Talk:Constantine II of Scotland

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 23:53, 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 15:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Constantine and Æthelstan
I don't recall having seen the charter evidence of the link between Constantine and Æthelstan before Woolf mentioned it, but checking I now see that the PASE (here) associates Constantine with the witness to S426 and S1792 (not on Anglo-Saxons.net yet?). Just thought it was worth mentioning. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions
Here are a few as requested.

Sources

While the sources for north-eastern Britain, the lands of the kingdom of Northumbria and the former Pictland, are limited and late, those for the areas on the Irish Sea and Atlantic coasts—the modern regions of north-west England and all of northern and western Scotland—are non-existent, and archaeology and toponymy—the study of place names—are of primary importance.


 * Surely-too--many-hyphens-?

Pictland from Constantín

Constantín's family dominated Fortriu from at least 789, and, if Constantín was a kinsman of Óengus mac Fergusa, from around 730.


 * Don't like ", and, "

Locations in north Britain in the early tenth century.png
 * Not the clearest of maps. If the dotted lines and 'A' and 'B' were yellow it might help.

In Ireland, Flann Sinna, who was married to Constantín's aunt, dominated the land.
 * 'the land' redundant?

the arrival of new groups of Vikings from northern and western Europe was still a commonplace
 * redundant 'a'

Early life

Domnall's reputation is suggested by the epithet dasachtach, a word used of violent madmen and mad bulls, used of him in the eleventh century synchronisms
 * 2 'used's

Vikings

The next event reported by the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba is dated to 906. This records that
 * missing colon

Others have suggested that the ceremony in some way endorsed Constantín's kingship, suggesting a link to later royal inaugurations at Scone.
 * 2 'suggests'

n its report of these events..[47]
 * duplicate period

Æthelstan

but before Æthelstan and he could fight Sihtric
 * but before Æthelstan and he could fight, Sihtric

Abdication
 * Céli Dé is a redirect

Chronicle of the Kings of Alba says:[Máel Coluim] plundered the ?
 * may also need quote marks or blockquote.

Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  20:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks! I'll get on to those. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I left Céli Dé as the redirect: Culdees, to me anyway, suggests C19th religious gentlemen arguing over who the rightful heirs of Patrick/Columba/etc were. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds a bit like some of my best friends.

Further tedium

 * Note 6 - MacQuarrie?
 * Note 23 missing space after 283
 * Note 33 dodgy italics
 * Note 43 no page no.

Refs:
 * CELT lower case 'volume'?
 * The ubiquitous Orr - duplicate link
 * Bannerman - lower case 'relics'?
 * Driscoll - not clear why ' The Making of Scotland' is neither italicised nor in quotes.
 * Dumville - possible dup of Taylor below?
 * Murphy & Ó Corrain - no retrieval date
 * Ó Corrain = Donnchadh with 'h' . Annoying Gaelic accent missing on 'a' of Corrain
 * Hart, Hudson & Radner retrieval date not linked per Notes

Q. Does 's.a.' stand for something that may be asked to be spelled out in the FAC room? Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reading the list "[Vv]olume 1" is wrong, it should be the dates. Duplicate link gone: cut and paste is too easy. The "relics" is in lower case in the original. I'm not sure why it doesn't italicise the series names "Making of Scotland" or "The New Edinburgh History of Scotland"; I could remove them and probably I will. For Dumville/Taylor (etc) I listed the article as well as the book it's in as that seems to be conventional. As for "s.a." it stands for "sub anno" and means "under this year in this annal". Nobody asked for it to be explained in any previous reviews, but that doesn't mean they won't ask next time! The access date thing is a feature of citation, fixed that. The two that worked use cite web.
 * If you've read it that closely, for which I am extremely grateful, was there anything that didn't make sense? I feel it's a bit anti-climactic. No, that's too weak: it doesn't have any ending, it just sort of stops. If was the Deacon, I'm sure there would be some incisive conclusions at the end for the reader to steal for their essay. But I'm damned if I can think of anything that's verifiable and interesting that I could add. The best I can find is Barbara Crawford having a snipe at writers who were supposedly turning our man here into a "patriotic king, such as Alfred the Great or Brian Boru, who saved their people and their culture from the depradations of the pagan invaders." But then I'd need to find someone who thought he did save "Scotland" from the Vikings, and this is all quite long enough without adding some straw men to knock down. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not going to try and add to Mike Christie's comprehensive comments save to say that I agree a family tree would be helpful. With regard to the ending, I rather enjoyed the pathos, but perhaps you could employ a final turn of phrase that emphasises the humility of his last years with the enduring legacy he left behind, e.g.


 * "The kingdom which began to appear in Constantín's reign continued in much the same form until the Davidian Revolution in the 12th century. As with his ecclestiastical reforms, his political legacy was the creation of a new form of Scottish kingship that lasted for two centuries after his death."
 * Ben MacDuiTalk /  Walk  14:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I stole your version. I've added a sad little family tree. No doubt there were better and easier ways to draw it. Thanks again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Some notes as requested. I know little or nothing about Scottish history in this period, so this is the viewpoint of someone new to the subject. I've numbered the comments in case that's useful in responding to them.


 * 1) The first paragraph of the lead is quite confusing.  My thought process is in italics in this copy of some of it: "Constantín's grandfather Cináed mac Ailpín (died 858) was the first of the family known to have ruled in Pictland.  (Where's Pictland?) His uncle Constantín mac Cináeda (died 876) was counted as the last king of the Picts; (Why do I care about his uncle, and the Picts?) his father Áed (OK, so that must be Constantín mac Ailpín's son) was killed in 878 by Giric mac Dúngail who held power for a decade.  (Where did Giric rule?  Alba or Pictland?  Well, must be Alba, since Pictland's last king was Constantín mac Cináeda.) Constantín's family returned in 889 when his first cousin Domnall mac Constantín became king. Domnall died in 900—the first recorded king of Alba—and Constantín succeeded him.  (Wait, Domnall is the first king of Alba?  Then what did Giric rule?)  Sorry if that's a bit harsh; I think the information in the paragraph is good, but I think there are a couple of key words or clauses missing that would straighten everything out for a novice like myself.
 * I banished that from the lead. They're good questions, but that's not the place to try and answer them. I hope this is ok.
 * 1) A family tree would be useful and might really clarify the lead, in which case it might be better to simplify the information in the lead and move it down to body text next to the tree.  If I understand the text correctly there are two people named "Constantín mac Cináeda"; if the standard way to refer to them is "Constantín son of Fergus" (and so on) then I'd put that in the tree.  The section titled "Pictland from Constantín son of Fergus to Constantín son of Cináed" really makes me think a tree is necessary.
 * Added a family tree.
 * I've struck this, but personally I don't particularly like the grey background to the names or the chequered grey background to the whole thing. However, I'm not very reliable on aesthetic issues so that's just a comment; others may not agree. Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the tinted boxes. I'm not sure how to get rid of the chequered stuff. I suspect it has something to do with the opacity of the background of my image. I'll try to get rid of that but no luck so far. If all else fails, I can try making it off-white.
 * 1) "the first of many invasions of northern Britain"; surely this needs more qualification?  I immediately think of Nechtansmere, and I know there are others; or does "northern" mean further north than that in this context?  Or is the context meant to be historically constrained to be post 800 or so, or even just Constantín's reign?
 * Took this out.
 * 1) This is a trivial point, but you might mention that his reign is 43 years at the point you mention its length; I went off looking for his reign dates in the infobox and it would be nice if it was right there in the article.
 * Done.
 * 1) How about a link to Culdee from Céli Dé?  (I see you link it in a later occurrence.)
 * I think it does, no? I'll check again.
 * 1) Can you add an adjective to "institutions which would last until Davidian Revolution"?  Are these institutions ecclesiastical, administrative, financial, judicial, all the above?
 * All of the above, supposedly.
 * OK - I would still prefer a word of explanation. I see ecclesiastical institutions mentioned further down, and one could regard judicial and financial as subsets of administrative, so how about "the ecclesiastical and administrative institutions"?  Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Changed, thanks.
 * 1) Capitalization error in a footnote: "Kings and kingship"
 * Done.
 * 1) "The earliest genealogical records"; does this refer to more than the Poppleton ms and the lists described by Anderson?  If not, I'd suggest just changing this to "These early" to avoid the implication of other sources you haven't mentioned.
 * They are from Irish collections, specifically the earliest is a genealogy of this Constantín's great-grandson Constantín son of Cuilén. It survived in Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh's copy of the Senchus fer n-Alban (in Trinity College, Dublin, H.2.7). On this point, there is enough information in Bannerman's Studies in the History of Dalriada to write a short article on TCD H.2.7. Unfortunately it isn't included on the ISOS manuscript site, or at least I didn't see it, so no nice pictures.
 * 1) I think an adjective or adjectival phrase to qualify "sagas" might be useful in the sentence that starts: "The value of sagas as sources of historical narrative".  I knew of the sagas, but didn't know whether any had been written e.g. by the Vikings in England.  Would it be accurate to say something like "The Scandinavian sagas occasionally refer to events in Britain, but their value as sources [etc.]"?
 * Thanks, done.
 * 1) "All this came to an end": perhaps "Fortriu's dominance" would be better?  "All this" sounds a little unspecific.
 * Changed as suggested.
 * 1) "the kingdom of Scotland, the founding of which is dated to 843": this is confusing though I suspect that it's the same confusion as with the lead and that there's nothing wrong here, I just don't follow it.  Specifically the use of the term "the kingdom of Scotland" seems in conflict with the material in the first paragraph of the lead, which implies the kingdom was called Alba at this time.
 * Still thinking about this.
 * I made a slight change. Does this help at all?
 * 1) "The record portrays Constantín as the last Pictish king." I think it would be nice to note which chronicle this comment refers to, though the note can stay in a footnote rather than the main text.
 * Made more specific.
 * 1) The map is good.  You might consider identifying the Moray Firth, and the Firths of Forth and Tay, since all are mentioned in the text.
 * Done.
 * 1) "married to Constantín's aunt": any reason not to name her here, rather than a few sentences later?  (Seems like the tree should include her, and maybe show the marriage to Flann Sinna though not his relatives.
 * Both done.
 * 1) "If he had been in exile, Constantín will have returned to Pictland": I think this should be "would have".
 * Done.
 * 1) I had to look up "synchronism", and even then I wasn't sure that the meaning I found ("chronological arrangement of historical events and personages so as to indicate coincidence or coexistence; also : a table showing such concurrences") was the right one.  If the word can't be linked to an explanation, perhaps a synonym could be used, or at least an explanatory parenthesis.
 * Removed. Someone should write synchronism (history) sometime, but until they do best to avoid it.
 * 1) "Constantín succeeded him as king": the contextual sentence supplying the date is back at the start of the preceding paragraph, so you might mention it here too.
 * Done.
 * 1) "the death of Ímar grandson of Ímar": is Ímar their leader?  If so, I think it should be mentioned; if not, why is he named?  Could we also say where he comes from -- e.g. "a Viking leader based in Ireland" or whatever is the case?  He is mentioned again below: "under Sihtric Cáech and Ragnall, said to be more grandsons of Ímar"; so he's worth a few more words, though now it occurs to me that I don't know which Ímar the latter reference is intended to refer to.  The elder one, presumably, because of the grandson comment.  Is there a better way to disambiguate this?
 * A little bit of explanation added and we mention them in the lead with a link.
 * Looks good; I tweaked the sentence a little. Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "claims that Queen Æthelflæd, Alfred the Great's daughter": I think you can drop the "Alfred the Great's daughter" clause; that's mentioned above and it's not integral to this part of the narrative.
 * Done.
 * 1) "Uí Ímair": this name is only used in the section title: could it be glossed, please, and/or linked?
 * Done as above.
 * 1) "The northern part of Northumbria had probably been ruled by Ealdred son of Eadulf since 913, and perhaps all of the kingdom": I'd restructure that sentence if I were you.  The last clause is too far from the noun phrase it modifies.
 * Thanks, fixed.
 * 1) This sounds like an editing error: "the Chronicle of the Kings of Alba is alone in giving Constantín the victory, and left Ragnall in control of all or most of Northumbria".  It wasn't the Chronicle that left Ragnall in control; do you mean the Chronicle asserts that Ragnal was in control?
 * No, bad phrasing. Fixed that I think.
 * OK. I changed a comma to a semicolon. Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "a burh constructed at Bakewell in the Peak District from where his armies could easily strike": "from which" would feel more natural to me.
 * Agreed.
 * 1) "As 11 July was the feast of Saint Hildulf, this son is likely to have been Ildulb."  Er, I don't get it.  Can you explain this a bit more?
 * I've removed that, probably better to deal with that in Ildulb's article when I revise it.
 * 1) A general point that I've just noticed: the article uses "Constantín" throughout, but is titled "Constantine".  Shouldn't these be consistent?  (I've no idea which would be preferred, but the lack of consistency seems odd.)
 * See below
 * 1) "Edmund spent the remainder of Constantín's reign rebuilding the empire. [paragraph break] For the last years of Constantín's reign there is only . . ." I'd suggest rephrasing to eliminate the repetition of "Constantín's reign".
 * Changed.
 * 1) "the austere reformers Céli Dé movement": I'm not sure of the intended construction here, so I can't tell for certain, but should there be an apostrophe in "reformers'"? Or perhaps it should read "the austere Céli Dé reform movement"?
 * I think "of the" escaped there, redid it.
 * 1) Cellach is mentioned and explained twice, once in each of the last two sections.  The second mention could probably be terser; again a family tree would help.
 * Done.
 * 1) "The kingdom which begins to appear in Constantín's reign continues in much the same form until the Davidian Revolution began to create a new form of Scottish kingship in the 12th century."  I think the present tense in the first half of this sentence contrasts a bit oddly with the past tense in the second half, used to describe subsequent events.  I think it would be OK to put the whole thing in simple past tense.
 * Fixed, thanks.

That's everything I can see. Overall I think the structure is right, and the detail and sourcing all seem fine. This is a long list but it's essentially superficial. If all these were fixed I'd support at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks indeed Mike, that should keep me busy for a while!
 * As far as the name goes, the references are inconsistent. Personally, I'd have preferred Custantín, because that's the one version that there is epigraphic evidence for, but apparently the wonks at the Scottish Historical Review think that Constantín is best. It was Causantín before I started revising it again. As far as traditional naming goes - the tradition of all dead generations weighs like an Alp on the brains of the living, allegedly - until some point in the C19th, this chap was usually Constantine III. His predecessor - Donald II for most of the C19th and C20th - was Donald VI. It's a long story. It's also a long story on Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most now done, thanks again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've gone through and struck/responded; just three points left, one of which you're thinking about and one which is pretty minor. The remaining one is the article name.  I had a think about the equivalent situation in Anglo-Saxon articles, and I guess this is going to come up most often with saints, who often have an anglicized name that is different from the version used in historical scholarship.  Should Eormenhild be at "Ermenilda of Ely" or at "Eormenhild"?  If the historiography can't give you good direction, then it's certainly difficult.  But having said all that, it just seems odd to have one title for the article and a different name used within the article.  (In fact you don't allude to the historiographical issues at all; are they worth a mention, if only in a footnote?)


 * I think, if I understand the situation correctly, that the right answer would be a move to Constantín mac Áeda. That immediately makes everything consistent.  If "Constantine II" can really be defended, shouldn't you use "Constantine" throughout, not "Constantín"?  Mike Christie (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Or to Constantín son of Áed, but it was moved a while back: you can see the results here. I'm not inclined to waste any more time on it when the quality of argument won't rise above "what does the Columbia Encyclopedia call it?". If that means that the words in big letters at the top have no relation to the content of the article, that's something I can live with, especially here where the difference is not so great. There's no Manual of Style page concerned with the avoidance of cognitive dissonance. Probably just as well. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Holy cow. OK, I agree, it's not worth arguing about.  I like your comment about there being no MOS guideline on cognitive dissonance.  I think if you take it to FAC, I'd support on the grounds that the move debate wins the argument on the article title, but secondary sources win the argument on how to refer to the subject.  Mike Christie (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Names
My view of the names is on record here and there. On my anti-regnal-number side I have nearly all of the sources which were used to write the article, on the other there are mainly a heap of encyclopedias. I don't really care if this is Causantín/Constantín/Custantín mac Áeda or Causantín/Constantín/Custantín son of Áed, just so long as it's not the myth-perpetuating Constantine II. But perhaps we should just forget NPOV in this field and perpetuate outdated ideas: Scotland, founded 843 by Kenneth I, whaur's yer Wullie Shakespeare Alfred the Great noo?, etc.

Equally, it could seem like a point is being made rather untidily when Óengus mac Fergusa and Cináed mac Maíl Coluim are changed to Óengus I of the Picts and Kenneth II, but Constantín mac Fergusa and Eogán mac Óengusa are not changed at all. Then the section heading "Pictland from Constantín son of Fergus to Constantín son of Cináed" was left as it was, but the article no longer contained any reference to Constantín son of Cináed. And when I saw "Donald I" and "Owen I" of Strathclyde, I was quite sure I could distinctly hear the sound of an axe being ground. All that was missing was C's aunt being renamed Mary, and the "Iversons" being called Reginald and Godfrey, and we'd have been right back in 1850 or thereabouts.

If, as has been suggested, Gaelic names will be incomprehensible to our readers, someone will have their work cut out for them: Category:Irish kings must have between 300 and 400 articles in it and its subcategories. It would be strange indeed if Gaelic names were comprehensible if used of subjects one side of the North Channel or Druim Alban but not on the other. No doubt there's an argument to be made, but it won't be made by assertion. Still, it's good to see that the question is being discussed. Experienced editors would of course know better than to just revert back and forth, because that would be edit warring. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the rant. I sugggest, however, you give some consideration to those readers who are not familiar with the Gaelic forms, and who could consequently be expected to have trouble navigating the articles. Michael Sanders 15:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that you think "Scotland, founded 843 by Kenneth I, whaur's yer Wullie Shakespeare Alfred the Great noo?, etc" was a criticism directed at you. My apologies. It is not in the least aimed at you; self-criticism more than anything else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't find it offensive; I do find it an immature way to launch into an objection (I also find the remarks about axe-grinding an example of bad faith). Michael Sanders 19:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the rant: I see you intend to have an amiable and reasoned discussion then? ;) 81.129.30.212 (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have already given my discussion (see User talk:Mike Christie). These articles have to be more accessible to everyone. Referring to predecessors by patronymics only, using names that aren't actually used in the titles in the main body of the article...it makes these articles very inaccessible to anyone not familiar with the subject already. And we want these articles to be useful to those that don't know about the subject already. It has nothing to do with Anglocentrism or Victoriana, it has everything to do with the fact that you cannot use foreign or obscure or confusing name or language forms in an encyclopaedia whose readers are primarily speakers of British English. These articles have become niche, perceived as editable only by Scots, and that is unacceptable. Angus, you've seen other projects - should we have an article entitled "Philip IV of France" which then consistently refers to him as "Philippe le Beau", and everyone else by their epithets? These articles need to be standardised with the rest of wikipedia, and internally consistent, and give the impression of being informative...because at the moment, the attitude appears to be one of "we say it's like this, if a reader can't figure out the difference between Cinaed mac Mael Coluim and Cinaed mac Dubh, he must be an idiot." Michael Sanders 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mickie, I hand it to you, you've put a good argument for not omitting the standard anglicizations in the opening line. You've convinced me at least they should stay. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They should be used throughout the article. It's ludicrous - use the English title for the article, and then consistently use the Gaelic form in the article body? Why do you do that?


 * Because it was decided that Gaelic article names were too inaccessible.


 * It is remarkably inconsistent to use English article names and Gaelic names in the text. All that does is give the Scottish articles a bad image, as a niche of eccentrics not bothering to keep them in line with the rest of wikipedia. Which is not true, you only have to look at this article to see someone's done a brilliant job - it's just a shame that they didn't consider that "Constantine mac Fergus" and "Constantine mac Cinaed" and "Constantine mac Aed" aren't terribly useful reference points to anyone not already familiar with the subject.


 * You are here to impart information, and you are meant to impart that information to Scots and non-Scots alike. I would sincerely hope that you do actually care about the non-Scots. Michael Sanders 15:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually Michael, 99% of Scots would find the Gaelic names incomprehensible too. It's only a tiny minority of Scots that would understand them, but they have their own encyclopaedia here [], so what's the problem? 91.105.202.227 (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Could we avoid using terms like "ludicrous"? I don't think any of the opinions here are ludicrous, though one opinion might be more supportable than another.  Even insupportable arguments are better opposed by reason than by characterization, in any case.


 * It's certainly true that I find the English forms of the name easier to remember. I was unfamiliar with any of this history before I read the article, and did not have any preconceptions that "Constantine" was the natural name, but the unfamiliar Gaelic forms are a bit more difficult to parse.  However, if current reliable sources are using Gaelic forms, then readers who start here and go on to the references are going to be confused too, because they won't see "Constantine" or "Donald" (etc.).  Our job is to reflect current usage.  Here the difficulty is that common usage in popular culture is not the same as common usage in reliable sources.  Is there a relevant naming policy that can be cited? Mike Christie (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be Naming conventions (use English). Michael Sanders 15:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't address this very well. Going with what recently published reliable sources use is what I would do. Haukur (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Sanders seems to believe this conversation is going his way, and is citing it as he wages a revert war on all these articles. Is there some secret writing here that anons can't see? 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Borderline cases: Some cases are less clear-cut. There is a trend in part of the modern news media and maps to use native names of places and people, even if there is a long-accepted English name. For example, US newspapers generally refer to the Olympics in Torino even though most English texts still call the city Turin. However, newspapers in other parts of the English speaking world still use Turin. One should use judgment in such cases as to what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead." Most readers would be more surprised by "Constantin mac Aeda" than "Constantine II of Scotland". Michael Sanders 16:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Most users would never have heard of these kings, Mickie. I don't think "ask any New Yorker" how he refers to Constantin mac Aeda is really gonna work. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You cannot justify obscurity by arguing that most people won't have heard of these people. If you make the articles inaccessible, that can only continue. If we're playing "ask the New Yorker", is the average New Yorker more likely to be comfortable navigating through "Constantine II" or "Constantin mac Aeda"? You seem to justify the previous state of these articles on the basis that no-one other than those already familiar with them would care. Michael Sanders 16:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr Christie has more or less destroyed your argument, though he probably never intended that. Anyone prepared to read these articles will not benefit by being mollycoddled from the real forms, as he will encounter them eventually anyway. The ask a New Yorker argument destroys the premise that these kings are popularly known by anything. In reality, you think even people prepared to read these articles (which I doubt you have done) would be too stupid to follow some names from another culture. Well, these guys came from another culture so that's just what happens. Most English speakers who've advanced into the later years of high school are already used to this. The problem is in your head, and your solution is ultimately self-defeating. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * On the contrary: anyone willing to go to the text books may be assumed to have a certain level of knowledge regarding the Kings already, and so will be able to understand the textbooks used as sources here. On the other hand, we have to contemplate that there are editors who are not familiar with Scottish forms, but are familiar with the English forms.


 * Nor is this a matter of names in different cultural forms, but different languages: Gaelic. This is English language wikipedia. We use English language forms, and make sure that the articles are accessible both to those who know about these kings and those who do not. A reader unfamiliar with these kings cannot be assumed to be competent reading Gaelic name forms, and you would have to go a long way to find a non-Scot preferring "Mac Bethad mac Findleach" over "Macbeth". Michael Sanders 16:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An editor who can edit any of these articles decently will not be unfamiliar with these forms, as they are the dominant ones is the modern reliable sources. You keep making up all these fictional people. Maybe you'd be better writing a novel or something. Also, I have news for you. Those names are no more Gaelic than Æthelheard or Æthelwulf are English. A Gaelic speaker would be in little better a position. In fact, Constantin or Causantin is closer to Constantine than it is to Coiseam, which is the Gaelic form of this king's name. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "An editor who can edit any of these articles decently will not be unfamiliar with these forms, as they are the dominant ones is the modern reliable sources." What about those readers who simply want to learn about Scotland, and have trouble doing so when the forms used are unfamiliar. (And if, incidentally, these name forms are not catering to Gaelic/Scots users either, they are entirely unacceptable). Michael Sanders 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is the former group you brought up, i.e. the editor. I think the latter group, the readers, have already been well covered here. You should re-read the above. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really. A user goes to Malcolm III of Scotland expecting to read about Malcolm III of Scotland, not Mael Coluim mac Donnchada. The clumsy usage of Scots names in an English setting serves only to confuse, not enlighten. Michael Sanders 16:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah. A user just follows links. Only wikipedia editors with your views do the above. As for clumsy, clumsy is when non-anglicized medieval Scottish or Irish names float about in the same article as a few anglicizations. I believe Mr McLellan calls it Cognitive dissonance. As you'll know, even from browsing these articles, most of these names have no one anglicized form. Shall we call Áed Hugh, or Giric Greg"? And what shall we call Flaithbertach or Mael Petair? 81.129.30.212 (talk) 16:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the Kings have very well-established Anglicised forms: I believe Mr McLellan's complaint was he thinks them Victorian in association. Michael Sanders 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe you are avoiding the question and problem. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We have articles of various lengths and qualities on many of the subject's contemporaries in insular north-west Europe. The titles tell the story: Flann Sinna, Cormac mac Cuilennáin, Niall Glúndub, Donnchad Donn, Cathal mac Conchobair, Cerball mac Muirecáin, Muirchertach mac Néill, Congalach Cnogba, Ruaidrí ua Canannáin, Cellachán Caisil, Domnall ua Néill, Hywel Dda, Idwal Foel, Anarawd ap Rhodri, Cadell ap Rhodri, Rhodri ap Hyfaidd, Llywarch ap Hyfaidd, Llywelyn ap Merfyn, Merfyn ap Rhodri, Sigtrygg Caech, Ragnall grandson of Ímar, Gothfrith grandson of Ímar, Eohric of East Anglia, Æthelwold of Wessex, Ælfweard of Wessex, Alfred the Great, Edward the Elder, Edmund I of England, Olaf III Guthfrithson ... Not many regnal numbers there. How very odd. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Strange that Aelfraed the Mickle, Eadweard the Elder Aethelraed Unraed, Eadmund I, etc, aren't there. In fact, they appear to be using the forms most common in modern English... Michael Sanders 17:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not correct generally. See Æthelberht of Kent for example; older sources, church sources, and popular usage are likely to have "Ethelbert"; the article has its current name as a result of a discussion at the move request page.  Another example would be Cædwalla of Wessex.  This does appear to be the status quo, Michael, and though you're free to start the debate on changing it I don't yet see much agreement with you.  I also agree with Haukur that the policy you cite doesn't give a definitive answer; it refers to references and encyclopedias and those often will support Angus here. Mike Christie (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If popular usage gives Ethelbert, then it should be Ethelbert, per WP:Common name and Naming conventions (names and titles) ("Most general rule overall: use the most common form of the name used in English "). Similarly, if popular usage uses Malcolm III, Macbeth, and Kenneth MacAlpin(e) then that is what should be used. Michael Sanders 17:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael, to interrupt you momentarily, your friend User:UpDown is making a complete joke of himself at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I think it's only fair that, given the help he's given you, you should return the favor. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the big difference between your examples and these is that the Scottish Kings are articled under English names. It is not appropriate to article a person or subject under one name, and then consistently refer to him or it throughout the encyclopaedia by another name. Michael Sanders 20:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's really quite simple: if "Mael Coluim mac Cinaed" or "Donnchad mac Maelcoluim" were really the more commonly used names, these people would be articled under those names. They are not, and there appears to have been something of a struggle over that in the past, ending in agreement that the English forms were more appropriate and common for the monarchs. That being the case, you cannot claim that the Gaelic forms are more appropriate for names which wikipedia officially lists in the English forms. People expect to find them under those names, that's why they are at those article titles. That being the case, those forms of names, or acceptable variants, should be used when referring to such people in their own articles and preferably elsewhere. Michael Sanders 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've created a discussion section on the talk page of the relevant guideline. I suggest interested parties contribute at that location and we'll try to reach a consensus there. Mike Christie (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. No agreement on this issue has ever been reached, or probably will ever be reached. There was controversy over renaming the article titles to native names, but the use of the native names in the text has been well established on wikipedia. (has it? Consider the use of Frederick over Friedrich as a counterexample) There are users who don't particularly like it because of 1) their editorial philosophy, 2) simplistic and unthoughtful application of certain wikipedia guidelines and 3) (unfortunately, but inevitably) hostility to Gaelic. We on the other side believe that anglicizing the forms is not sensible (most of the reasons are already on the page). Anyways, a modus vivendi existed, and has existed for most of the last few years. I don't see why seeking to disrupt this will do any good. I personally have seen all the arguments for and against, and believe there is no reasonable choice except to use native forms in the text for all the kings before the accession of Edgar at least, if not Mael Coluim IV. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why Malcolm IV? Did the Kings all suddenly become English when he died? It's inconsistent, it goes against wikipedia policy, and this issue has been dragged up since you first started introducing these forms in 2004/2005. All using Gaelic forms which most readers haven't heard of, in contradiction to the established English forms, serves to do is confuse the readers whom you are meant to be informing. Michael Sanders 15:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No. It's that ... and I've learned this by years of writing on these topics ... there are too many non-anglicizable Gaelic proper names in the articles for the kings before Edgar (before David actually) for it to be workable (to my taste at least), whereas after David most of the other names tend to be French or names otherwise familiar in the modern English language (like William, Robert, Stephen, etc, etc, rather than Gilla Comgain, Mael Brigte, Bethoc, etc). For Edgar, Alexander and David, those names are not Gaelic, so there is no problem. Mael Coluim IV is the last Scottish monarch to have a native name.
 * (BTW, I personally, and I don't expect others to accept this for wiki purposes, tend to dislike calling Mael Coluim IV "Malcolm", and that's because it creates the impression (esp. in those modern works which use Mael Coluim for Mael Coluim III but Malcolm for Mael Coluim IV) that "Malcolm" was an actual name in existence at the time. It wasn't. The name was still Mael Coluim, it hadn't migrated to another linguistic culture). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * These names may not be to your taste, but fortunately they were to the taste of the hundreds of historians who wrote before you of "Constantine II" and "Kenneth I". I'm not suggesting rendering names such as Maelbrigte into English, because they have no commonly used English form; the monarchs, however, have such, are articled as such, and are expected to be found under such. It is not unworkable to use the anglicised forms - at least, the many many people who use the English forms don't appear to think so. Moreover, your division appears to be based on opinion: there are Scottish forms for Alexander and James (and 'Constantine', if I recall my history correctly, did not start out in Scotland...), yet you don't use them; furthermore, native forms have no relevance in this matter - we don't talk of Queen Viktoria and her husband Prince Albrecht, nor of King Seumas I of England. Furthermore, the use of modern day forms of names which were not used at the time is common - just ask Charlemagne. If you want to change historical conventions, which use commonly accepted forms of names rather than only names used at the time, wikipedia is not the place. Michael Sanders 15:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a frequent visitor to Encarta, but I popped over to have a look at their article on Constantine II (of Scotland), or as they call him in the body of the article, Custantín mac Áeda. The editors of Encarta seem to have no problem with the content of the article not matching the title. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow ... even Encarta is using native forms. Now the argument by the Anglicize Everything school of thought is often that wiki shouldn't be significantly different from Encarta. Are they seriously asking for Wikipedia to be more backwards! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I have never advocated Encarta as source, I feel perfectly happy in saying that we shouldn't follow it here (or anywhere). Moreover, since you believe that being no different from encarta would make us backward, you will no doubt agree that we should be significantly different by avoiding clumsy contraditory name usage within articles and use the commonly accepted (i.e. Anglicised) forms. Michael Sanders 16:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In my view there's a scheme of things. Today, professionals in this area consistently and overwhelmingly use native forms. If you wikipedia is to depart from this, there must be significantly good reasons of editorial philosophy ... not a semi-religious believe in "Anglicize Everything". If a popular online encyclopaedia with professional editors working to less ambitious goals than wikipedia have chosen native forms too, it can only be a backward step for wikipedia reAnglicize them. That's the way I see the encarta matter. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Professionals don't overwhelmingly use native forms though, and the common popular usage is certainly not so. This isn't a semi-religious Anglicise everything - this is a "let's get the articles conforming to the article names so that they don't look as though they've been got at by a vandal suffering from WP:POINT or POV, and so that they are accessible to the vast majority of readers who are not familiar with Gaelic usages due to such usages being very rare." We shouldn't be doing what encarta does, and we shouldn't be advocating progress for the sake of progress, we should be doing what works and what is accepted, and the Anglicisations fit those far better than Gaelicisations. Michael Sanders 16:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're just inaccurate here on a point of fact. Professionals today working in the area do overwhelmingly use native names. Now, derivative works don't so much, but I wasn't referring to them as you'll see from my phraseology. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sources? Those writing for general consumption appear to believe that the Anglicised forms are most expected. Pears gives the Anglicised forms. Lines of Succession begins with Duncan I and gives Anglicised forms. Frank McLynn talks of Macbeth and Malcolm III in 1066, the Year of the Three Battles. Marion Campbell (a Scot, no less!) talks of Malcolm III and Malcolm IV in her pop-biography of Alexander III. I could no doubt find more if I wasn't home for the holidays, but the above at least appear to think that their readers are most familiar with the anglicised forms of the monarchical names. The question thus is, "who is using Gaelic forms, and can they be taken as representative of what readers as a whole expect?" Michael Sanders 16:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You appear to be aiming for Lowest Common Denominator for its own sake. I don't get this hypocrisy (not coming from you, I've no idea what you think of science articles) that science articles should aim to be up to date and scholarly, but historical topics, even ones with all the technical specialization required in this area, are to be treated with such little respect or expectation. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. I'm aiming at making articles both informative and accessible. They are not accessible if they use names that the majority of readers are not familiar with, and in such a way as to confuse rather than enlighten the reader. It is respectful to the subject of history to avoid characterising it as obscure and boring, or a topic of pedantry that should be avoided in favour of science articles, or others; history should aim to enlighten as many as possible, and to serve as many as possible, and in this case it means clearly depicting the original/up to date form of the monarch's name in the relevant language, but other than that using the name forms which would give least surprise to the vast majority of readers. In this case, popular usage is, in the case of the well-known such as the Malcolms and Duncans and Macbeth and Kenneths, or the inconsistently translated such as the Constantines, in favour of the Anglicised forms. To go with that is not serving the Lowest Common Denominator, it is ensuring that as many as possible get the full benefit of these articles; and it would be far more graceful to accept that, accept the changes and allow us to all improve these articles to the standard this one generally (with the exception of the names) exhibits, than to bog down in semantics and continue the impression the Scottish articles give as inaccessible to non-Scots, or taken over by hard-line Gaels, neither of which is and should be the case. Michael Sanders 17:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * An accurate article about a 11th or 10th century Scottish king longer than a few paragraphs will not be easily accessible nor enjoyable to the kind of audience that is thrown off by seeing Mael Coluim rather than Malcolm. What kind of demographic are you aiming these articles at? This is a serious question, as it doesn't seem that you have a very high opinion of the readers. Why should a wikipedia article esp. of FA length dumb down the forms used in virtually all the sources it cites? How will this benefit the reader? Constantine II is cannot be a "popularly" accessible topic without dumbing down the content (the names are the least important issue here), it's obscure and difficult by nature. There is no getting around this unless wikipedia becomes significantly less ambitious in its coverage. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To use an English style where such is commonly used is not dumbing down, it's making a possible complicating factor easier so that interested readers can read the article without having to worry about name-forms they haven't heard of. Moreover, if you do not believe that you can make these articles accessible, you are probably in the wrong place - the whole point of wikipedia is to make an encyclopaedia accessible to everyone and as comprehensive a resource as possible. That cannot be done if your attitude is "it's an obscure subject, so why bother helping out the readers" (and, by the way, it does not matter if the sources use a different name. The articles use the most common name, regardless of what the person was called back then or what sources describe him/her as (see Catherine of Aragon - she called herself "Katherina" or "Katherine", and "Katherine" is often used in sources regarding her; but "Catherine" is the most commonly used form of name, so that is used, with - aside from the occasional anon - few protests). If a reader wants to read more about the subject: if they are reading a 'popular' work it will use the anglicisation; if they are reading a tract, they will no doubt have the knowledge of the subject and the time necessary to read the source carefully to not be confused by the usage of the less common Gaelic name. Our task is to satisfy as many people as possible, not please a few who like using the original forms. Michael Sanders 17:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Opening sentence
"Constantine, son of Áed (Mediaeval Gaelic: Constantín mac Áeda; Modern Gaelic: Còiseam mac Aoidh), known in most modern regnal lists as Constantine II, nicknamed An Midhaise, "the Middle Aged" (before 879 – 952) was an early King of Scotland". Re-reading this, the suggestion is that Constantine was "nicknamed An Midhaise" until 952, when he became nicknamed something else, (such as "Constantine the Old"). There may be some MOS protocol here, but would this not be better as something like:
 * "Constantine, son of Áed (Mediaeval Gaelic: Constantín mac Áeda; Modern Gaelic: Còiseam mac Aoidh), (before 879 – 952) known in most modern regnal lists as Constantine II and nicknamed An Midhaise, "the Middle Aged",  was an early King of Scotland".  Ben   Mac  Dui  19:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine by me, but I think we could drop "and nicknamed An Midhaise, "the Middle Aged"" because that's not even mentioned in the article. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Ben   Mac  Dui  17:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

To describe Constantine as an early 'King of Scotland' is potentially misleading because the definition of what constituted 'Scotland' has changed greatly over time. King of the Scots and King of Alba certainly, perhaps even King of Scot-land. But the Scot-lands were not Scotland in anything like the modern sense but much, much smaller, merely one kingdom amongst a number of northern British kingdoms which only centuries later were collectively designated as 'Scotland' in the sense we use the word today. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.115.211 (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constantine II of Scotland. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20090227002745/http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/kemble/pelteret/Lsp/Lsp%2011.htm to http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/kemble/pelteret/Lsp/Lsp%2011.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Page error?
Note 20 reads: "Anderson, Early Sources, pp. 358–358". There's something wrong there, I think. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well spotted. I've had a look at the sources and it should have been pages 357–358. I've corrected the page. Thanks. -Bill Reid | (talk) 11:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

== "Constantine II; born no later than 879; died 952) was an early King of Scotland, known then by the Gaelic name Alba. The Kingdom of Alba, a name which first appears in Constantine's lifetime, was situated in modern-day Scotland." ==

Can we stop with this? Alba literally means Scotland, we're talking about two entirely different languages. It is absolutely redundant and asinine to continually keep including in every article what Scotland/the Kingdom of Scotland was known as in different languages of the time. This is the English Wikipedia, in modern English the kingdom is known as Scotland/the Kingdom of Scotland.

If people want to read up on the term Alba and its origins/meanings etc. etc. there are many, many articles for that. We are causing needless confusion and clutter in these historical Scotland articles by continually switching between terms for the same polities/entities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.16.225 (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This last part "The Kingdom of Alba, a name which first appears in Constantine's lifetime, was situated in modern-day Scotland." is particularly ridiculous as you are effectively literally saying: "The Kingdom of Scotland, a name which first appears in Constantine's lifetime, was situated in modern-day Scotland.". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.16.225 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Image addition
I have added an image of Constantine which is certainly not contemporary, but is an image of what he may have looked like nevertheless. Kenneth MacAlpin's article uses one just like this. I know that this image has been controversially used before and removed, but I believe it should remain. William Wallace's article used to use an engraving, before it switched to a stained glass window, another later depiction.

Isn't it true that a later image is better than no image at all?

Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Picture
The profile picture of Constantine II has the portrait listed as Constantin III incorrectly, but it is not mentioned for clarity. 174.250.210.132 (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)