Talk:James VI and I/Archive 2

message: In the entry on Anne of Denmark, it says that the marriage ceremony was formalised in Oslo, Norway.  "In August 1589, she was married, by proxy, to James, the young king of Scotland, and their actual wedding ceremony took place in Oslo, Norway, on November 23 of that year."  Here it states that it was a few months later at Krondborg in Denmark.  Could someone throw light on this discrepancy, please?  King Hildebrand 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as it arises animosity of some Great-Denmark POV pushers, Norway at that time was yet an own kingdom (we would say "in personal union...") and not directly "a part of Denmark". Suedois 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anne of Denmark

message: :As much as it arises animosity of some Great-Denmark POV pushers, Norway at that time was yet an own kingdom (we would say "in personal union...") and not directly "a part of Denmark". Suedois 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Norway ever a part of Denmark, officially?  My understanding was that there was an effective state union, although officially the two always remained separate. john k 11:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Using a long title doesn't make something merely a personal union.  French Navarre was merged into France in 1620, but the Bourbon kings continued to be styled "King of France and Navarre."  Castile was a single kingdom, but its titulary including a huge number of different places the king was supposedly king of (Castile, León, Granada, Toledo, Galicia, Córdoba, Murcia, Jaén, the Algarves, Algeciras, Gibraltar, and the Canary Islands).  I think some kind of separate constitution is required for something to be a personal union.  But all of this has little to do with James I. john k 19:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark - Norway 

message: To say that James was 'despised' in Scotland for the attempted introduction of the Five Articles of Perth is far too strong.  Implementation met with a degree of popular resistance, but this did not in any way express itself in distaste for the king.
The more fundamental point here concerns a common misconception-repeated all too often in Wikipedia pages- about the form of church government in Scotland at this time.  While the Golden Acts of 1592 gave the appearance of establishing the Church of Scotland on a Presbyterian basis, the goal of Andrew Melville and his adherents, there were still individual ministers who had the title, if not the full functions, of bishop.  From the beginning of the seventeenth century, by the manipulation of parliament and the General Assembly of the church, James had reintroduced first parliamentary and then diocesan Episcopacy.  By the end of his reign the Church of Scotland had exactly the same Episcopal structure as its English cousin, with bishops operating  in all of the ancient diocese, including the archdiocese of St. Andrews and Glasgow.  The confusion on this issue is born from an inablity to distinguish Episcopacy, as a form of church government, from the liturgical practices of High Anglicanism, associated with John Whitgift, William Laud and the like.  The Scottish church was both Episcopal and Calvinist.  It was the attempt to move it in a more Anglican direction in the Five Articles of Perth that met resistance.  The Scottish Church did not become Presbyterian until November 1638, when the bishops were formally expelled by the Glasgow General Assembly.
Rcpaterson 08:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presbyterian Scotland? 

message: I must be missing something here-or admitting to a gap in my education-but I simply do not understand the link between James' wisdom and the gossip about his parentage.  Is this meant to imply that David Rizzio was considered to be unusually wise?  I am completely baffled.  Could this reference please be explained-or removed-as a matter of urgency.
Rcpaterson 05:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why the quote should not be included, so long as we indicate that it is not certain that Henri IV actually said it.  If he did not say it, somebody else did and attributed it to Henri, and probably not long after the time in question (because who would make up such a joke in, say, 1750? it wouldn't really be funny anymore.) john k 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, it depends on the context it was made (might Henri have kept a journal?) I have no particular convictions as to whether it is or is not true; I simply found it interesting when I read it and thought it should be mentioned here (after all, history revolves as much around the amusing little anecdotes as around the substantial and certain, and if the difference can be made clear then there is room for both).A.
As I have already said I have no problem with small asides of this nature: the problem arises when a supposition is transformed into a fact, as it was when I first noticed this.  Good history will always make place for kitchen gossip as well as grand documents.  The issue is always over that of inclusion: in other words, what is important and what is not.  I really do not want to belabour this, but a speculative reference to what Henri might have said about this or that is best included in a footnote rather than incorporated in the text, as Kenyon obviously did when he touched on the matter.Rcpaterson 22:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Solomon 

message: Surely the "glaring mistake" identified in this edit is in fact correct: that our man was James VI of Scotland until his death. I see the edit has survived for over a month, but I'm bringing the subject here for reconsideration. AndyJones 21:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "James I" only coming into serious use after 1685, I take it?  Speaking of which, was James II really called "James VII" in Scotland? john k 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, I figured he was called that de jure.  I was more wondering if he was called "James VII" in every day use, as well. john k 09:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glaring Mistake 

message: Throughout the article there are little or no citations, except for several references at the very bottom of the article. I have read the article many times and I know it is definitely worthy of being a featured article, but I have some questions about the content:
*Since it is a featured article, how does it get by the strenuous referencing requirements that most featured article candidates are denied as a result of? (ex. little or no citations in the main article)
*What referencing method was used for the article?
*Does anyone know the opposition or concerns raised when this article was just a candidate (for featured status)?
Thank you very much
-- AJ24 5:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urgent Questions! 

message: "Revisionism of King James has restored his reputation as an unfortunate king who simply fell short of some of his greatest achievements." 
This sentence, which I've copied from the article, doesn't mean anything. 
How can someone fall short of their own greatest achievements? Can someone who has read the particular books that are quoted here revise this muddly sentence? 
Or has someone editted out something vital?
--Amandajm 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherence... 

message: I can't understand the decissions made by some previous edittors of this article about what to cut and what to leave in.
It seems to me that speculatively and sensational material has been included to the expense of the more factual. 
I'm going to try to reverse some of that. Please check to make sure that I haven't ommitted anything accurate and vital.
--Amandajm 01:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing this article 

message: Hey there bornhj, sorry to delete the link  but it just seemed out of place, it appears later on in the article in context, in the first line of "personal relationships". I hope this clears explains why I deleted it. Cheers. Potters house 15:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Link 

message: I think I've made my position clear: the inclusion of extremist, opinionated religious websites is not appropriate in an encyclopedia article. The complainant is trying to use a particular, extreme NPOV source to speculate and digress in an inappropriate, unencyclopedic way. The version of the article for which comment was requested looks fine to me as it does not attempt to shift the terms of the discussion by including an extremist, biased source. Ben-w 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MedCab

message: Mediator: Addhoc. Involved Parties: Potters house, Engleham, Ben-w
Would any other involved parties add their name to the list.
Also could involved parties comment below on their views about this version of the article. Thanks, Addhoc 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't make it clearer: the issue is with the sources and basis for your assertions. You cannot use sectarian, dogmatic sources like "jesus-is-lord" as evidence; you don't argue from the bible here, you don't thrust your petty infighting about what Reverend Coston said to whom at the last synod into this article and attempt to skew the focues of what should be a dispassionate encyclopedia article. This is not a theological playground for your sectarian disputes and bible study. Ben-w 03:00, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: How about if I creat a new web page with the same information on it. Without the Jesus tag? Potters house 06:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bloody hell, it's almost like you're getting it! Yes, create as many web pages as you like, and put as much Jesus on them, or not, as you choose! Off you go and walk with Jesus and play with Jesus and worship Jesus and bicker about what you think Jesus said and do whatever Jesus things you Jesus people do. Just do it elsewhere. Ben-w 08:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ben-w, possibly next time, just say "yes that would be fine" or something. Addhoc 11:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, could we agree in this discussion, we should avoid disparaging any Wikipedian on grounds of faith or sexuality. Addhoc 11:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, also could we agree that in this mediation, we should avoid contravening the advice of WP:CALM... Addhoc 12:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This section is for the discussion regarding the mediation-cabal [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-09-01_James_1_of_England|case]] concerning the portrayal of his sexuality

message: Regarding the disputed section of this article, the following policies have particular relevance:
*WP:NPOV - extract below relating to viewpoints
::* If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
::* If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
::* If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
*WP:V - extract below is the policy in a nutshell
::1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources.
::2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor.
::3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.
In this context, the information that Potters house would like to include has to be demonstrably from a significant minority and published by a reputable source. Regarding the information currently in the article, this is being represented as the majority view and should be substantiated with reference to commonly accepted texts, which obviously would have been published by reputable sources.
Regarding the sources that Potters house has produced so far, I would suggest they clearly demonstrate a minority opinion. However, I am not presently convinced they demonstrate a significant minority that has prominent adherents. Regarding the current version of the article, I would consider the books (not websites) listed under 'sources' to represent the majority view and the website of Rictor Norton to represent a significant minority. In this context, I would suggest the opening sentence of this section should provide an introduction, instead of a quote from a significant minority source. Also, I would suggest that all of the material in this section should be fully supported by references including the somewhat vague image caption.Addhoc 15:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relevant Policy

message: I really think this is an excellent article. Johncmullen1960 15:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  congratulations 

message: What was his native language?  Had English become the main language of Scottish politics at the time?  Were Inglis and the various Gaelic languages still in common usage?  I was just wondering if language would have been a barrier to ruling both countries?  If the Scottish parliament wasn't speaking English at the time, could that have helped to delay the Act of Union for another century after James?  Thanks!  Boris B 08:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inglis/English with a unique accent, I'd say. His mother probably spoke French as her native language. Gàidhlig would not have been the language of the royalty at all, I don't think. Ben-w 09:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Inglis/Lowland Scots would probably have been his native language. As for the main language of Scottish politics this would not yet have been English English but still Lowland Scots. The last Gaelic-speaking monarch was his great-grandfather James IV. siarach 18:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  main language of Scotland 

message: "On the other hand, James’ paranoia over witchcraft eventually contributed, during the Parliamentary period, to the appointment of Matthew Hopkins, known as the Witch-finder General, and the execution of many people, mostly women, often for no greater crime than being widowed and owning a cat."
This sounds like Blackadder. Hopkins was active in 1646 by which time James was very dead.--86.20.247.36 13:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything you say contradicts the article. 1646 would be parliamentary period, as stated. Attitude's of some people can eventually contribute to events after their death. --Philbarker 12:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erm... 

message: At the risk of starting something unpleasant, again, I wish to point out that the well-intentioned denials that James was sexually involved with men has resulted in a huge amount of referenced material in order to prove the point, which no doubt it does. If one excludes the intro, there is pprecisely 1/2 as much space and far more references devoted to James' sex life than all the other aspects of his life put together.
We all know that wikipedia articles have a desired length. This one probably exceeds it already. 
This means that if someone wants to expand and reference significant aspects of James's life (other then who he slept with) there is no room to do so. Since all this interesting info has been gathered and written, my suggestion is that it is moved to a separate ppage James I's relationships. This follows the pattern of Leonardo da Vinci's relationships which likewise had swamped the main article. 
The fact that these section grow disproportionally is not the sign of an agenda on the part of some writers; it is an effort to prove those facts for which there is a great deal of evidence and for which some people have contrary evidence or simply find impossible to accept.
What I want to see here is a sufficient amount of documentation for James' relationship with Elizabeth I, the events of the Catholic uprising and his response to it etc etc etc. 
--Amandajm 23:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I created a new article and moved most of the content there. I had to delete many sentences that repeated things above. I think the Legacy section could be trimmed, too, because it is of less interest than the rest of the article. The Criticism and revisionism section is also excessive, and could be incorported, where appropriate, into the rest of the article. Brainmuncher 06:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  James's Personal Life 

message: From the article:
:It was said of him in the streets, "Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen" (Rex fuit Elizabeth, nunc est regina Jacobus), ...
They were speaking Latin, "in the streets"? Hehe. 70.20.136.170 08:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Viva regina Jacobus! You're right: it is street Latin, for "regina Jacobus" is ungrammatical, if my pitiful education serves me correctly. Brainmuncher 04:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the streets 

message: What do editors think of it? With all respect to the person/people who placed it there, I think it's unnecessary. It's also rather sloppily done and unclear, and Prince Henry is completely missing from it. Worst is the Anne Marie of Orléans "portrait", which I'm suspecting is an April Fool's joke. I'm all for deleting this whole section. Any views? qp10qp 01:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing that his eldest son is missing from it! I agree it should be removed. I've checked the pictures are in the articles, and added them where they weren't, except the strange faceless picture. I've queried that at WP:AN. I'll leave the image gallery there for a few days of FAR, and then remove it. Carcharoth 05:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The sloppiness lay in little stray lines sticking out of the framework, in missing relatives, in different sized images, and in the inclusion of one blurry image. Having said that, I am all in favour of your building this gallery. I don't think it should go in this article; but there's certainly a place for it on Wikipedia, and this article should link to it. qp10qp 01:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chart of descendants with portraits

message: After reading Personal relationships of James I of England, I need a reality check. Was this edit, where I removed vandalism, correct? And can you add refs from your books to that article as well? Carcharoth 01:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality check 

message: Hmm. I did mention this at WP:FAR, but forgot to look myself. I've been randomly looking through older versions, and some good material is there. Try this one for example. I'm now off to find the version that got promoted. Carcharoth 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And the handy "Article Milestones" template above tells me that this is the promoted version (or near enough, anyway). Carcharoth 01:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older versions 

message: I cut the "Styles" section. I've never seen anything like this in history books. The first bit is mainly covered in the article: the rest is fairly meaningless to me, and unreferenced. I place it here for appraisal:
==Style and arms==
Formally, James was styled "James, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc." (The claim to the Throne of France, which had been maintained since the reign of Edward III, was merely nominal.) By a proclamation of 1604, James assumed the style "James, King of Great Brittaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc." for non-statutory use.
James's English arms, whilst he was King of England and Scotland, were: Quarterly, I and IV Grandquarterly, Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); II Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland). James also introduced the unicorn, a symbol of Scotland, as an heraldic supporter in his armorial achievement; the other supporter remained the English lion. In Scotland, his arms were: Quarterly, I and IV Grandquarterly, Or a lion rampant within a tressure flory-counter-flory Gules (for Scotland); II Azure three fleurs-de-lis Or (for France) and Gules three lions passant guardant in pale Or (for England); III Azure a harp Or stringed Argent (for Ireland), with one of the unicorns of Scotland being replaced as a heraldic supporter by a lion.
qp10qp 20:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, nobody's ever seriously questioned it before - we've even got it agreed(ish) at our style guide... DBD 20:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't actually understand it, to be honest. It fails on jargon, and it fails on references. Do other encyclopedias have this? If it's important, I think it should go on its own page for "Style and Arms of James I". But if not reffed first, it would be deleted (standards have gone up); all the less reason for it to survive in a Featured Article.qp10qp 20:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it needs to be made a lot clearer and referenced, but if you look at the articles on royalty on Wikipedia, you will find a lot of this sort of stuff, and I think it is informative to a certain extent. What do you think is the best way to present this sort of stuff? Carcharoth 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. I can't ref it from my history books. If they don't bother with it, why should we? True, other monarchs' articles are lumbered with this guff, but perhaps some heraldry project stuck it in ages ago and no one bothers to challenge it. But this is FAR, where we challenge things. If it goes back in, it goes back in—I won't lose any sleep—but let it go back in referenced, per Wikipedia objection response. And let it be put in plain English by someone who knows what flory-counter-flory Gules are, for example (they sound like some kind of testicular gnocchi). Pictures would help, I should think. A separate page would give plenty of space for illustrations. qp10qp 01:25, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've convinced me that a separate article is best in this case. Illustrating such an article is a good idea. I found Royal Standard of Scotland (the specific lion rampant in this case, though the term has a more general meaning) and fleur-de-lis, while the harp stuff (azure a harp or, stringed argent) is simply Coat of arms of Ireland. The bit you cut already linked to heraldic supporter, and (nearly) to Unicorn#Heraldry. It should have, but failed to, link to azure, gules, or, argent, and passant and guardant. Tressure and flory are not written yet, though heraldry gives some idea what a tressure is, and Division of the field should say something about grandquarterly (which is an extension of quarterly). Obviously, getting original pictures of James's heraldic stuff will be nearly impossible, but it could be fun. Hopefully DBD will be able to say more about all this, as he mentioned a style guide. Carcharoth 01:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut "Style and arms"

message: I removed the House of Stuart infobox. It was in fact malformed. It was missing a "james1" parameter which makes it much neater and relevant to James I. The result is at right. My feeling is that the only useful thing is the coat of arms, as the children are already mentioned. Where shall we put the coat of arms? Carcharoth 14:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, yes, that's much more logical. Well worked out. Yes, that's much better. The coat of arms is nice, and much more helpful than the verbal version. I'd be happy to see this version go back in, with or without children. qp10qp 14:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question is, "where?" I tried several places, but it doesn't really seem to fit anywhere. Ideally it would go inside the infobox, but that is beyond my technical skills. Do you have a template wizard you can magic up? Also, see this and this. Carcharoth 14:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about in "Proclaimed King of England"? Since that's when the  combined arms would have been created. qp10qp 15:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Carcharoth 16:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Stuart infobox 

message: I swapped this picture (:Image:JamesIofEngland.jpg) for another one. I sense this one is a derivative of the picture in the infobox. By all means disagree. qp10qp 01:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They look like different pictures to me, but as there is no information on the other one, then we shouldn't really use it. I've tidied up the other pictures as best I could, giving artist and date(s) where known. Carcharoth 07:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's certainly one of a set of derivatives of something; there are other versions about. I always hate it when we're given no artist information because sometimes copies were made much later. qp10qp 13:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Swapped picture

message: I would be cautious about over-precisely defining when James came into his majority. I've referenced pretty well everything in the article, but not that sentence in the lead which states that he came into his majority at the age of fourteen. I have not found a book which says that: they all say something slightly different to each other and tend, quite rightly I think, to blur the issue. It is blurred, for example, by the fact that Morton lost control as regent for a while and later regained it, but then not necessarily with the  official title. Also by the fact that James did not seem to act as his own master when under the supervision of Lennox, though Lennox was not officially a regent. I'm still looking for a way of covering all the angles in that part of the lead. qp10qp 15:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear me. Is nothing simple about this story? :-) Blur away... Carcharoth 01:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Majority

message: One thing that would make things clearer is to gives birth and death dates for the non-modern authors. That would make it clearer when the article is quoting contemporary or near-contemporary sources, as opposed to modern-day historians. Not all the named sources are linked, so I don't know which are 17th/18th century historians, and which are modern-day ones. Would you be able to check this and clarify this?
:Is that important? All the sources are dated, so we know when the books were written. Why is the birth and death date of the authors significant? Insofar as there are a few "Nicolson wrote"... type quotations, they are referenced to secondary sources. In that case, the responsibility for the information devolves to the secondary sources, surely. Otherwise, we'd have to re-reference every reference; for example, instead of saying "James said so and so, Jones p 7", we'd have to say "James said so and so in such and such a letter, first published in such and such a volume, on such and such a page, in such and such a year". The reason that we don't have to do so is that the information will be traceable through the scholarly apparatus provided in the secondary source we reference. Can you give me an example of a historian who you can't tell is modern or old? We could clarify any like that, but we must beware of overdoing the trivial, a sure sign of amateurishness. qp10qp 16:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good points. I'll try and find specific examples to discuss. By the way, I think part of the reason is that I find it slighty tedious to go to a footnote and see "Croft" or "Jones" and then think to myself, "now, which book was that?" - and then have to scan the reference list. I've seen some articles do this differently, providing a further onwards link from the footnote to the "reference books list". See Charles Darwin for example. Would you object to something like that here? Carcharoth 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it done that way too, for example at Finnish Civil War, by adapting the Harvard Reference linking system to conventional noting. But I don't think it's generally required or particularly recommended, from the discussions I've seen. The inconvenience of looking up who wrote what is surely more than balanced by the inconvenience of increasing the awkwardness of editing. The present system is a standard one, as detailed in CMS (a guide recommended by our MoS). It has the great advantage of being extremely easy to do quickly while editing. We at least have the convenience on Wikipedia of having the book list available a few inches down the page. In a print book, we often have to turn to the back of the book to check the notes. One way to keep an eye on the references is to open another tab and just flick screens when you want to check something. However, if you want to change the system, do it (except, I beg of you, easy on the "ref name =", which will forever keep breaking since it depends on each set of references remaining intact and which does not admit of combining or variable quoting). qp10qp 22:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The links are broken for the Upton refs at Finnish Civil War. I see what you mean about it being difficult to maintain. I'll bin this idea. Thanks for pointing out the disadvantages. Carcharoth 00:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: No, it's the right Howard (I wikilinked him elsewhere); we'll make a Jacobean historian of you yet. I too looked at the page on crypto-Christianity, but it doesn't serve. We could certainly do with a page on crypto-Catholicism, but there are so many different terms. Recusants were those who refused to attend Protestant churches, paid the fines and were prepared to go to prison. A church papist was openly a Catholic but went to church just to avoid the fines. A schismatic was by conviction a Catholic but lived as a Protestant for a quiet life. A crypto-Catholic went to Protestant Church and swore the Oath of Allegiance but attended secret mass. It's pretty difficult to tell who fell into what category. qp10qp 16:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh. Jacobean historian! I like the sound of that. Do I have to wear the funny clothes? :-) Anyway, I took the liberty of linking the terms you used, and it looks like cryto-Cathlocism is the only one missing at the moment. Carcharoth 21:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, schismatic is missing as well. I suppose that was too much to hope for. Carcharoth 21:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble is, schismatic has a specialist meaning in this context. More generally, it refers to any schism in the church, of which there have been many. The ideal summary-style article would be "Catholics under James I", but it would be difficult to write because it's a nightmare of a topic. Life's too short. qp10qp 12:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of sources 

message: Was checking ague, which is a redirect to malaria, and this seems to say it is malaria. If this needs blurring as well, please do so! :-) I guess gout, arthritis and dysentry are fairly obvious and should be OK. Carcharoth 02:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, to me "ague" is just an old name for fever. I don't really know what "tertian ague" is, though: I noticed the redirect to malaria and decided that he was unlikely to have had malaria (not all Wikipedia directs are useful). I have changed the wikilink to a more appropriate wiktionary link. My opinion is that James probably died of one particular thing rather than suffering a ludicrous series of individual illnesses and attacks in one month. However, we are stuck with the frantic guessing of James's pompous quacks foreign physicians. (By the way, if you want a good laugh, read Mary Tofts.) qp10qp 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang! That is a classic!! I was involved in finding "Did You Know" tidbits for the Main Page for April Fools Day this year (eventually ended up with Serge Voronoff, though someone else did most of the work there), and that Mary Tofts article would have been perfect. To get on DYK, the article would have to be significantly expanded - do you think much more expansion is possible there? Getting back to James's personal physicians, one I came across the other day was William Harvey. From here, we have: "He was personal physician to James I (1618-25). After his and others' attempts to cure James of his fatal illness failed, he became a scapegoat for that failure amidst rumours of a Catholic plot to kill James, but was saved by the personal protection of Charles I (to whom he was also personal physician, from 1625 to 1647)." - would you have a source to back that up? Might only be relevant in his article, rather than here, but still interesting, especially the rest of it, with the famous story of Harvey looking after the royal children on the battlefield, hiding in a hedge and reading a book to them!! Even more fascinating is the story of Harvey being able to see a beating human heart in situ through someone's old chest wound, normally covered by a metal plate. Carcharoth 21:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I've had a scout, but can't ref it. William Paddy seems to have been the physician at his bedside when he died. A dodgy geezer called Theodore de Mayerne was fussing about a bit, too. qp10qp 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! "Let's poke this bit here" <screams> "Oops." <next, please!> Is the bit about Harvey being personal physician completely wrong? Carcharoth 23:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Not necessarily. I picture a whole gaggle of them, one for each illness. They were all on high salaries—no wonder he was broke. They bled him dry. qp10qp 01:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archaic disease names 

message: Given the Kings purported male relationships are not particularly controversial (See in particular  this section) it seems natural that the article be included in the category LGBT history of the United Kingdom. The continued removal of the categoty and claims that replacing it is "Vandalism" seem a little odd. Artw 20:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are just another in a long line of homotrolls.  Don't need that kind of junk here.  Lord Loxley 20:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you care to A) Be WP:CIVIL and B) explain exactly what you mean by that? Artw 21:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you care to just drop the matter entirely?  Lord Loxley 21:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why this article wouldn't be in the WikiProject.  The project doesn't limit itself to people who were gay; it includes all articles of interest to people who study LGBT issues.  King James I is certainly of interest to people who study LGBT issues.  Adding the article to the project isn't the same as declaring him gay, and removing the project tag is a misunderstanding of the nature of WikiProject LGBT. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha, this paraphilia of gay royalty or aristocracy, cover ups, conspiracies and the like just always finds itself distorting the proper value and dignity of Wikipedia articles, against due weight.  In fact, nothing matters to such people other than the mere whisper or insult that the person in question could be in fact, a flaming homosexual or one in the closet.  This article is supposed to be serious history on matters of state, not a field day for perverts.  Lord Loxley 21:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder, could you please discuss the question politely and clearly, keeping your reasons focused on Wikipedia policy rather than impassioned arguments?  I certainly interpreted what you just said as a personal insult, but it didn't really include any cogent reasons to remove the WikiProject LGBT Studies tag from the article. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You overestimate your standing here in playing coy or innocent.  The Queer Brigade has charged on through here several times to push their POV, which has been resisted each and every time...but they keep coming back.  You lot are no different.  Stop causing trouble.  Lord Loxley 21:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder who's causing trouble?  The person removing a WikiProject banner without an explanation?  Or the person politely asking for a reason?  -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You POV-pushing vandals have co-opted this page forever now, because people are afraid to counter you, with the usual "homophobe" epithet being thrown at them.  I am not afraid of standing up to your bullying tactics to push your POV in any and all articles about notable people, whom you wish to "drag down to your level" through sick and twisted fantasies of turning straight men gay.  Shut the fuck up and go away, once and for all!  Lord Loxley 22:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Discussion here for anyone interested. Artw 22:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wipe out the opposition, eh?  Classic!  Lord Loxley 22:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of the article in the category LGBT history of the United Kingdom