removed the Template:Inappropriate tone tag as it's worse than useless: it advertises at the head of the article the editor's vague personal opinion that the style isn't right, and links to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles which only mentions tone once, in the context of the option (NOT requirement) of using News style, which itself gives little or no guidance about "tone". There's a case for listing articles for cleanup to draw in help, and this can usefully be done with tags on the talk pages of articles, but this tag on the article itself is at best an irritation and insult to editors who have put considerable effort into improving the article. If you see faults in the article, the best things to do are to edit it, or draw attention on the talk page to exactly what problem you find.  ...dave souza, talk 11:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: Can I propose this is moved to something like "Union of Crowns (1603)", as there are many other such "unions of crowns"... the ones which spring to mind are the Scandinavian unions, the Spanish unions etc etc --MacRusgail 22:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: No citations after the first two sections. Alientraveller 18:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA fail

message: After much debate, the editors of the United Kingdom article seem to have settled on 1707 as being the foundation of the state (I note with concern though that this date lacks any external referencing, per official Wikipedia policy WP:VERIFY).
But this article - List of countries by formation dates - claims that the UK was actually founded in 1603 (again, completely unreferenced). Both articles cannot be correct, so which is it? Please come to the party armed with some proper external refs, because I am not sure if we can stomach yet another verbally diarrhetic Talk page splurge with largely consists of ad hominem attacks and statements of totally unsourced opinion. --Mais oui! (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of formation of the United Kingdom? 

message: see  --KarlB (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have attempted unsuccessfully to remove the :Category:British unionism, saying in an edit summary that the union of the crowns happened long before "unionism" raised its head. KarlB provides a link to an article which says "Asked to summarise the condition of unionism, a reasonably well informed student of British politics might respond that its fortunes have declined with those of the Unionist Party, the name of Scotland’s Tories during much of the 20th century, as the vigour of the Scottish National Party has increased. That would be true. But implicit in the answer is the belief that unionism is the antithesis of nationalism, and that the Scottish Tories, as Unionists, took their philosophy from the parliamentary union between Scotland and England in 1707, if not the union of the crowns in 1603. That would not be true." I see nothing to support the notion that "unionism" was at work in 1603. What do others think? Moonraker (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry I should have given more context; this is the relevant quote "As Mr Kidd reveals in his subtle and scholarly book, unionism and nationalism are not opposites. For most of modern times, they have been contented bedmates. Moreover, unionism is a long-standing ideology that predates by some 80 years even the union of the crowns;" --KarlB (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on unionism 

message: "For James, whose experience of parliaments was limited to the stage-managed and semi-feudal Scottish variety, the self-assurance — and obduracy — of the English version, which had long experience of upsetting monarchs, was an obvious shock."
I do not believe this dim view of the Parliament of Scotland is universally held by historians, so this statement is hardly a self-evident truth and could do with a citation, the tone is also less than encyclopedic.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.1.194.255 (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description of the Scottish Parliament 

message: It seems POV. For instance the following sentence "In the end the union of Scotland and England was to be successful but it was never a marriage of equals". It also does not cite any references. Tmfs10 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section Success of the union 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Union of the Crowns. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060509093540/http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/sitefiles/resources/1603.doc to http://www.ulsterscotsagency.com/sitefiles/resources/1603.doc
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1. "our realme wald receive na damage thair thorow, for in that caise Ingland wald not accress unto Scotland, bot Scotland wald acress unto Ingland, as to the most noble heid of the hole yle...evin as quhan Normandy came in the power of Inglis men our forbearis."
It would be nice if a translation was provided along with the text. That is not standard English.
2. "Consider it they did for several years, never drawing the desired conclusion."
Rewrite the sentence. The grammar is awful.
3. "all the poor people of the realm of Scotland".
This segment is biased and it lacks quotation marks (if it is a quote at all).
4. Under the "Symbols" section the fourth coat of arms is labeled "Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland, 1603–1707". Should it be labeled "Arms of the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of Ireland, 1603–1707"?
ICE77 (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and question