Wikipedia:Featured article review/James I of England/archive2
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Nikkimaria 02:32, 19 October 2011 [1].
James I of England
James I of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland, Wikipedia:WikiProject London, Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity, Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject United Kingdom (automatically by User:AAlertBot); User:Qp10qp, User:Ian Dalziel
WP:NPOV is a core policy of wikipedia and a featured article should exemplify that policy. Currently this article does not. James VI of Scotland ruled Scotland for nearly 36 years before becoming King James I of England. As a result modern scholars typically refer to him now as James VI and I. The article has been nominated several times for a move to reflect the modern name but this has been blocked each time. The comments of those blocking such a move reflect a desire to stick with the most common English name, they forget that Scotland is also an English speaking country and the majority of sources reflect a historic systemic bias in favour of the English name that downplays his Scottish roots. Comments also suggest that wikipedia should not be at the forefront of reflecting modern usage, which to my mind is a fallacious argument as wikipedia should strive to meet WP:NPOV and this is precisely why the modern nomenclature has changed. As the article title clearly fails NPOV I do not believe it should continue to hold FA status and it should be removed. In addition, FA status requires that the article is free from disagreements and the continuous nominations to move to a name reflective of modern usage demonstrates this article no longer meets that criteria. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See the (now failed) move proposal at Talk:James_I_of_England#Requested_move; this is part of the protest that the article title is "totally unacceptable to the Scottish point of view."
- My response to that was that our articles should be totally unacceptable to all contending national points of view; I stand by it. In any case, this has been dealt with on the article talk page, the appropriate forum; the claim that modern scholars typically refer to him now as James VI and I has been repeated several times in that discussion - and remains unsubstantiated. This ngram is tolerably indicative; a JSTOR search lowers the ratio to 23:1 in favor of James I. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No this is a response to the fact that the article is being held at a name that is at odds with modern nomenclature. I first raised this a year ago and have tried to have the problems with the current status recognised. The response has been for a group of largely English editors to denounce anyone proposing a change as a "nationalist" and insisting they didn't want to see wikipedia at the forefront of addressing national sensitivities that arise from a systemic bias in British literature towards English nationalism. Were I to be arguing from a Scottish nationalist viewpoint, I would insist on the use of James VI. But I'm not, from the outset I and others were prepared to accept a compromise suggested by modern nomenclature. The above comment that this is not reflective of modern usage is untrue. In recent years the use of James VI and I is more prevalent. The claim that this wasn't substantiated on the talk page is a false one; it was. It was simply ignored. Wikipedia should be promoting a NPOV, I raised the issue as one of reflecting modern usage, instead it has been turned into an issue of nationalism. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It escapes me why any Scottish editor would expect a fair hearing in Wikipedia discussions. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. As soon as an editor is identified as a Scot interested in Scottish affairs, they are immediately identified as a "nationalist", and roundly denounced as such. WP:NPA seems to have a secret clause indemifying those who wish to slander Scots editors. Of course, it never appears to occur to folk that English nationalists and British nationalists might be damaging the project far more than a few stray Scots ever could.
- IMHO it actually suits Scottish nationalists down to the ground to have this monarch's article located at such a plainly ludicrous title. Anybody truly interested in the future of the Union would vociferously oppose all such blatant Anglo bias on the Wikipedia project. That nobody ever does speaks volumes. Mais oui! (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No this is a response to the fact that the article is being held at a name that is at odds with modern nomenclature. I first raised this a year ago and have tried to have the problems with the current status recognised. The response has been for a group of largely English editors to denounce anyone proposing a change as a "nationalist" and insisting they didn't want to see wikipedia at the forefront of addressing national sensitivities that arise from a systemic bias in British literature towards English nationalism. Were I to be arguing from a Scottish nationalist viewpoint, I would insist on the use of James VI. But I'm not, from the outset I and others were prepared to accept a compromise suggested by modern nomenclature. The above comment that this is not reflective of modern usage is untrue. In recent years the use of James VI and I is more prevalent. The claim that this wasn't substantiated on the talk page is a false one; it was. It was simply ignored. Wikipedia should be promoting a NPOV, I raised the issue as one of reflecting modern usage, instead it has been turned into an issue of nationalism. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an ngram expert but surely this is comparing James+VI+and++I with all "James I"s when the comparison should be "James VI and I" with "James I of England", which gives a more equivocal result. Nor am I an FA review expert. I don't support the article's current title, the controversy over which is evident, but whether this is an appropriate topic for an FA review I don't know. The complaint is that the article title, rather than the article itself breaches FAC 1 (d) neutral: i.e that it fails to "present views fairly and without bias". I wonder if there is any precedent for this - in all honesty I probably wouldn't promote a GAC in these circumstances, but then as Peter Cook might have said I am a proven Scot and my views are subject to the appropriate discount. Ben MacDui 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- FA articles have to be free of bias and controversy - this one is neither. At the moment it couldn't be promoted to GA class, never mind FA. Wee Curry Monster talk 18:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, but you are wasting your time trying to reason with these folk. Just let them learn the hard way. In the meantime: work as if you lived in the early days of a better nation. ie. create new high quality content, and let the idiotic depths of Wikipedia stand as testament to the basic flaws inherent in the project. (Of course a POV title is an automatic FA fail.) --Mais oui! (talk) 19:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate query: is the title the only point on which you assert this article does not meet the FA criteria, or are there POV issues in the article text itself? It is incorrect to assert that "FA status requires that the article is free from disagreements" - perhaps dispute resolution might be a more fruitful avenue to resolve these disagreements, but their existence does not necessarily preclude FA status. If this nomination does proceed, significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects will need to be notified. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also like editors to comment on whether the title meets criterion 1a: is it professional to use a title that is offensive to some of its readers? What title would a modern international professional encyclopedia use? DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, you effectively hit the nail squarely on the head. A modern professional encyclopedia would use the term James VI and I, as you yourself demonstrated on the talk page. In its current state I don't believe it would pass GA status never mind FA. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I repeat: is anything other than the title a concern here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to my knowledge. Ben MacDui 18:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should not have featured status in my view until the title is corrected. James VI of Scotland is the correct title in my opinion. He served in Scotland many years before becoming King of England. It has been my experience that it is taught in U.S. High Schools and Colleges in that manner. If not I would propose BOTH NAMES IN THE TITLE (but preferably) a re-direct for James I going to James VI. (Incidentally, I am an American and not of Scottish descent.) These accusations or hints of nationalism are in very poor taste in my opinion. One thing Americans would not tolerate. Mugginsx (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Nikkimaria, two things are of concern, first of all is the title. Its far from neutral, does not fit in with the modern context and reflects a historic bias toward English history; one of the main reasons the title usage has changed in modern historical textbooks. The second is that whenever the subject is broached on the talk page, the discussion degenerates into accusations of Scottish nationalism - despite the fact that the name proposed is actually a significant compromise from the Scottish nationalist position - which would be to demand James VI of Scotland. This means that in effect there is a permanent controversy hanging over the article and the move is regularly suggested and rejected. Thus I don't see it meeting the FA criteria anymore. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to correct a misconception that is apparently rampant in this review - controversy or extensive talk page discussion/argument does not preclude an article from being a FA. The criteria (1.e "stable") reads "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." In the history going back six months I see no edit warring and only some ongoing touchups by various authors - no significant changes. So, as non-controversial is not a criteria and there has been no edit warring or significantly changing content, this is a moot point. The FA criteria doesn't care what is on the talk page, it only cares about what's in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So, what you are saying is that by being good wikipedia editors and not disrupting the article and seeking a reasonable compromise, that FA criteria about stability don't reflect the very real controversy that exists. Do you really mean that? Seriously that positively encourages disruptive behaviour. I find that difficult to accept.
- Anyway the main criteria considered is 1(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;, it currently doesn't. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also not consistent with other titles Wikipedia:List of policies specifically in other English speaking countries. Mugginsx (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to correct a misconception that is apparently rampant in this review - controversy or extensive talk page discussion/argument does not preclude an article from being a FA. The criteria (1.e "stable") reads "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process." In the history going back six months I see no edit warring and only some ongoing touchups by various authors - no significant changes. So, as non-controversial is not a criteria and there has been no edit warring or significantly changing content, this is a moot point. The FA criteria doesn't care what is on the talk page, it only cares about what's in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to Nikkimaria, two things are of concern, first of all is the title. Its far from neutral, does not fit in with the modern context and reflects a historic bias toward English history; one of the main reasons the title usage has changed in modern historical textbooks. The second is that whenever the subject is broached on the talk page, the discussion degenerates into accusations of Scottish nationalism - despite the fact that the name proposed is actually a significant compromise from the Scottish nationalist position - which would be to demand James VI of Scotland. This means that in effect there is a permanent controversy hanging over the article and the move is regularly suggested and rejected. Thus I don't see it meeting the FA criteria anymore. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments
- The article doesn't belong at FAC because of a title dispute. There are other ways to handle this issue. Those who disagree will have to live with the the gathered consensus.
- There were some criteria 3 problems that I fixed.
- The only thing I can say that needs work are 2c issues for uniformity of references. There are some missing retrieved on dates but overall the problems are very minor. Brad (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brad, I acknowledge your extensive work on Wiki. I would like to know why you think the article title is not important? It is what people all over the world think first to search under. It is about the main body of work in the article. It is what the subject of the article is important for. This man was monarch of Scotland for just months short of 58 years and monarch of England for 36 years. He achieved great things in Scotland. I would assure you that there are many highly educated English speaking people who, except for some small exceptions, do not consider English History more important than that of Scotland. To be sure there are great things about both countries but this article is much more about James VI than James I. The fact that he was a Scottish monarch first, that there is a considerably more information about his Scottish achievements and that with his background. wisdom and achievements as a Scottish monarch he brought together both countries should, I think, make it evident that the article is about "a Scottish King" who also became an "English King". For this and some of the more eloquent opinions listed here and elsewhere which, in some cases, have been responded to in a condescending and even prejudical manner, I think it should be abundantly clear that the article title IS IMPORTANT, that this man was a Scottish King who also became King of England and therefore should be entitled James VI. In Wikipedia:List of policies under Content: Article Titles it states: The ideal title for a Wikipedia article is recognizable to English speakers, easy to find, precise, concise, and consistent with other titles. This title does NOT meet that criteria. Mugginsx (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closing - WP:DR is the correct route for this dispute, not FAR. There was a requested move which was unsuccessful; that in and of itself is not justification to go to FAR. Disagreements on the talk page, regardless of the protests above, do not cause the article to fail the stability criterion (and while I'm sure no one here would do this, editing the article with the specific aim to cause it to fail the stability criterion would be cause for a block). There are no major problems with the article text; it is only the title that is in dispute, and this venue is simply not equipped to deal with that. Find someplace that is. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.