Talk:Kenneth I of Scotland/Archive 1

message: The article currently states:
:He soon obtained the Pictish throne in 843 and became the first king to rule the Picts of Pictavia and the Scots of Dalriada.
which appears to be contradicted by List of Kings of the Picts, which links to Constantine of Dalriada, Oengus of Dalriada, and Drust of Dalriada as the kings from 789 to 837.  It seems to be the case that MacAlpin was not the first joint king, but was the first to unify the crowns, but I'd like to check this before changing the article.  Assistance appreciated. --- Charles Stewart 19:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kings of Dalriada and the Picts

message: Please see the discussion here:
*Talk:List_of_monarchs_of_Scotland#Direct_descent_from_Fergus_M.C3.B3r_to_Elizabeth_II
--Mais oui! 10:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Direct descent from Fergus Mór to Elizabeth II]] 

message: Let's begin by stating the blindingly obvious. Cináed is not the subject's name in Scots or Irish Gaelic as something as easy as clicking the interwiki links would have confirmed. To summarise, some possible names for this article per the various policies which might be applied are: 
* Kenneth IV of the Picts (chronologically the 4th Pictish king on WP whose name might be anglicised as Kenneth)
* Kenneth of the Picts (but none of the other articles actually use Kenneth, so ...)
* Cináed of the Picts (or Cináed either)
* Kenneth mac Alpín (fairly obvious if ugly)
* Cináed mac Ailpín (perhaps not so obvious, but consistent with usage elsewhere on WP)
* Kenneth MacAlpin (probably misleading as MacAlpin looks like a surname, which it isn't)
* Kenneth I of Scotland (except that he didn't rule Scotland and this isn't a common way to refer to him)
As you might like to know how other rulers from the same time and area are handled:
* Contemporary "High Kings of Ireland": Niall Caille mac Áeda, Máel Sechnaill mac Maíl Ruanaid plus Feidlimid mac Crimthainn
* Contemporary Welsh kings: Cyngen ap Cadell, Merfyn Frych ap Gwriad, Rhodri the Great i.a.
Before weighing with an opinion, keep in mind that any decision you make will need to encompass his brother and sons; whether Giric and "Donald II" should be treated as per the subject, or as below, is an interesting question. Although I'd be happy enough to put them in the following category, it appears that the present orthodoxy would make "Constantine II" the first king of something-other-than-the-Picts.
While considering the above, you may like to consider that "X of Scotland" is equally tendentious for all monarchs until some arbitrarily determined point in the 11th or 12th century (the accession of Edgar is plausible dividing line and less arbitrary than most). Naming policy tells us that rulers of "peoples" rather than countries "... should be "of the Goths", etc" (exception 3). Taking the subjects most famous grandson (possibilities for <name> include Constantine, Custantin, Causantín, Caustantín), the options might be:
* <name> II of Scotland (but he didn't rule Scotland, reliable sources say so)
* <name> mac Áeda (as Cináed mac Ailpín)
* <name> II of the Scots ("of peoples")
* <name> II of Alba (the name of the place he ruled)
* <name> son of Áed (more English than mac Áeda)
* <name> son of Hugh (even more English)
As you might like to know how other rulers from the same time and area are handled:
* Contemporary "High Kings of Ireland": Flann Sinna, Niall Glúndub and the unwritten Donnchad Donn mac Flainn
* Contemporary Welsh kings: Idwal Foel, Cadell ap Rhodri and Hywel Dda i.a.
* Contemporary rulers of England: Edward the Elder, Ethelweard, Athelstan of England, Edmund I of England 
* Contemporary rulers of York: Olaf III Guthfrithson, Olaf Cuaran and Eric I of Norway (Eric Bloodaxe surely) i.a.
Please feel free to add to the above options. Given the the default case of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) appears not to apply, if you are going to argue that it does, please explain why you believe that point 1 ("of modern countries") does apply and why exclusions 3 and 4 do not. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:50, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with your argument that because Kenneth did not rule over a modern country, the rule regarding English first names most commonly used is somehow voided. The policy does not state that 'if the monarch is the ruler of a country which no longer exists, less well known scholarly forms of their first name may be used'. The general rule of most common English name still applies. This is true for exceptions 3 and 4 as well. As for the second part, I'm fine with Mac Alpin, MacAlpin, I of Scotland or of the Picts. --Nydas 15:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the numbering of Scottish kings is wrong, dating kings from Cináed mac Ailpín is standard even among scholars who know it's flawed. I'm happy for the article to be left at Cináed I of Scotland. No Kenneth I I'm afraid. Although some users want to make wikipedia the standard of encarta, the wiki article is scholarly. Most of the "well known" English forms are redirects, so there's really no problem. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article naming

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
====Support====
#Support of course.  These are the best known names in English.  Even if academic specialist literature is moving towards the more Gaelic forms, overall usage remains firmly with the anglicized forms, and most general reference works (including the almost brand new and relatively academically respectable Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) still use the anglicized forms. john k 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support of course.  These are the best known names in English.  Even if academic specialist literature is moving towards the more Gaelic forms, overall usage remains firmly with the anglicized forms, and most general reference works (including the almost brand new and relatively academically respectable Oxford Dictionary of National Biography) still use the anglicized forms. john k 23:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Oppose; these anachronistic forms are against the usage of contemporary specialist scholars. They moreover bring huge problems of cognitive dissonance which would make the content of the articles look ridiculous. The articles should not be brought down in quality by abstract and thoughtless desire of some people (who have no knowledge of nor contribution history to these articles) to anglicize these names just for the sake of it. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: * Cinaed mac Alpin, Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 366  
* Cináed mac Alpín Who's Who In British History
* Kenneth I - Encyclopedia Britannica Online 
* Kenneth I - Columbia Encyclopedia 
:: Both of those articles are about 20 years out of date, and frankly childish in content, though the Britannica is mildy better than the Columbia. You'd think Britannica would have the money to get proper articles done. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedias

message: * It's Kenneth I in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, as well, but you'll have to take my word for it. john k 23:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictionaries

message: The list shows the form at the first mention in the text and at subsequent ones where applicable. This excludes academic works, course texts and the like. 
* Cinaed (Kenneth) I. mac Alpin - Harvie, Scotland:A Short History. (Oxford UP, 2002)
* Kenneth mac Alpín (Cináed mac Ailpín), known as Kenneth I then Kenneth mac Alpin - Magnusson, Scotland: The Story of a Nation. (HarperCollins, 2000)
* Cinaed son of Alpín (Kenneth mac Alpin) then Cinaed - Wormald (ed.), Scotland: A History. (Oxford UP, 2005)
* Cinaed mac Ailpín then Cinaed - Driscoll, Alba: The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland, AD 800–1124. (Birlinn for Historic Scotland, 2002)
* Cinaed mac Ailpín (Kenneth son of Alpin) then Cinaed - Foster, Picts, Gaels and Scots: Early Historic Scotland. (Batsford for Historic Scotland, 2nd edition, 2004)
Similar works omitted because they were not available include: 
* Houston & Knox, New Penguin History of Scotland (Penguin, 2002)
* Watson, Scotland: A History, 8000 BC-AD 2000 (Tempus, 2002)
Please add to this list. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent non-specialist histories