Talk:Malcolm II of Scotland/Archive 1

GA status pending

Several "king of scots" articles were nominated at the same time recently. They are all good quality articles, and meet the basic qualifications for GA status. However, part of the 'stability' requirement, in my mind, is some consistency between sets of articles. I like Malcolm III of Scotland the best, in structure and use of the Monarch infobox. If editors wouldn't mind going over that first article, and then making any adjustments they feel are necessary here, as well as bringing over a version of the monarch infobox, I'll promote this article and Malcolm II of Scotland right away. Thanks! Phidauex 23:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a Good Article

After a review, I'm promoting this article to Good Article status, based on the qualifications. It is impressively referenced, well written, and fairly comprehensive. Keep up the good work. If you want more clarification on my reasons for promotion, please leave a message on my talk page. Phidauex 15:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell?

How did all the early Scottish monarchs articles get moved to Gaelic titles with no discussion. It is completely absurd to have Charles II of Spain and William II, German Emperor and then to have these monarchs listed under their Gaelic names. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) clearly indicate that we are to use the most used name in English. For these monarchs, the most used names are the Anglicized forms, and always have been. john k 03:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They don't all have Gaelic names; most of them have the names they've had since creation. Certain of the articles were moved more recently to bring them in line with their content, which no one had ever objected to. Baffles me why people such as yourself, who never contribute or read these articles, suddenly get all active when article titles have been brought inline with the content they've had for ages. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 04:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

PatGallacher clearly did object to the content at Máel Coluim III. There is no rule in wikipedia that I have to contribute to an article to be concerned about its name - you and Angus don't own the articles because you've contributed to them. Beyond that, it was you and Angus who changed the content, and it was you who moved all the articles. I don't see how it's legitimate to say that you were just trying to "bring them in line with their content." The content was already written in a way which was against the naming conventions. john k 11:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, PatGallacher has not commented on the current version of the article which was revised comprehensively beginning on 15 June 2006. He objected to this version of 30 July 2005 or one resembling it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, as I realized a short while ago. His objection would seem, nonetheless, to pertain to the issue at hand. john k 18:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And I admit, I have thousands of pages on my watchlist and didn't particularly notice this while it was just an issue of content. I only noticed it because of the List of monarchs in the British Isles page, which Angus had previously changed to show the Gaelic names, and which I had changed back, some weeks ago. I noticed that it had returned to the Gaelic forms, and looking at the history, I saw that Angus had done it, wanting to make the names be in line with the page locations. By what authority do you question my right to find this annoying and to question this decision, which was made without a single prior discussion? john k 12:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No authority, but it's not entirely all that convincing to hear you object to the name without having ever done anything with the articles. Seems clear that you wanna override scholarly sources to make wikipedia like encarta, and anglicize for the sake of anglicization. That's your business, don't expect the likes of me to be bowled over though. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not interested in anglicizing for the sake of anglicization. I'm interested in following the naming conventions that have been agreed to for sometime, whereby we use the most commonly used name in English. I have been involved in making sure that we not have ridiculous articles like Charles I of Romania and Peter II of Brazil. And you guys have as yet provided precisely zero evidence that scholarly sources predominantly use the Gaelic names. Angus has intermittently listed some sources that use the Gaelic names, but that does not prove that even scholarly sources mostly use the Gaelic forms, much less that they are the most commonly used forms in English. One can find recent scholarship about pretty much any monarch that uses the native name rather than the traditional anglicized name. That doesn't mean that this form is now most common. john k 15:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't mean that, but it is the most common. I can't do your reading for you. You'll have to do that yourself. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You can, however, cite sources. Google Scholar and Google books both seem to suggest that you are wrong. john k 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Those resources have hardly any of this literature indexed, why on earth would these be used a basis for judgment? Though I resent being your slave, when I have the time for this I will again "cite sources" for you. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You are not my slave. You have moved articles from their longstanding location with no discussion, and without presenting any evidence as to why this is a good idea, and you've responded to challenges to this by being arrogant and repeatedly calling me ignorant. It is your responsibility to cite sources. Google Scholar, I will note, does seem to search JSTOR, which includes most major historical journals up to about 2000. I'd be happy to do a proper JSTOR search, if you'd like. john k 17:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No Scottish or Celtic history journal - though there are plenty of them - is on JSTOR, as I know to my sadness. So why would that be useful? I've presented evidence plenty of times; just because I didn't run it past you doesn't I haven't written about it. To be honest, I've spent too much time writing about and arguing about names, because to some this means more than article content. And I've never called you "ignorant", although I have pointed out your lack of knowledge and contribution history in this area. This is perfectly legitimate, because you wish to advance a certain view against those who do have knowledge and contribution history, and I have to have my time consumed because of this. No offence whatsoever is meant though. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:30, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The kind of literature that only scholars of Scottish or Celtic history would read is exactly not what our naming policies are supposed to be based on. If it can't be found in the English Historical Review and Historical Journal and American Historical Review and so forth, it is pretty blatantly not even the common usage of scholars, much less the world at large. And where have you presented evidence? When did you submit your position for general approval at Wikipedia:Requested moves? Could you please point me to where this was discussed ahead of time? john k 18:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaelic names are much better because Gaelic is the true language of the Scots and the language used by the persons mentioned (we'll conveniently ignore the fact that they are modern Gaelic spellings and not the historical Gaelic spellings). Anglicised names are just part of the imperialist and institutionalised Englishing of Scottish history. Just because this is the English language Wikipedia it doesn't mean English versions of names have to be used. Clanna nan Gaidheal ri guaillabh a cheile. Alba gu brath!

84.135.220.246 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This is precisely not the reason to move it, and is in complete and blatant opposition to wikipedia naming conventions. Are Philip II of Spain and Henry IV of France and so forth also part of the imperialist and institutionalised Englishing of Spanish and French history?? john k 15:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

If Gaels can have Gaelic names why can't Danes have Danish names? I expect achieving that would surpass even the powers of Konge Knut himself. Calgacus gu brath! 84.135.234.132 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

For heavens' sake! Let's just move them all back until a proper request for move is made and a vote taken. Deb 19:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the proper course of action to me. john k 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the spirit. Complain about a move you made being made "without discussion", then move it again during an ongoing discussion. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So, your argument is that you should get to move it without discussion, but that it can't be moved back unless there's consensus to do so? That's ridiculous. The articles should be at the locations they've been at for years until it's demonstrated that there's a consensus to move. john k 22:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, complaining about moves with no discussion and then moving during a discussion is just hypocrisy. There was a consensus; the only two editors who do serious work on those articles agreed, and it took a month for you to object, and go recruiting others who you know would prolly object. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Two other users have objected since the moves were made, and PatGallacher had already clearly expressed that he would disagree with your course a year before. This was obviously a potentially controversial situation, and you should have done a requested move. Also, if you'll look at the WP:RM notice that Angus has left, and what he has said in various other places, he does not particularly approve of the current names, either, preferring to remove the "of Scotland" aspect to it. So the current locations are supported by a consensus of one, apparently. john k 23:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

John, no matter what you or anyone else says our Keltic Kulturkampf (KKK) will continue. We will quote sources which prove us right and any sources that don't use Gaelic spellings are either out-of-date, uninformed, flawed or plain wrong or any other excuse we can think of for dismissing them. The use of Gaelic spellings is not the preserve of loopy nationalist historians from Scotland but clear, informative, and impartial historical analysis. Changing the spellings of the names of historical characters is just the start, claymore will soon be claidheamh mòr, kilt will soon be féile-beag. Places like Stornoway will become Steòrnabhagh, Inverness will become Inbhir Nis and Lochhead will become Ceann Loch, definitely not Lochheid, and we won't change Cologne to Köln, Hanover to Hannover or Munich to München cos they aren't Gaelic so we don't care or will find a suitable excuse not to do so. Siol nan Gaidheal, thig ar latha! 84.135.234.132 12:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Making jokes about the KKK is probably unwise. I see now that you have been joking all along. I ought have read your initial post more closely. Please do not disrupt wikipedia to make a point. john k 13:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

I have opened a requested move at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland. Please share your opinions there. WP:POINT probably, but I'm not sure it's me that's making the point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it a WP:POINT violation to oppose a move done by others by arguing about it on talk pages? A WP:POINT violation would be if I started moving articles on Greek monarchs to Georgios I of Greece, or some such. At any rate, did you list the thing on WP:RM? [ETA: I see that you did] I've filled in the to slots, as requested, and provided a brief summary of what exactly has been going on, which I hope is reasonably neutral. john k 23:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

(Update) The article has been restored to its original name. --Elonka 04:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although I am passing the article, I have given it a copyedit first and also appended a list of issues for the main contributors to consider below.

• Why is the Forranach name described twice in the opening paragraph? I recommend removing the first mention and then bolding the second. Did this myself.
• Watch the colloquial language: e.g. "Brian Bóruma, High King of Ireland, was very far from being the only king in Ireland" should be simply "not the only king in Ireland." and "It should be said that whatever the Irish annals say, English and Scandinavian writers appear to see Macbeth as the rightful king of Moray: witness their descriptions of the meeting with Canute" is almost conversational in tone. "another man who might some day be king," is a bit melodramatic. I have dealt with all this myself in a copyedit.
• The lead should introduce the king, not give a lengthy explanation of the bounds of his kingship. That should be reserved for the main body of the article and replaced with a summary of his life and his lasting achievments.
• Is there any information about Malcolm's parentage, ancestry or youth besides that in the lead? The main body of the article begins with his rise to kingship and misses information on these points. Anything in the lead should be repeated and developed in the main body of the article.
• "It has traditionally been supposed . . ." - by who?

The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)