Talk:James VI and I/Archive 3

Was James, King of Great Britain and Ireland?
There's a dispute at List of English monarchs, concerning this matter. Was James, King of Great Britain and Ireland or was he King of England, Scotland and Ireland? GoodDay 23:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * see Talk:James_I_of_England above --Philbarker 21:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

religion
As a layman from Holland, not at all up to date about the history of Great Britain, but after watching Helen Mirren's excellent performance as Queen Elisabeth I, I was wondering about the religion of King James of Scotland. His mother was a catholic and decapitated for it (to make a long story short), but how about James? The story here says he was born a catholic, but then it becomes vague. If he still was a catholic, how could he be accepted as king of England? Perhaps this matter needs some elaboration. From the main story and the discussion I gather that James may have been instrumental in bringing the churches of England and Scotland closer together, so creating the Anglican church? - Marco Bleeker www.ecocam.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.182.143.145 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Marco, Mary Queen of Scots was not executed for her Catholicism, but for her alleged role in a conspiracy against Elizabeth I, her cousin. James was brought up and educated in the reformed Church of Scotland, whose basic doctrine was Calvinism, though the form of Church government veered between Presbyterianism and Epicopacy during his lifetime.  Even when they shared the same model of church government the Church of Scotland and the Church of England were quite distinct entities.  There was never a British national church.  James was not a Catholic and never practiced as one.  There was nothing in law, though, to prevent a Catholic becoming King of England at this time.  James' grandson and namesake James VII and II succeeded to the throne in 1685, his Catholicism notwithstanding.  It was not until the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the subsequent Act of Settlement of 1701 that Catholics were banned from the succession.  Clio the Muse 02:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the page for 4 days in response to an edit war. Please use the talk page to hash out the dispute. If you reach consensus before the 4 days are up, you can list the page on WP:RFPP and request early un-protection. MastCell Talk 22:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why not James I of Great Britain
It's been suggested at a discussion at List of English monarchs, that James I/VI was King of Great Britain and Ireland NOT King of England, Scotland and Ireland. Which is it? GoodDay 01:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This question also relates to James' Stuart successors. GoodDay 01:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He only united the two kingdoms in a personal union - legally they remained totally separate until the Acts of Union 1707. Johnbod 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought so. Thanks for the reassurance John. GoodDay 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Help with content
I'm new to this discussion and would like some help. Can anyone tell me where I might find proof that King James I was a homosexual? I'm looking for anything that actually speaks to the sexual relations of this man.

I haven't made up my mind, but what I have read seems to indicate that he had loving relationships with men and nothing more. If there is any direct evidence to this notion could someone please tell me where I might find this. Thank you.

67.185.246.212 07:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Since my last post, I've done a little more research and have found that King James I was not openly homosexual. There doesn't appear to be even so much of a hint on his part to having been sexual with men. All that I can find are brief mentions of his love for other men, which he called favorites. King James I did openly profess to be a Christian and frequently referenced biblical concepts. One such concept is the love for other men. In this case, the expression implies "Philia" or "Brotherly Love", it does not necessary imply eros or "sexual love". To assume that love between men implies sexual contact assumes too much.

The reference cited in this article are taken from books having the soul purpose of promoting the gay, lesbian, and tragender lifestyle. These sources are not reliable as source material and do not make up a body of historical evidence.

Anyone can write and book, insert there own opinion, and publish gossip as fact. If someone can find a reliable reference, by all means insert the reference. If not, the section on Homosexuality should be removed. 67.185.246.212 23:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi 67.185. James had male favourites, that much we know.  The evidence does not allow us to say more.  In other words, to say anything beyond that is to enter the realm of the unknown and the unknowable; it is pure speculation.  No serious historian would be rash enough, in the total absence of documentary support, to claim that James was a practicing homosexual and expect to remain a serious historian.  We proceed by by the sources, and only by the sources; and by this I mean primary sources.  Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent.  Clio the Muse 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems a definition of sexuality is in question. One doesn't need to have sexual relations to have a sexual preference, though such preference would then be more evident.  Several of the cited references are without a "sole purpose of promoting a ... lifestyle", though they don't appear to have Internet URLs. By the way, there was no overt reference to 'homosexuality' until a subheading was added by Marcus22 on November 11. &mdash;Adavidb 14:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In her excellent new book on the English Civil War, Diane Purkiss (Fellow and Tutor at Keble College, Oxford), explicitly states that James had a male lover. (See reference I've added in the text).  I don't see any reason to either a. doubt this or b. suggest that she has reason to promote gay lifestyles.  I think that this - along with many previous suggestions of the same - justify the inclusion of the subheading.  Marcus22 19:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have to agree, the "unverifiable" section on Homosexuality should be removed. While these anecdotes are somewhat amusing, Marcus22 is providing tabloid scholarship to article of great importance. Korismo 23:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pardon me? Tabloid scholarship? Unverifiable? Diane Purkiss is an Oxford don. Do you have a personal grudge against her or something?  Please go away and read WP:CIVIL.  Marcus22 11:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Here, for those who cannot access the book, is the exact passage: "King James wrote textbooks to edify his children, but was less enthusiastic about spending time with them. He preferred his male companions, especially his lover and favourite George Villiers Duke of Buckingham". (I've never read a tabloid with the word 'edify' in it. Have you?)  Marcus22 11:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Marcus22, please calm down; you seem a little too impassioned. I fail to see why you should invoke Wikipedia civility policy over Korismo's perfectly reasonable statement about tabloid scholarship.  I can and I have accessed this book, including the page reference in question.  It makes no difference to me who Diane Purkiss is; she could be the Queen of Sheba for all that matters.  As far as this particular history is concerned it contains not a single footnote or citation; not one.  I dare say a lot of her statements could be supported if one were to work through the sources she calls on.  But there is nothing, nothing at all, to differentiate between statements supported by evidence and pure speculation.  It is, her academic credentials notwithstanding, bad history to allow fact and guesswork to proceed hand-in-hand, one might say, by failing to distinguish between one and the other.  Until I see evidence-and I mean evidence from original and contemporary sources-I would have to say there is absolutely no reason to accept Purkiss' claim that Buckingham was James' lover, a direct and unqualified contention that, so far as I am aware, no other historian has ever made.  Let me stress that it is for me a matter of no particular importance, or prejudice, what James' sexual preferences were.  What I am concerned about is the possibility that speculation and conjecture are in the process of being turned into fact.  This would seem to me to be a fairly apt description of the techniques involved in 'tabloid scholarship'.  Please, please, allow yourself to look beyond the credentials; look always for the substance.  That, and that only, is the route to good scholarship...and to good history.  Clio the Muse 12:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've rarely read such blather. For a start, please do not patronise me with 'calm down' or lectures about history or what constitues a reliable source.  I have merely added a sub-heading and a source to justify it.  Then I find people accusing me of using tabloid journalism as a source.  That's rather ill-mannered in my book. (Hence the reference to Civil).  But, be all that as it may, I'll keep this brief: the way Wikipedia works is that we - as editors - provide sources to justify the content of an article.  If or when any of you can provide a reliable 3rd party source which states that James did NOT have homosexual relations with Buckinhgam and others - then we may have something to debate.  In the meantime, as I HAVE provided a reliable 3rd party source, he did have homosexual relations, the claim and the sub-heading remain.  pip pip! Marcus22 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for that perfect insight into your personality. We clearly have nothing more to say to one another.  I would, however, ask the rest of the community to take note of my remarks, and on that basis I would suggest that the heading in question is changed to an altogether more neutral, and acceptable, term, one consistent with the evidence as it stands.  Clio the Muse 12:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please keep comments on content not other editors. Did you have a suggestion for a heading change? Maybe that's the best place to start. Benjiboi 13:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Benjiboi. My response was determined by the slightly hysterical edge to Marcus22's remarks, not helped, perhaps, but the admittedly patronising tone I adopted above.


 * Anyway, this is taking us too far from the point I was making, and which he has been unable or unwilling to grasp, which is to do with the nature and acceptability of evidence. Now, if you want to see how this kind of subject might be handled in an altogether more objective and detached manner I would refer you to the page on Frederick the Great, specifically the section headed 'Sexuality', which lays out the position in a crisp and matter of fact fashion, without leading the reader to a predetermined conclusion, though in Frederick's case the position with regard to homosexuality is altogether more convincing than with James.


 * Historians are as fallible, as prone to value judgements, as any other human being. Just imagine a philosopher or a scientist insisting that a statement was true simply because, say, Wittgenstein or Einstein said it was true.  Is that not a pure appeal to authority and nothing but authority?  It matters not if Purkiss, or Ashley, or any authority say that James was a practicing homosexual.  What matters is can they prove this; is there any substance to what they allege?  Substance would be provided by contemporary documents; by diaries; by letters; by confessions; by eye-witness accounts.  Otherwise it is just a matter of personal opinion, a false deduction based on James' preference for male company.  What else can it be in the absence of evidence?


 * Please forgive me; I have no wish to belabour this point unnecessarily, but I have lived for the past few years with the nature and acceptability of historical evidence, of the reliability of sources, both primary and secondary. I have tried to make a point here with regard to this; I have failed.  As it stands James is a homosexual; not a suspected homosexual, but a practicing one with 'male lovers' simply because Wikipedia says so on the basis of pure conjecture.  I've made my point; it's for others to draw their own conclusions.  I think it best now if I take this page off my watch list.  With best wishes.  Clio the Muse 23:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I have added that.  Thanks for the suggestion! Marcus22 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For those of you who are not aware of other Historians making the claim that James I was homosexual, here are some other sources :- Maurice Ashley ; ‘The English Civil War’ ; p. 21 Thames & Hudson 1974  « ... it began after the accession of King Charles I to the throne at the age of twenty-five in 1625.  Though his homosexual father had broken down physically and mentally in the last year of his reign... ».  Marcus22 13:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it seems to be a point of controversy I suggest adding that reference into the text so other's who are vetting the information have as much information of the subject as possible. Benjiboi 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read the various arguments here, and I think there is some serious wordsmithing being done by Marcus22. Assuming someone is homosexual because they have close male friends is absolutely absurd. Are all Italians homosexual because they embrace each other with a kiss when meeting?


 * I would agree with removing the entire section regarding so-called "homosexual" behavior. The implications here are absolutely absurd, without substance, and as previous people have stated -- completely unverifiable. DSuchet 03:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually I would side with Clio the Muse's suggestion of looking at how the subject was handled elsewhere first and see if we can learn from that. All matters of a person's homosexuality have historically been erased, suppressed and otherwise been mitigated for various reasons not the least of which is basic homopbobia which simply is a fear of something different but historically and still today people are killed for. We need to look through the filters of historical references and hopefully find some experts on the subject and see if there is a consensus. It doesn't serve anyone well to write inaccuracies and as we are probably all aware the English language has a lot to offer in word choices so finding a way to express all the concerns is possible and multiple viewpoints can easily be entertained. As Marcus22 has pointed out providing references that state that the subject of the article could not be considered gay (modern terminology) would help balance the assertions that he isn't. Benjiboi 03:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Marcus22, I have read the WP:Civility and can't see anything that I've done wrong. So, why don't you try reading it. What, decent is not allowed? Korismo 04:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My thoughts:

Wow, I didn't think my original question would generate so much debate. For anyone new to the discussion, please read the original question/comments above (67.185.246.212).

Now to the topic at hand. The claims that James VI/I was a homosexual are based on what -- a few supposed observations, basically heresay and speculation? So why don't we examine these statements and see what we find.

1. Quote, "Buckingham became good friends with James’s wife Anne, she addressed him in affectionate letters begging him to be "always true" to her husband."

- Does anyone know a wife who would both approve and openly encourage her husband's homosexual infidelity? There is a great deal of historical evidence, i.e. letters by Ann, and this "character" does not fit with the evidence.

2. Quote, "The King was blunt and unashamed in his avowal of love for Buckingham, saying "Christ had his John, and I my George". This, referring to the young disciple John, and his Lord and mentor, Jesus Christ."

- John was called the favorite of Jesus. He was never called the lover of Jesus. They were NOT, I repeat NOT in a homosexual relationship. Homosexuality was absolutely forbidden by Mosaic law, which Jesus said he fulfilled.

Reference: Leviticus 20:13, If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them.

3. Quote, "Throughout his life [105] James I had relationships with his male courtiers,[106] beginning with his older relative Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox. The two became extremely close and it was said by an English observer that "from the time he was 14 years old and no more, that is, when the Lord Stuart came into Scotland… even then he began… to clasp some one in the embraces of his great love, above all others" and that James became "in such love with him as in the open sight of the people oftentimes he will clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him".

If you understood the history of England, you would understand that the people of this period were what we today call hyper-religious. Keeping this in mind, it should be mentioned that the Kings of England were not above the law. For example, King Charles I was beheaded by the parliment because he defied their rule and incited a civil war.

So the idea that James I was openly embracing, grabbing and passionately kissing a man in public is not in keeping with the history we have about the time.

All in all, I think the case is pretty flimsy at best. Moreover, gossip concealed under the guise of fact, really has the hint of an agenda. I would argue the entire section be removed from the article. - ICarriere 05:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Historians (sourced, see above) have said that James had homosexual relations. They have seen the primary sources and they have come to that conclusion.  Like it or not (and certain religious elements do not - which is what this debate is really about) until sources are provided which state otherwise, ie; that James did NOT have such relations, there is nothing to debate.  Wikipedia works on sources, not religious prejudice.  Marcus22 11:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Let's not presume the motivations of others are religious-based or whatever their motivations. Even if they state "I'm such-and-such religion and we believe in X" we still need to simply address the content concerns and leave their belief structure for them to sort out. Let's agree to disagree on why someone edits and simply treat all as acting in good faith until they demonstrate otherwise. Marcus22 does have a valid concern that others editors have objected to the content for various reasons but not conflicting sources seem to have presented themselves. Do they exist? Does anyone thinks they do or know where to look or who to ask? Has anyone tried the wikipedia reference desk? They love a challenge! Benjiboi 12:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why not try the archives of this talk page. See here for example. The editor who brought this article (back) up to featured status takes the same position as Clio, and that is good enough for me. I am tempted to reverted back to the article that attained featured status. Diane Purkiss's approach can be seen here: "'In her introduction, couched rather queasily as an 'An Epistle to the Gentle Reader', Purkiss lays out her stall. She wants, she says, to try to write the kind of history that Carlyle and Macaulay wrote in the 19th century, one grounded in 'a drama of character' in which individual human beings, rather than abstract economic and political forces, make things happen. It's the kind of approach that has long seemed irredeemably amateur to academic historians, not to mention politically suspect (the people whose actions can still be recovered from 300 years ago tend to come from the top drawer). But Purkiss, an Oxford don writing from the heart of the intellectual establishment, is determined 'to seduce the academy into taking this human approach back'.'" It is plain that Purkiss's book is not meant to be serious academic history by any stretch of the term. Carcharoth 13:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the article should cover this issue in a sentence or two, giving the three positions that different historians have adopted: that he was actively homosexual, that he was not homosexual, and that we don't know. This used to be expressed in the article by the following note (which had a great deal of thought and reading behind it), which was removed at some time: Throughout his life James had close relationships with male courtiers, which has caused debate among historians about their nature: "The evidence of his correspondence and contemporary accounts have led some historians to conclude that the king was homosexual or bisexual. In fact, the issue is murky." Bucholz, p 208; In Basilikon Doron, James lists sodomy among crimes "ye are bound in conscience never to forgive". Sharpe, p 171; "The same pattern repeated itself with these men [Carr and Villiers] as had earlier been the case with Esmé Stuart. The evidence suggests that both had a physical liaison with their sovereign". Barroll and Cerasano (ed), p 239. See also main article: Personal relationships of James I of England.


 * Beyond that, I don't think there is any need to go, since the general books I have read on James deal with the matter either briefly or not at all. Certainly I have never seen one with a chapter titled "Homosexuality". For the record, my opinion is that we do not and cannot know whether he was a practising homosexual or not.qp10qp 15:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnbod 16:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser. Some want to dismiss Purkiss as a tabloid Historian - or words to that effect. When in fact she's an Oxford don. Others want to claim that her book, because aimed at the general reader, is not serious history. What an odd claim to make. By the same strange logic, Bertrand Russell's 'The Problems of Philosophy' would be dismissed as not serious Philosophy. (It, too, is aimed at the general reader). And yet no-one in their right mind would dismiss Russell's book in such a manner.

Others have said that no other Historians make such a reference; and yet another book I quickly picked off the shelf (Maurice Ashleys) made the very same assertion. As, I might add, does another book, Downing and Millman, Civil War (albeit in less pronounced terms; p.29 "the King in his later years became besotted with (the Duke of Buckingham)". Besotted?  How many of you who oppose this entry have ever been 'besotted' with another man?

Yet others claim that 'No wife would approve of her husband's homsexuality'. (I apologise if I have not quoted that exactly). This to me shows naivety in the extreme. Some wives, such as Rosemary West, approved of a good deal more in their husbands! You might look into it.

Finally, where are the sources which state that James was most definitely NOT homosexual. I have provided three now which say that he was. If we wish a debate, let's base it on sources. Not on opinions. Marcus22 22:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh yes, and I should add, this sentence "Throughout his youth, James was praised for his chastity, since he showed little interest in women; and after the loss of Lennox, he continued to prefer male company", referenced to yet another source (Croft), was already in the article. I did not add it.  But, clearly, Purkiss is not the only Historian to hold the view that James preferred men.  There are many Historians who think it.  Marcus22 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, actually, that's careful wording. It doesn't justify the full section we now have that asserts unequivocally that he was a practising homosexual (which, by the way, contains serious factual inaccuracies, since Carr never threatened to expose a homosexual relationship with the king). There is nothing unusual about historians saying that James was homosexual; ignore anyone who tells you that there is (I hope the discussion has moved on from there). However, there's more to it than that, because there are also historians who say that we do not know and who argue that the case for his being an active homosexual is murky. There is also a surprising number of historians who do not mention the matter, presumably because they do not consider whether someone was gay or not to be a big deal.qp10qp 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The trouble here is that Marcus is asking the wrong question. Asking "Was James homosexual?" will get you an answer of either "we don't know" or "the question makes no sense". What we should be asking is how we can help the reader understand what England was like in those days, over 400 years ago, and what sort of person James was. Helping the reader understand those times on their terms, not in terms of our concepts and ideas. At the moment, the "homosexuality" section reads like a story-within-a-story, and severely detracts from the article. Unless it can be drastically improved, I'm going to revert to what we had before, which did a much better job of balancing and reflecting the sources. Carcharoth 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Goodness, people, Purkiss isn't a good source because she's writing a book about the English civil war. We should look at what biographers of James say, not passing comments. john k 16:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for pointing that out. I had forgotten that. Indeed, the book is about the Civil War, not about James. Still, the more troubling point is that it is a "narrative history", not one that rigorously writes from primary sources and carries out careful analysis, but one that tries to extract the 'story' from the 'history'. My quote above (from a review) makes this clear. A previus comment pointed out a lack of references in the book itself. In other words, despite the pedigree of the author, not reliable wnough for Wikipedia. -- Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that somebody is writing a narrative ought not, on its own, make them not a reliable source. History does not have to be dry and boring to be good.  I have no idea about this specific book, but that's a bad place to be starting out from.  But we ought to have a simple rule that "broad statements made in passing are not reliable" - our sources about James's sexuality should explicitly discuss it and the evidence surrounding it. -- john k (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Claim
I have removed the section on homosexuality. I would like to encourage everyone to discuss the matter further, but I think we've reached a consensus of opinion.

If anyone wishes to provide additional evidence/research on this issue, please discuss prior to reposting the material on the main page. Thank you. - ICarriere 02:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, we don't seem to have consensus on the matter. I for one would approve of the version cited by qp10qp above over removing the material entirely.  The article Personal relationships of James I of England has several references for several purported lovers. Can we at least agree to include the version that says there are questions about his sexuality? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  02:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks SatyrTN, but you are incorrect. Prior to Marcus22, there was no section on homosexuality. You are also incorrect about the primary sources. The article created on 03/07 cites the same references as provided by Marcus22.


 * If James IV/I was a homosexual and there is verifiable evidence, then bring that forward. I believe there would be a place for this information if it were well document and could be validated.


 * As is, we can only speculate about his sexuality. And speculation on a person's sexuality is both inappropriate and unreasonable. Moreover, such specualation does not merit it's placement in the article. - ICarriere 03:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly oppose removing the content so I don't see where you've gaged consensus either. Please restore the deleted content immediately until actual consensus has been reached. Benjiboi 03:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Benjiboi, but the reason I removed it is that we have 5 people for removing the content with 3 for keeping the content. I removed the content until reliable sources can be provided.


 * When you consider the controversial nature of this content, it should have never been placed prior to discussion. So we start with a clean slate and work forward. If there is evidence/research that can be provided, please post that here. I look forward to working with you on the issue. Thank you - ICarriere 03:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ICarriere, you're totally reading WP:V wrong. You know very well that James I never said he was gay (a primary source). There are some secondary sources that you've dismissed out of hand without explaining why you think they're not reliable. So, to stick to the point at hand, could you explain why you don't believe each of these is reliable?
 * Maurice Ashley ; ‘The English Civil War’ ; p. 21 Thames & Hudson 1974 ISBN 0500820023
 * H. Montgomery Hyde, The Love That Dared not Speak its Name; pp. 44 and 143
 * At the very least, WP:OR demands that reliably sourced information should be included in the article, not dismissed or hidden. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least, WP:OR demands that reliably sourced information should be included in the article, not dismissed or hidden. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least, WP:OR demands that reliably sourced information should be included in the article, not dismissed or hidden. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * At the very least, WP:OR demands that reliably sourced information should be included in the article, not dismissed or hidden. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 05:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm dying here. You are saying ICarriere misread WP:V If she misread it, then you didn't even read it buddy.

From the policy,

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view.[4]

And SatyrTN, stop trying to force your agenda on the world! Korismo 05:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Korismo, please, I'm not trying to force an agenda, I'm trying to make a better encyclopedia - just like you. You're saying it's an extraordinary claim to state that scholars debate James' sexuality? Because that's all I think is required here - I'm not saying we should put pink triangles all over the article, I'm just saying we shouldn't hide the fact that his sexuality has been discussed by authoritative scholars. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  16:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat dismayed that a section of this article, which was referenced using reliable, verifiable sources has been arbitrarily removed from the article without there even being a single reference quoted to bring the facts into question. The quote from Jimmy Wales is clearly irrelevant, since the information that has been removed is quite clearly not random speculation. Given that wikipedia is built upon the principle of using reliable, verifiable references, I believe that the deliberate removal of a significant portion of the article based on an arguement that appears to be I don't believe it, or perhaps I don't want to believe it is entirely inappropriate and the section should be returned to the article. If or when other reliable, verifiable references can be found that contradict those that are already available in the removed content, then and only then is there a case for revising this section to reflect the contradiction between references. --AliceJMarkham 06:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to some claims above, I believe only one portion of the deleted section had a 'citation needed' tag. Also, though Marcus22 added a 'Homosexuality' section header on November 11 and two source citations thereafter, he was not a contributor of the section's text. &mdash;Adavidb 07:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, and in agreement with Marcus22, SatyrTN, Benjiboi, and AliceJMarkham, there is no consensus, nor was there consensus, to remove the Homosexuality section. Consensus is not a vote (and even if it was, 5 to 3 is hardly consensus, assuming the count was correct) and the section should not have been removed. There are certainly changes that could make it better (as for any article), including maybe changing the section heading to something more neutral. The section was sourced and I have additional sources.
 * 1. Louis Crompton. Homosexuality & Civilization. Boston: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2003. Not only is this from one of the most respected university presses, it won an award sponsored by the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Compton devotes a whole section on the homosexuality of James I within the chapter on 16th & 17th century England. He said: "Amorous involvements with handsome male favorites were a recurring pattern in James's life." [Page 382]  Talking about the Duke of Lennox: "James was devastated by the loss of the man who had been his family, friend, lover, and mentor..." [Page 384]. Compton sources his book, and there is more in that section on the subject of James's sexuality.
 * 2. Michael B. Young. King James and the History of Homosexuality. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Another academic press book on the subject. It's true that historians have tended to be careful about discussing the homosexuality of James I, however, Young has established "beyond any reasonable doubt that James I was actively involved in sexual relations with his young clients." The review goes on to say that this can't be proven to a legal certainty [which WP is not required to do], but that the evidence is convincing. I don't have the time right now to read his book, but I will.  The review is promising.
 * 3. For your reading pleasure, see here.
 * 4. There are other potential sources, but I've run out of time, but I think that there was—and certainly is now—enough sources to show that the section should have been improved and additionally sourced, rather than deleted. BTW, there are now five editors that argue against deletion, and Adavidb pointed out that only one sentence was fact tagged.
 * Please restore it. — Becksguy 13:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've restored the Homosexuality subsection and expect that unless a consensus is come to, that it be left alone except to expand it. Trying to cover up his homosexuality won't be tolerated, of course. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  13:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not about trying to "cover it up". It is about due balance. Read the rest of the article. Having an entire section on James's relationships is unbalancing what was a good featured article. Read WP:DUE. Read what I've said below in "restoring original footnote". Extra material should go in Personal relationships of James I of England. Carcharoth 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this edit will help resolve this. I've created a section titled "Personal relationships", moved most of the existing material to Talk:Personal relationships of James I of England and left a summary behind, based on my work at that article (mainly bringing in Anne and others for balance). The current "favourites" section should be left alone, as that is a well-written section on the politics of the court and James's favourites, not his personal relationships. Carcharoth 15:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The section was out of proportion to the rest of the article, giving the impression that whether he was homosexual or not is an important issue for a general article. It isn't. The material was added without consensus: an anon came along, added it (pasted it from the relationships article), and said something like "I think this should be in the article; someone make it fit, please". To justify this extra section, it isn't enough to say, "Look, here is another historian who says he was a homosexual", and it isn't enough to say that this question merits sections in books about gay history. No one who knows the books would deny that some historians have said that James was gay, so it is perfectly OK to acknowledge that in the article. The question is, what proportion of the general history books about James is given over to this issue? From my reading, the answer ranges from very little to none—I've never seen a whole chapter on it (which in my opinion would be the equivalent of one of our sections) in any biography of James. The great thing about Wikipedia is that one can make a separate article on specialist matters, and we so have one on James's relationships. qp10qp 16:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it make most sense to discuss the issue in the context of individual discussions of James's favorites, and particularly of Buckingham? Obviously, James's relationship with Buckingham, whatever its precise nature may have been, is an important part of his life, and an important part of English history, and ought to be discussed in the article.  In context of discussing that relationship, it would make some sense to mention the issues of sexuality.  The same could be done with respect to Lennox and Somerset.  I agree with qp10qp that the sexuality discussion ought to be short, at least in this article.  I cannot agree with those who think that all discussion of sexuality should be removed from the article. john k 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And please add my name to the lis6t of those who think the text should not have been expunged. The issue of his sexuality is notable, sourced, and not given undue weight in the article. Am I the only one seeing ownership issues here? Far from "pushing an agenda", I think those arguing for the material's insertion see other's pushing a heterosexual normative agenda here (and elsewhere on Wikipedia, too). And by the way, I reinserted the text. Jeffpw 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've changed it back again. To quote my two edit summaries: "Favourites - split off section and rename and replace with summary from main article - text that was replaced is at Talk:Personal relationships of James I of England" and "restore my previous edit - this is about keeping the article balanced, not about his sexuality - summary here, main article at Personal relationships of James I of England - see talk page" Please talk about this, instead of throwing around accusations such as "well-intentioned but ill-conceived attempt to make the King heterosexual" - moving material to a subpage and leaving a summary behind is not an "attempt to make the King heterosexual". Read what I left behind: "James's personal relationships included relationships with his male courtiers and his marriage to Anne of Denmark". That is not saying he was heterosexual. What it is saying is "Here is a short paragraph on this. For more, see this." Standard way to approach a subtopic. See WP:SUMMARY and WP:NPOV and WP:DUE for more. -- Carcharoth (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Personal relations" is a completely weaselly, worthless phrase as a summary. How about "intimate personal relationships"?  This seems indisputably true, and is a lot more informative than "personal relationships".  Didn't he have personal relationships with Robert Cecil and the Earl of Morton and the Earl of Northampton?  It might also be worth saying something to the effect that "the precise nature of James's relationship with his male favorites has been a subject of some debate." -- john k (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This was all once done properly, John (see the footnote that Carcharoth has just added back). The article has deteriorated. Weaselly things are certainly creeping in. The minute we accept that this article needs a section on "personal relationships" or "homosexuality" we move away from good history: I don't see those sorts of chapter headings in the general books. (Nice to see you here, by the way; I feared you had left us for Citizendium.) -- qp10qp (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Nah, I've been gone due to lack of internet access, since I was abroad for a while. I've done a bit on Citizendium, but mostly it seems like it's reinventing the wheel.  Whatever the (very serious in many respects) problems with wikipedia, it's really the only game in town.  The footnote is, indeed, a perfectly good discussion of the issue.  I'd personally prefer that included in the article itself, but there's really no need for more here.  The personal relationships section is ridiculous.  "James had personal relationships with various people?"  No kidding.  Most of us do.  If there is to be a separate article, we should quit with the weaseling.  It should be called "Sexuality of James I", and should address the issue straight on - there has certainly been enough written on the subject to warrant an article, and that's what the article is about, aside from a brief discussion of James's relationship with his children - it is not about his "personal relationships," but largely about whether he was homosexual or not.  john k (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the summary of a section that is spun off supposed to summarize what is in the spin off article? This summary doesn't do that at all. What I see here is what happened to the Abraham Lincoln and James Buchanan bios, where editors were not allowed to add anything remotely relating to homosexuality and were forced to make separate articles on the subject. Sorry, but I still see WP:OWN going on, as well as an aggressive, heterocentric agenda. I won't revert you (though I wouldn't bank on the text staying in its current form for long), but I strongly disagree with how this section has been handled. -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus is that mention of homosexuality is not a problem. What is a problem for me, at least, is mentioning it one-sidedly and at too great a length.-- qp10qp (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(indent reset) So the solution is to expunge it from the article completely and not even mention it in the summary of the article to which it has been relegated? It seems like some here do, indeed, consider his sexuality to be troublesome. And I don't think the material was one-sided, in that the article also discusses his relationships with women; nor do I consider the mention too long, considering the length of the total article. -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was one-sided in that it said that James had male lovers. The counter-argument that the case is not proven was not presented. It was too long in the sense that the biographies do not give equivalent space to the question. The equivalent space for this article would be a line or two. The issue is covered in the restored note on the matter (note 26 at the moment).-- qp10qp (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I must not be reading your post correctly. Are you actually saying that a footnote is the appropriate amount of coverage for this article, when the question of his homosexuality (or bisexuality) has been discussed in multiple books? -- Jeffpw (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have to be in a footnote; with rewording it can be placed in the main text, if so wished. But yes, this amount of coverage is the correct amount. The biographies either say nothing about homosexuality at all or very little.-- qp10qp (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are currently four paragraphs about his homosexuality (roughly 7% of the article). After reading through it, I could see cutting it down a bit, as long as the pertinent info (and sources) are kept. And I should mention that the biographies may say nothing about homosexuality for censorship and/or homophobic reasons more than anything. History is sometimes a bit straight :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Four paragraphs and 7% is far too much. We only have a paragraph on how he became King in England. Only a paragraph on the Gunpowder plot. Only a paragraph on religious challenges. All three of those examples are important enough to have "see also" daughter articles expanding on the topic, and are without question far more relevant than the issue of his sexuality. There is absolutely no justification for having four overly long paragraphs on James's sexuality and the history of his relationships. A daughter article already exists: Personal relationships of James I of England. No-one, amidst the slow-moving edit war going on here, has bothered to address these points, except me - and I was revert with claims that I was trying to suppress the information. I am only trying to strike the right balance here. It may be hard for some people to accept, but not everyone comes to Wikipedia expecting to find extensive writings about sexuality and personal relationships in the main article about a historical figure. That might be what some people are interested in - I too find it interesting - but this article is not the place to go into detail about it. This article should be a general overview, and should deal with the important history. (see Plan moving forward below) Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just my 2 cents, but I like the article as is. I don't think any changes need to be made. Seems like something that should exist in a daughter article, not in the main. DSuchet (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Plan moving forward
I suggest the following: (a) One paragraph on the topic and a link to Personal relationships of James I of England; (b) Not focusing on homosexuality, but more on his relationships and his sexuality as a whole and mentioning both sides of the argument (the 'footnote' being brought into the main text might be a good start). The minutiae of the arguments over sources should then take place at Talk:Personal relationships of James I of England. Would this be acceptable to everyone? After three days, if there are no objections to the above plan, I will implement it. Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Just my 2 cents, but I like the article as is. I don't think any changes need to be made. Seems like something that should exist in a daughter article, not in the main. DSuchet (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Carcharoth, I hope you don't mind me splitting your comments out, but I wanted to make sure people see it and can comment on it directly. I think it sounds like a good plan and support implementing it. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  23:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Thanks for splitting this proposal out into its own section. Carcharoth (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not down with this plan at all and feel the article should be left as it were, except to expand it. I have no qualms saying that any attempts to remove the homosexual depth, will be met with reverts. Thanks. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  00:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is called edit warring: "'Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit. Wikipedia works best when people with opposing opinions work together to find common ground. Neutral point of view advises that all significant views can and should be documented proportionally. An edit war is the opposite of this, with two sides each fighting to make their version the only one.'" Instead of edit warring, are you prepared to work with the other editors of this article to ensure that all significant views are documented proportionately? Do you have any reasons why you want to expand the section on homosexuality, instead of replacing it with a balanced and sourced assessment of the historical evidence? Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * SatyrTN, If you want to remove split, then why not carry the opinions of the previous conversation with it. Since you didn't I have copied DSuchet's comment over on your behalf. I'm sure you want mind SatyrTN.


 * As to my opinion, I don't belive the LGBT Activists have any leg to stand on. As such, none of you have the right to dictate the direction of this article. First, you haven't brought reliable sources to the table. Second, you are asking for something that is a passing mention in the scope of history to have the weight of centuries. - ICarriere (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ICarriere, you continue to repeat that no reliable sources have been brought forward, but I have yet to see a response to my request above for you to show why the sources that have been brought forward should be considered unreliable. Could you reply to that, please? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And what has been done to this article is called rape. Just because you're an admin doesn't mean your way is right and final. The fact is, a disservice is being done to this article by the gross and shameful attempts at minimizing the homosexual content. You all realized that we simply won't accept it being totally removed so then you go on to "allowing" a few sentences and a link to somewhere else. That is un-acceptable. It's content censorship. It's vandalism. It's childish. It's obvious homophobia trying to be veiled based off some bullshit argument about being weighty. Sickening. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  01:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, ASE, the current article (or even the one proposed that has a little less about James' sexuality and relationships) is far more than it was a few months ago when *ALL* the sexuality content was banished to a separate article. Carcharoth is right about "fair and balanced", though that phrase almost makes me gag. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Rape? Rape is what you both are trying to do to this article. Take your agenda somewhere else. It's not wanted, not needed and certainly not helpful. Korismo (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Me with an agenda? No, that would be you and others who are hell bent on minimizing the content. And I don't recall asking what was wanted but thanks for the extra info. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  01:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's really helpful and directly about the content of the article. Thanks for sharing, Korismo. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Whatever we do can we make sure we use the word homosexual (with whatever qualifiers are required) and not have all the coy pussyfooting around. It's not the 1950s. Artw (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now why would you be in favor of that Artw? Can you say A-G-E-N-D-A? Why don't you provide proof that he was a homosexual and then we can add that. Short of that you have no argument and only an agenda. Korismo (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be in favour of that since if we are going to mention the theories and supoositions that King James was a homosexual then we should not use weasel words, as per WP:WEASEL. Please remember to assume good faith and be WP:CIVIL. Artw (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep, I've already read it. Why don't you try giving it a read buddy. Korismo (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I really have to say that the revert war going on here is childish and should stop. Several editors on both sides are approaching WP:3R but achieving nothing. Likewise, some of the behaviour here on the talk page is not productive. As long as a reasonable discussion occurs here and a consensus version is achieved in a reasonable period, I don't really think that it matters whether we start by adding the section back in then cutting it down, or by starting without the section and building it again using some text extracted from page history. The end result will be the same.


 * The sooner a serious effort at building that consensus version starts, the sooner everybody will be roughly equally unhappy with the result, and the sooner we all can move on to more productive editing elsewhere. I generally agree with user:Carcharoth's proposal, but would suggest that mention of relationships and his sexual orientation would be a more reasonable compromise than the suggested relationships and his sexuality. It provides a subtle clue to what one might expect to find in the other article, and does so in a hook-like manner. --AliceJMarkham (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alice. That was my problem with the article summation as originally written. As I understand it, if content is spun off, the summation should clearly state what the reader can find in the other article. As it had been written, the reader had no indication that James had sexual liaisons with men as well as women. That is when I started seeing a heterocentric agenda at work. If we can all agree that the paragraph in question clearly state this fact (Ideally in the subject heading), then I would support the content split. Jeffpw (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to something said above, may I say that the issue of homosexuality has always been addressed in the article and the word "homosexual" has always been in it. The issue is about whether there should be a lot more about it or not. I have not taken part in a revert war myself, because I believe in discussion and trying to prove one's case through argument and evidence.


 * I fully sympathise with the point of view of people who feel that the place of homosexuals in history should not be airbrushed over. But please beware of taking the opinion of homophobes as your source for believing that James was a practising homosexual. He was called this essentially by his enemies and those of Lennox and co.  When he was a boy in Scotland, it was the English, and other enemies of Lennox, who cast aspersions on the nature of James's closeness to Lennox (who was his relation). Later in England, we have gossipy sources for the rumour. But the history of his homosexuality really set in during the English Civil War and the Commonwealth, when a series of histories were written tracing what was seen as the corruption and debauchery of the Stuarts to James. These histories are known to be biased and unreliable and were written by those with a Puritan and anti-monarchy agenda. I would just suggest that those who buy this tradition unreservedly pause to consider the biased and homophobic nature of these sources.


 * Of course, homosexuality wasn't the only accusation. James was called many more things, such as a witch, a Papist, a murderer (Ruthven, Overbury), and a lecher. Personal descriptions of him allude to his smelliness, his scruffiness, and that he dribbled because his tongue was too big for his mouth. We should treat all such evidence with caution, taking into account the sources.


 * Another line of scholarship about James's homosexuality comes from scholars who have interpreted certain letters or statements of James to be homosexual in nature. This is certainly very interesting, but in my opinion it is a specialist area of study and is difficult to fit comfortably into a general article. The reason is that one would have to balance it with the counter-arguments, that the passages should not be interpreted as homosexual, and this would take up too much room in the article, in my opinion.


 * To those who bridle at what they see as weasel terms, like "male favourites", "preferred the company of men", and "close male friendships", I would argue that this wording is neutral. It allows the reader to either take it at face value or to read it as implying homosexuality. In fact, this type of wording is common in the general history books because, in the absence of proof that he was homosexual, it is as far as one can go, based on the evidence. And when one mentions that some scholars believe he was gay, one must simultaneously mention that others believe the case has not been proved—this is our obligation according to Wikipedia policy.


 * The question of significance also comes into it, in my opinion: if James were indeed secretly a practising homosexual, would it have made any difference to his policies as king? We know that his closeness to his male favourites did affect his policies, since three of them rose to powerful positions. If he had slept with them, though, would anything be different? This was an exceptionally God-fearing and emotional man who condemned the practice of sodomy with horror in his religious writings; if, despite this, he was secretly sleeping with men, what would be the difference to history? My own opinion, which is worth nothing, of course, is that he was a homosexual or bisexual who did not sleep with other men owing to strong religious beliefs (this would explain his affection towards men). But we have to stick with what we know, even if we sense that we don't know enough. qp10qp (talk) 11:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seldom seen anyone write with such articulation on Wikipedia. I highly recommend that everyone read the above comments. - ICarriere (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ICarriere, I will WP:AGF that your rainbow font choices have little to do with the current topic but I believe it does violate WP:TALK in spirit of communication and consideration even if it is not yet spelled out specifically. Please consider that users worldwide read these discussions and archives and do not always have the most advanced equipment so visual ease should be a strong consideration. Benjiboi 09:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the thoughtful response from Qp10qp on the matter and respectfully suggest that since homosexuality has been and continues to be a hot-button or culture war topic that the article be brave and address it along the lines that you have laid out. This, I believe, would quell current and predictable future concerns. Wikipedians are well used to clumsy "this was stated but is held in tension blah blah blah" so weaving your above explanation with the "gay cabal" text might be a good starting point for the sibling article and a concise and accurate summary of same might mend the rift. Benjiboi


 * Isn't that what I suggested at start of this section? Well-written summary here, mentioning or making clear that the issue is in some ways clear (definitely clear indications of what modern people would call homosexuality), but in other ways is not clear (problem of distance in time, and varying reliability of sources, and imprecision in the exact nature of the relationships), and detail to be put in the, unsurprisingly, more detailed article? Reading what some people want to put in this article (numerous paragraphs on this topic), I'm reminded of the vandalism you see from schoolkids reading this article, who, surprised at reading this about a King of England, replace the whole article with "LOLZ - JAMES WAS GAY!!". That alone should reassure those who think that Wikipedia readers can't understand subtext, or don't read footnotes, and need to have the issue spelled out in detail for 4 or 5 paragraphs. I've said all along that the subject should be covered in Wikipedia, but it mustn't be excessively covered in the main article. Carcharoth (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Restoring original footnote
The footnote that qp10qp refers to above was accidentally removed by User:Smackbot with this edit on 7th September. I've notified the bot owner on the bot talk page, and I've restored the footnote. Hopefully this will adequately cover the issue. Note that the footnote was written by qp10qp, who wrote most of the article as it now stands when it passed featured article review back in April of this year. In my opinion, that is enough to cover the issue here. Wider coverage should go in Personal relationships of James I of England. Only summaries are needed here, and that is provided by the footnote I just restored, and the section titled "Favourites". Carcharoth 12:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would also agree with your new edits. We have a new person to the discussion who took it upon himself/herself to reverse your edits -- so I've restored the edit you made. I also added the correction that qp10qp added shortly after Allstarecho. -- Korismo (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This one is good. I like the addition of the footnote. Plus, this restores us to the featured article status. I think this should be an acceptible solution for all parties. -- DSuchet (talk) 19:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to disagree, but I don't believe any compromise is needed. The Wikipedians who have made these incredible claims are not historians and can not provide reliable sources. Moreover, they refuse to be reasonable about the issue. I will support the new changes made by Carcharoth, but I don't like the idea of a footnote compromise. - -- ICarriere (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in this case, I would argue slightly in the opposite direction: the homosexuality material was poorly sourced in the sense that the books were marginally about the subject or taken from inferior sources or awkward sources (King James, by Bergeron, for example, is subtitled "A Novel"). However, it is no trouble to source more effectively the opinion that James was a practising homosexual. But there is no such thing as a reliable primary source for his homosexuality (for example, take the English report about James and Lennox). There are no facts about James's homosexuality to state, only interpretations of documents and incidents. The latter are, however, admissable to a historical article to show the range of analysis.-- qp10qp (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Qp10qp, I know you are a historian and I respect your opinion on the subject. But what is to prevent the LGBT activists from adding a section or footnoot on homosexuality to every biography on Wikipedia? After all, people can speculate about the sexuality of others as much as they want, yet it doesn't make it true. Moreover, there is no reason that we should entertain every fanciful notion that people have by giving it reference in the article. As Clio the Muse said, "We proceed by by the sources, and only by the sources; and by this I mean primary sources. Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must be silent." - -- ICarriere (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, we may use secondary sources too, and those may contain scholarly opinions that we are entitled to report. However, in an article like this, that sort of reference should be kept very brief, I think—as it is in the biographies and general histories. It's the specialist books that go into detail and into idiosyncratic theorising; and this isn't a specialist article.-- qp10qp (talk) 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Surely most historical figures don't have nearly the amount written about their sexuality that James has had. I will note also that here at wikipedia we proceed, in fact, not by the primary sources, but by the secondary sources.  Secondary sources on James tend not to focus much on the issue, but it has certainly been written about and debated.  I tend to agree with Qp10qp, broadly. john k (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you provide me with a link to where such a debate can be found? That is to say, other than a link back to this page. Thank you - ICarriere (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this really debatable? The idea that James's relationship with Buckingham, at least, had, at the very least, homoerotic undertones, can hardly be controversial.  Read just about any mention of the relationship and you'll see that the implication of homosexuality is there, and has to be dealt with in one way or another. Also, what the hell is with the red font?  Incredibly annoying. john k (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Not An Acceptible Solution
I removed the paragraph added by Jeffpw. I don't think I've ever read so much nonsense. The paragraphs were overflowing with factual inaccuracies. Nice try. Korismo (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Korismo, I'm reverting your edit. Until you can *prove* what facts are "nonsense" or "factually inaccurate" - specifically and with references - please leave the article alone.  Alternatively, try adding constructive criticism of the article or its content rather than editors.  Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  06:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * SatyrTN, that isn't how it works. The burden of proof is on you and you know it. You can't make claims like,


 * Throughout his life James had relationships, platonic, romantic and sexual, with both women and men. Though he adopted a severe stance towards sodomy using English law, he was later denounced as a hypocrite for this in an unpublished manuscript by Jeremy Bentham.


 * I'm not going to stand for the lies you and the LGBT keep inserting. Find the sources you claim exist, or you'll be subject to continued reverts. And by the way, reverting your violations of the sourcing rule is not subject to WP:RR. I spent all last night atreading the rules, so don't even try to threaten with that rubbish. Korismo (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The material is sourced, Korismo, and the text as written does say that there is debate among scholars. Further, the text has been substantially shortened so as not to give undue weight, which was Carcharoth's concern. qp1-qp seems to be in general agreement about mention of James's sexuality. It looks a lot to me like you are working against consensus here. Given that the material is sourced and consensus seems to be achieved, you will be violating 3rr if you continue to revert. And make no mistake: I will pursue steps to block you if you engage in an edit war. Jeffpw (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone needs to take it down a notch. I agree with Korismo on the removal of the material added by Jeffpw. It's worse than the material I originally objected to. On the other hand, I believe a solution needs to be affected. I would suggest that we allow qp10qp to determine how we proceed.


 * Why you may ask? 1. Because qp10qp is the only historian here. 2. Because qp10qp wrote the article and brought it up to "featured article status". 3. Because qp10qp has a balanced view of the facts.


 * Short of this, I'm inclined to join Korismo in the continued reverts of poorly sourced material. And quite frankly, I have all the time in the world. - ICarriere (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This sounds like a declaration of war, ICarriere. I would ask you to read the relevant policies. You may be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate 3rr. I would tread carefully, if I were you. Further, as I mentioned yesterday, nobody owns this article. We are trying to come to consensus, and your actions are not helping. Jeffpw (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Jeffpw, I never said anything about WP:3RR, nor did I say anything about an edit war. I merely said that I would join Korismo in an effort to revert your poorly sourced material.


 * Moreover, I'm not afraid of your veiled threat to have me banned. I have proceeded by the rules. You on the other hand have not. You claim that I'm not helping, yet you inserted those inflammatory statements about King James VI/I being a homosexual. What proof do you have of this? You can either come forward with reliable sources or you can go away. That's how Wikipedia works. You don't have to like it, but that's how it is. - 08:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICarriere (talk • contribs) 08:00, 18 November 2007 UTC

(outdent) ICarriere (fancy colors or no) or Korismo, I'll ask once again (third time, I believe) - what is wrong with the sources provided? You two have bandied about terms like "unsourced" or "poorly sourced", but no one has brought forth any actual, factual criticism of the sources that have been provided. Qp10qp has made some good points about context and those should be addressed in the sub-article, but even s/he hasn't said the sources are poor. So stop trying to pretend there's some sort of cabal or conspiracy - we're all just trying to make a better encyclopedia. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 07:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already addressed the sources provide on your daughter article. They would not be accepted by any other encyclopedia, and they should not be accepted here. And yes, I do enjoy some color every once in a while. - ICarriere (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The material is sourced. You simply don't like what they say. Last I heard, not liking something was not grounds for deleting it. I urge you to continue to discuss, and not edit was as you and Korismo seem inclined to do, if the messages on your talk pages are any indication. Jeffpw (talk) 08:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't enjoy edit wars. But if people are unwilling to be reasonable and continue to add poorly source material to substatiate inflammatory claims, then I don't mind doing my duty. - ICarriere (talk) 08:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, guys! The page is protected. Time to discuss instead of edit-warring. Max S em(Han shot first!) 08:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "I've already addressed the sources provide on your daughter article." Really. Because I don't see any comments from you on that article. And I don't see a refutation of any of these sources:
 * Maurice Ashley ; ‘The English Civil War’ ; p. 21 Thames & Hudson 1974 ISBN 0500820023
 * H. Montgomery Hyde, The Love That Dared not Speak its Name; pp. 44 and 143
 * H. Montgomery Hyde, The Love That Dared not Speak its Name; pp. 44 and 143


 * Now - pony up. Refute the references or stop getting in the way of making the article better. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  15:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever we do, can we leave Jeremy Bentham, no historian and writing nearly 200 years later, out of it? Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about some more reliable sources to support James's being gay or (more likely) bisexual. I'll reenter them from an above section.
 * 1. Louis Crompton. Homosexuality & Civilization. Boston: Belknap/Harvard University Press, 2003. Not only is this from one of the most respected university presses, it won an award sponsored by the Foundation for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. Compton devotes a whole section on the the male partners of James I within the chapter on 16th & 17th century England. He said: "Amorous involvements with handsome male favorites were a recurring pattern in James's life." [Page 382] Talking about the Duke of Lennox: "James was devastated by the loss of the man who had been his family, friend, lover, and mentor..." [Page 384]. Compton sources his book, and there is more in that section on the subject of James's sexuality.
 * 2. Michael B. Young. King James and the History of Homosexuality. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Another academic press book on the subject. It's true that historians have tended to be careful about discussing the homosexuality of James I, however, Young has established "beyond any reasonable doubt that James I was actively involved in sexual relations with his young clients." The review goes on to say that this can't be proven to a legal certainty [which WP is not required to do], but that the evidence is convincing. I don't have the time right now to read his book, but I will as soon as I get a copy, or online access. The review is promising.
 * And I have seen other sources listed but have not checked them out yet. — Becksguy (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's better to use general and mainstream sources (because that's what we aspire to be ourselves) for James's homosexuality than specialist ones. For example, Stewart and Fraser's biographies both assume that James was homosexual; Pauline Croft's, however, doesn't, and nor does Barroll's biography of Anne of Denmark. Can I repeat, though, that the issue here is not whether James was homosexual or not, but keeping this material in proportion to the significance given to other topics in the article. Since the article is chronological, I see no reason to have a separate section on the matter, since it spoils the overall structure. I think the question of homosexuality is best addressed early in the article, when Lennox is first mentioned. If it is felt that more needs to be said, that could be folded into the context of Carr and Buckingham's ascendancy, in the later part of the reign.qp10qp (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So Qp10qp, ICarriere and Korismo seem to think the sources (or their perception of the lack of them) that's the problem. Would you comment on that?
 * And you seem to be more focused on the length of the content. Was Jeffpw's version acceptable to you? Is there different info you would put in the article? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  16:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as you know, I don't think there should be a special section on this at all. James's sexuality is of interest only insofar as it might have impinged on his career. So, it might be mentioned when Lennox is introduced, and, if that is not thought enough, when the article addresses James's later favourites, Carr and Buckingham. qp10qp (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think there should be a special section on his sexuality, however, it should just be a summary section, rather than a full section, since it points to the article on his personal relations. This is keeping with style for such sections. His sexuality is of great interest for several reasons: It influenced his selection of close advisers and elevated some to positions of power, it was a matter of contemporary interest and controversy, the court was of major influence in society, and a gay (or bisexual) king set the tone for the court. So it should be obvious that it wasn't just something at the level of significance as his handedness. Remember, this was at a time when men were being burnt at the stake for "crimes against nature".  Also, we need to remember that sexuality and "male bonding" was viewed very differently then, without getting into the controversy of homosexuality as a construct. There are sufficient reliable sources that support his sexual relations with other males, so that it needs to be included, along with the debate among historians. — Becksguy (talk) 22:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with all of what Becksguy says here, but I do think that James' sexuality is more important than just how "it might have impinged on his career." This is the guy that oversaw the translation of a Bible that's been used to persecute homosexuals.  If he was, at the same time, sleeping with Buckingham, I believe his sexuality deserves more than a passing mention. (a quickly found source of info that may or may not be reliable would be ) It doesn't need pages and pages, mind you, but more than just in passing. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I completely agree with you, SatyrTN. It is much more than just a career issue, it's intrinsic to him as a person, just as one's sexuality and identity is intrinsic to everyone. In his case, he was also the (first) King of Great Briton. I was just trying to keep each response to one specific subtopic, if only for a better focus, and also to avoid overly long responses, since that's what I tend to do. The section should very clearly say that he was gay in more than a passing mention. It's unfortunate that there is a separate article on his sexuality, since as a matter of WP style, that prevents a strong and fully developed and fully sized section in this main article, which I would have very much preferred. Maybe the daughter article should be merged back here, and integrated with this article. Also, the sexual nature of the relationships should be included along with each of his main love interests: Lennox, Buckingham, etc. How can you have a biography of someone without fully disclosing his sexual, romantic, and platonic relationships along with the political, state, dynastic, family, financial, advisory, and other relationships? — Becksguy (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can repeat the notion that he was gay all you want. It doesn't change the fact that he was not. And absent of good sources the notion is no more than gossip (best kept to the pages of your favorite tabloid). Korismo (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly. Reputable historians have written about this. See the footnote in the article, James I of England: "Throughout his life James had close relationships with male courtiers, which has caused debate among historians about their nature...", with quotes from books by Bucholz, Sharpe, Barroll and Cerasano. The justification for relegating this to a footnote is that these books are not biographies of James. If you look at the references, the three main biographies that have been used to build this article and guide its shape, are the biographies by Croft, Stewart and Willson. I believe qp10qp has stated elsewhere what these biographies state on the topic, but note that two of them were published in 2003, so are likely to have been based on the most recent thinking on this topic. The only question here is only one of phrasing (how exactly to put this) and balance (how much to write here) and context (how this is relevant). Saying that he wasn't gay is just as misleading as saying that he was. The "truth" is somewhere in between these two extremes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to Becksguy: It's a trade-off that editors of Wikipedia articles should be able to, but unfortunately don't always agree about. What needs to be done when considering something like this, and when constructing the article, is (as qp10qp has said more eloquently than I) to read the existing general biographies, and use those as a guide to the right balance to strike. Specialist areas of history, such as LGBT topics, will naturally focus on this topic, whereas general biographies will not. If you have a large and expanded section on his sexuality, this focuses on that topic and moves the article's focus away from other areas such as the Gunpowder plot, the religious challenges at the time, and the personal union of England and Scotland. The crux of this whole argument seems to be whether this article here should be an article about "James the Man", or "James the King of Scotland and later England and Ireland"? It is clear it should be the latter, not the former. He is notable primarily for being King. For what it is worth, I agree that sexuality is intrinsic to a person's identity, but doing that kind of presentation for historical persons over 400 years in the past is fraught with danger and the potential to misinform or mislead people. And this has never been about not "fully disclosing" the relationships, but rather about clearly stating something, but not overdoing the amount that is written about it in relation to the other material in the article. Also, because of the distance in time, it is probably that it is not even possible to fully disclose everything, because not everything is known. Stating that we know some things for certain is just misleading. A few more points: the editors deciding on the overall balance of an article should, really, be the ones that built the article up for featured article status (or in this case featured article review), as they will be more familiar with the overall article. This contrasts sharply with editors who are only interested in the LBGT aspects and nothing else. In many cases, as seen by comments elsewhere on this talk page, they will be unable to get the balance right. Specialist editors for specialist articles and generalist editors for generalist articles. It's not an exclusive all-or--nothing case, but this generalist/specialist divide is a good rule of thumb that works in areas other than Wikipedia. One final word of warning - it takes an experienced editor with good grounding in the topic, to be able to assess sources fairly. Quick Google searches like the one SatyrTN did above don't really work, and to be fair SatyrTN admits as much. It turns out that SatyrTN's hit there is for a general guide to all the Kings and Queens of England and Britain (Kings and Queens from Jarrold Publishing), rather than a biography of James. Their summary of James shouldn't really be a guide for the correct balance to strike in our article. Carcharoth (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Carcharoth, for a civil and thoughtful response. I will respond in the same vein here. below to this and the more recent comments, since newer sections have been added. — Becksguy (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Generalists vs. Specialists: That is a thought provoking comment, Carcharoth, and one I hadn't seen on WP before, at least expressed that way, but I suspect that there are strengths and weaknesses to both approaches, as each brings something different to the table. We also all bring our own experiences, training, viewpoints, and filters. Often those with experience in a specialized area can pick out critical nuances that generalists may think relatively less important, i.e. - The devil is in the details. And I think you have a point that sometimes specialists may over inflate some specific areas or points, since that's what they know best. And I think you have also a point about generalists maybe having a better sense of the whole flow and structure of a project. But I also think that many, or even most of us can be both, maybe with some mental reorientation as we change mode (although maybe it's a bit like deductive vs. inductive reasoning). Brainstorming seems to work well in these cases. My specialty is not history, rather it's where I made my living, primarily in electronics, computer systems and technology, and newspaper production. And I think it's obvious that one can be a generalist in some areas, and a specialist in others, and not know much, or anything, about a whole lot of other stuff. Occasionally the changes made here, or the arguments for those changes, are the result of an agenda, but I believe that most of the time it's the result of honest differences of opinion about notability, sourcing, balance and importance. I chose to believe, with a few exceptions, that the vast majority of us want a better and more useful Wikipedia for everyone. Sometimes we argue or discuss about how best to get there. Bottom line: I think we need both here. — Becksguy (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:TALK reminder
The tone of this discussion is too hostile in some quarters, and it's not too hard to decipher where the unnecessary rise in temperature originates. Please review WP:TALK and WP:CALM. In particular, please note "avoid excessive markup"; the color-coded commentary is not helpful. Please try to assume good faith and remain civil. Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've added templates to the top of the talk page and encourage some participants in this discussion to read them thoroughly. The excessive color-coded markup on talk page commentary should be removed; see Good practice.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly agree with Sandy. Calmer debate would undoubtedly help and perhaps more outside views - an article RfC perhaps? I have removed the coloured comments. Lets not make this a contest as to who can make their point the "loudest". WjBscribe 17:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My view is that qp10qp has argued convincingly for the state of the article that existed before the latest eruption of this dispute. This seems more a generalist versus specialist dispute, with editors with an interest in LBGT issues and LGBT history wanting a large focus on sexuality and personal relationships in an article about a King and his reign, to say more about the sexuality and personal relationships than other aspects of his reign, and to highlight this in its own section rather than tie it in with the politics of the court and the relevance to his reign. I hope that qp10qp's points (and mine) have been made calmly. The most egregious breach of civility I saw was someone referring to the article being 'raped'. That and the accusations of people promoting anti-gay agendas. An article RfC may help, if only to have something to point at when this dispute erupts again. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the "rape" was a bit over the top :-) Yes, QP's arguments and yours were calm and cogent.  Perhaps a review of due weight is in order.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:10, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that posted the "rape" comment, and you all can call it what you will but shit still stinks no matter how deep you bury it. The ridiculousness of removing any and all references whatsoever of even a minute (small, not the time) romantic, much less sexual, involvement with another man is unjust and is exactly what I called it. It went from pointing out homosexual relations to making it seem like "family" relationships talking mostly about his wife "mother of his children" (hello heterosexual agenda!) and his mom and dad! --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  03:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, you are missing the point. It is not about removing anything, or about any agendas. It is about balance, context and detail. Simply having a section that effectively says "JAMES WAS GAY" is overly simplified, misleading, and distorts the balance of the article, which needs to say a lot more about the rest of James's life as well. Several reputable historians have been unable to come to definite conclusions on this topic, or deemed the matter unworthy of detailed attention, and the summary here of the main article (Personal relationships of James I of England) should reflect that. Carcharoth (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Review of WP:UNDUE? Not quite sure who you are referring to here. There are two distinct (though maybe related) flavours of WP:UNDUE here. One involving the sources (LGBT history books could be considered a minority viewpoint here) and one involving the content (not favouring LGBT topics over other history topics). The connection is clearest when saying that the content balance of a general article should reflect the general sources. Are you saying that the general/specialist distinction is not clear, or not made in WP:UNDUE, or are you saying that people should read WP:UNDUE before commenting here? Carcharoth (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that QP gave very good arguments for keeping the entire issue in balanced, historical context, taking into account knowledge of the bias in the sources. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

With my "admin hat" on, I should point out that, and  are confirmed by checkuser to be operated by one person. This should prob be taken into account in considering what the consensus on this talkpage is. Appropriate blocks have been made as I regard such use of multiple accounts to skew debate as highly disruptive. WjBscribe 01:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems to explain that...
Given WjB's comment above, and given that everyone else in the discussion seems to agree that a balance needs to be struck, can we move in that direction? I propose we revert to Jeffpw's version and see if anything else needs to be done. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you link to a copy of that? Benjiboi 02:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done below. :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You mean this version? I think the title of the section is too wordy: "Relationships and debated sexual orientation". I think the title should follow the daughter article, in this case "Personal relationships". Also, the phrasing "debated sexual orientation" is just clumsy, no offense intended. As to the substance of the text itself, the first paragraph on his childhood seems OK. The other two paragraphs are less good:"'Throughout his life James had relationships, platonic, romantic and sexual, with both women and men. Though he adopted a severe stance towards sodomy using English law, he was later denounced as a hypocrite for this in an unpublished manuscript by Jeremy Bentham. Though his marriage to Anne of Denmark produced eight children and he was also romantically linked to Anne Murray (later Lady Glamis), he had a series of close relationships with men throughout his life which caused discussion and drew the concern of his contemporaries. He was linked to Esmé Stewart, 6th Lord d'Aubigny, Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham.[105][106] Modern scholars debate the significance of his relationships with men. Some call them close platonic relationships while others see them as sexual.'" The initial sentence "James had relationships, platonic, romantic and sexual, with both women and men" actually contradicts the final sentence "Some call them close platonic relationships while others see them as sexual". The sentence starting "Though" unnecessarily dismisses his marriage to Anne - see Anne of Denmark for more on this. The Bentham sentence fails to mention how much later this manuscript was written (200 years, I think). Finally, the "modern scholars" sentence will date in a few years time, and in any case doesn't say which side of the arguments has more proponents. The current implication is that the platonic and sexual views are equal in weight, which may not be the case. There is also a lot of information just left out altogether. I think a better plan is to: (a) temporarily (for a few weeks) replace this with something short and succint (maybe use the 'footnote' wording as the earliest stable version?); (b) work together to edit Personal relationships of James I of England to get that in good condition; (c) return to this article and replace the temporary section with a slightly longer one summarising the newly re-written article Personal relationships of James I of England. How does that sound? Carcharoth (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion. This is a featured article about a long-dead person, this issue doesn't need to be resolved overnight, and calm work allowing for measured responses and weight of the sources is the most appropriate approach. In other words, I don't want this to show up at WP:FAR because tempers flared and people were impatient, because we'll have to send you away with a reminder that "FAR is not dispute resolution" :-))  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I am missing it, all references to his homosexual relationships have been removed and that's not acceptable. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  03:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are missing it. The article currently says "James's personal relationships included relationships with his male courtiers", and "Throughout his life James had close relationships with male courtiers, which has caused debate among historians about their nature: "The evidence of his correspondence and contemporary accounts have led some historians to conclude that the king was homosexual or bisexual. In fact, the issue is murky." Bucholz, p 208; In Basilikon Doron, James lists sodomy among crimes "ye are bound in conscience never to forgive". Sharpe, p 171; "The same pattern repeated itself with these men [Carr and Villiers] as had earlier been the case with Esmé Stuart. The evidence suggests that both had a physical liaison with their sovereign"". Also, no offence here, but how long have you been editing Wikipedia? You seem to be missing several key points about how things work on talk pages. You are consistently failing to respond to what others say, and are instead obstinately repeating your position under the impression that if you say it long enough it will make it right. If you try to explain what you think the article should say, and why, then we might get somewhere. Your current style of accusing editors of 'raping' articles and having a 'heterosexual agenda' and characterising the result as 'shit' is frankly unhelpful and uncivil. There is currently a thread about this whole dispute at the administrators' noticeboard. I realise you are new here, but the kind of comments you are posting are not acceptable and I've pointed out your edits in that ANI thread. I suggest you add comments there if you feel like justifying your previous comments on this talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest that another editor look at the section as I wrote it and edit it until we get it right. I simply don't have the time today, as I'm working a double shift. All Star, the version standing at the time of this post is the version that the sockpuppets reverted to, so naturally it takes a completely heterosexual focus. Now that they are gone I think we can all once again assume good faith here. The rest of the editors here seem to be willing to work towards a resolution which supports all viewpoints in their appropriate weight.
 * Carcharoth, though I understand your frustration, you need to understand what it is like to edit an encyclopedia which continually includes homophobic vandalism and whitewashes history. We at the LGBT Project seemingly spend half our time patrolling our articles against the most vicious forms of vandalism and fighting for our subject's inclusion with their true sexuality. For months now, we have been fighting a losing battle to be allowed to discuss the sexuality of both Jack Kerouac and Francis Bacon. Though sourced material says they were bisexual, that material has not remained long in the articles. And those are just two small examples. Given that, and what you have seen here, I would hope you could look somewhat empathetically upon All Star's and my comments about heterocentrist viewpoints and agendas. Jeffpw (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The version you referred to as the one "the sockpuppets reverted to, so naturally it takes a completely heterosexual focus" appears to be the version I wrote. I did not write this to further any "heterosexual agenda", but rather as a neutral, balanced and short presentation of the matter, so I hope you understand why I'm frustrated that you and Allstarecho continue to insist that it has had all references to homosexuality removed (it has not, though it does not use the word homosexuality because that is a modern term). I've done you the courtesy of commenting on yout version. Would you (and others) consider commenting (civilly!) on my version here? "'James's personal relationships included relationships with his male courtiers and his marriage to Anne of Denmark, with whom he fathered his children. Growing up, James did not have any parents, for his father, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, was murdered and his mother, Mary I of Scotland was forced to flee when she married the suspected murderer, James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. His grandfather was assassinated during his boyhood, and he had no siblings.'" Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 06:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I said "heterocentrist", not heterosexual. There's a great difference between the two. Please consider that. In any event, your version does not explicitly say that some scholars feel James had sexual relationships with men. If the section on personal relationships can say that in a sentence or two, then I am satisfied. Once again, I was under the impression that a summary section which points to a split off article was supposed to summarize the daughter article in its entirety. Jeffpw (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was quoting you directly. Earlier you said "heterosexual focus". Later you said "heterocentrist viewpoints and agendas". I do seem to have conflated the two though, and I apologise for that. I think we are close to agreeing what needs to go in this summary section, at least temporarily. One thing I will point out, though, is that last time I looked Personal relationships of James I of England was not properly balanced, and needs a fair amount of editing to bring it into a reasonable state. This is why the summary here doesn't fully agree with that article, because that article is not yet complete. Which is why I've proposed we all go and edit that article (say for the next week), and then come back here and rewrite the summary. Would you agree to that plan? Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well I do thank you Carcharoth as other editors on the ANI board thread indicated as much as what the "LGBT agenda pushers" have been asserting, that the subject is as close to gay as one could imagine and that it indeed likely had an impact. On another note add my vote to those who feel "Relationships and debated sexual orientation" isn't a great title but sure is better than "personal relationships" or "favorites" I have a personal relationship with the lady who makes my sandwiches and she's my favorite sandwich-maker but I think it pales in comparison to what we're referring to here. Benjiboi 07:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this subject is as close to gay as one could imagine. But that is not the same as actually stating baldly that he was homosexual. Let me ask you, as I've asked Jeff, are you prepared to help edit the daughter article (the 'specialist' article) to reliably source the details of all this, and then come back here and based on that work to help write a summary here (in the 'general' article)? And before anyone gets worried again, the summary will make clear that he had close relationships with men.
 * As for the personal relationships thing, I think that if such a vague title is used, it should encompass his relationships with his wife and children. One of those children was a future King of England who would be beheaded following a Civil War. As for his wife, you cannot ignore that relationship. He sailed to Norway to bring her home when her ship was forced to shelter from winter storms, was reportedly infatuated with her for a short while at least, argued with her over the 'custody' of Prince Henry, and wrote a poem to her when she died. She was his queen, and as such had a measure of power and influence in the royal court. Not as much, maybe, as some of the King's male favourites did at times, but she did have some influence. I think that including more than just his male relationships makes the article more interesting. And "personal relationships" is meant to imply close relationships (of parental, platonic, or sexual love, and close friendships and relationships based on 'power'). In other words, depicting as much as we can what we know of James the 'man', as opposed to James the 'king'. While recognising that the two are irretrievably intertwined. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The summary will make clear that he had close relationships with men??? I have close relationships with men all day long but that's not the same as me having sex with them, which has been conveniently removed - any mention or notion that he had sex with other men and that he had actual romantic, sexual love with other men. You seem to keep avoiding the issue. I'm sure he had close relationships with men.. his father, his brother, cousins, best friend.. but was he giving "it" to them? Why are you so hell-bent on making sure the "close ROAMNTIC, SEXUAL relationships with men" are not included and then trying to explain it off as "go to the other article for that"???? --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  14:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can say this more clearly this time. Allstarecho, you are being rude, uncivil, and are causing the temperature in this discussion to rise more than necessary.  And you are not addressing the points raised in the discussion or the direct questions asked of you.  Please REFRAIN FROM SHOUTING in your commentary by using caps, bolds and excess markup: read WP:CALM and WP:TALK.  Carcharoth has taken the time to lay out a plan and explain his points, and as far as I can tell, you are only SHOUTING back at him. Further, please read up on assume good faith and refrain from saying that Carcharoth is "hell-bent" on whatever.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, Carcharoth used bold above too so make sure you go smack his wrist. Further, I AM addressing the issue and the issue is the watering down and removal of content. Why am I the only one that can see this???? --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  15:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Consider the possibility that, when you're the only one who sees something, it might not be there. Please engage the commentary about the article content, and leave what you perceive to be other people's motives out of the discussion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Allstarecho, I used bold to highlight the plan I am proposing. What do you think of that plan? I would prefer to see you take part in the editing of that article, rather than turn up later and try and change a carefully crafted consensus. Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Responding to Allstarecho's 14:54 post: So we are getting to the crux of the matter here. You want the article to say that James "had sex with other men". You do realise that there is a difference between saying someone is homosexual and saying that they had sex with other men? If you don't, then that might be the problem here. How do we know whether or not he was chaste in his relationships? You are also persistently trying to impose modern sensibilities on the Jacobean era. May I ask if you have ever studied history or the Jacobean era in any detail before? As for the "other articles" comment, you are persistently misrepresenting my statements about how a summary here avoids unbalancing this article. I am not, and never have been, trying to suppress anything. Its all about striking the right balance. Please, try for a short time to put aside your presumptions of bad faith and let's try and work together on the other article (Personal relationships of James I of England), and then produce a summary here. You might be surprised (in a good way) at the result. I've now extended this offer to you, Jeffpw and Benjiboi. Other editors that may want to help out (from reviewing the talk page) include SatyrTN and Becksguy. If you include qp10qp and others, then we have more than enough people to thrash out a stable article at Personal relationships of James I of England, and to return here with a good summary to use in this article. How about it? Carcharoth (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Carcharoth, please consider following your own advice and stick to the content rather than continually questioning All Star's abilities, wikipedia age, opinions, etc.

All Star's absolutely right, though I do see your point, Carcharoth. At the moment, there is nothing that says "gay" in the article. It's all in the footnotes. Many people don't read footnotes, so they would miss that information entirely. I realize we don't want to use the text "James had sex with men" (for the reasons you state, C), but leaving it as "James had relationships with men and women" is as bland and uninformative as saying "James saw trees". While I'd prefer the phrase "physical relationships with", I suspect all we can get away with (considering what the references say) is "intimate relationships with".

And yes, Carcharoth, I believe you can count on a few editors participating in the discussion on the daughter article. I've mentioned before that it needs work, and I'm willing to help out with my "specialized" knowledge :) -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 15:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologise for the "wikipedia age" comment with regards to Allstar. The thing about history has to be pointed out though, because sometimes people do wade into historical articles without an appreciation of the points involved in assessing historical sources. I'm genuinely interested in finding out who, here, has background in assessing historical sources (both primary and secondary). I have very little background in this, but I am at least aware of the issues and the need to be careful. I would welcome the text of the footnote being used in the article, but must insist that the presence or absence of the issue in dedicated biographies of James also be included if this is done. As for bland and uninformative, sometimes that is better than being misleading. It is possible that maybe all we can say is that contemporary and later sources said that James had intimate relationships with men, and then adding that the truth of the matter is not totally clear (and source this opinion to the relevant secondary sources). If this sounds like what was there before all this started, then that is because a lot of thought and reading by qp10qp went into that phrasing (or something similar to that phrasing). Oh, and I realised I forgot to respond to an earlier point you made: "We at the LGBT Project seemingly spend half our time patrolling our articles against the most vicious forms of vandalism and fighting for our subject's inclusion with their true sexuality" - my response to that would be to say that 'true' is difficult to ascertain at a distance of over 400 years, and that fighting for the truth shouldn't avoid having to sometimes recognise that things are not clear, and trying to state something clearly is such cases is misleading. You also use the examples of Jack Kerouac and Francis Bacon. Kerouac is a much more recent figure, so is less relevant here than the Bacon case. Talk:Francis Bacon is an interesting (if long) read. Anyway, I'm glad you are happy to help edit Personal relationships of James I of England. Let's see who else joins us. Carcharoth (talk) 16:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Allstarecho is correct in what he says. There is no reference to male-male sexual relationships in the section: Personal relationships. Here is what it currently says, in it's entirety:
 * James's personal relationships included relationships with his male courtiers and his marriage to Anne of Denmark, with whom he fathered his children. Growing up, James did not have any parents, for his father, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, was murdered and his mother, Mary I of Scotland was forced to flee when she married the suspected murderer, James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell. His grandfather was assassinated during his boyhood, and he had no siblings.[103][104]
 * Someone reading the article as it is now would have no idea that there is any debate about James's sexuality. The word "relationships" could mean anything, depending. I also agree with Carcharoth that the current concepts of gay and homosexual are quite different from Jacobean England's, as are concepts of male bonding, friendship, and what's acceptable in society across most cultures and time periods. However, there are reliable sources that say James had sexual relationships with at least some of his male associates. Call it what you will, but excising that from the main article section is not fair. Don't use modern terms if that is the issue. Also, the section should be in rough proportion to the other summary sections in this article, and several of them are approx 230 to 330 words long. Footnote #24 is 117 words. I would agree to move the footnote up to that section and integrate it, including the assertion that it is murky, and debated. Even if that section is shorter, as long as it gives readers the idea that there is debate about James's sexuality. Then work on the daughter article per the suggestion. That seems fair and balanced, something that I wish to work toward. But to excise mention of anything other than platonic/family relations from the main article is not. Sorry, but footnotes don't count. People just don't generally read them. — Becksguy (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Becksguy,can you point to the reliable posts that say he "had sexual relationships with at least some of his male associates"? Thanks, --Tom (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Tom, I will (although this will be the third time), but on the talk page for Personal relationships of James I of England. Consensus was achieved here for the main article, and we agreed that future discussions of his sexuality will take place there. With updating of the summary section here once done with the daughter article. — Becksguy (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The issues are murky, as it says in the Bucholz book. I think we can say that James was "probably" a homosexual. The evidence for this can be based on the witnessed fact that he embraced and kissed Lennox and Carr in public (though we can't say that that "certainly" makes him a homosexual, given that relationships between men in that period were often characterised by what would today be regarded as homoerotic behaviours). We can even say that the relationships were physical, if we define embracing and fondling as physical. What we cannot say is that James had sex with these guys or that they were his lovers, because there isn't any conclusive evidence. The two closest things to evidence are: 1) when Buckingham wrote to James that "the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog"; however, that is not conclusive because James never slept alone but among a contingent of gentlemen of the bedchamber; also, Buckingham called himself the queen's dog too, and she his mistress; 2) when James wrote to Carr complaining of "your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber"—but, once again, Carr was a member of the royal bedchamber, and it was his appointed duty to sleep there. It was not a particular foible of James's to have lots of men sleeping with him in his bedchamber, but a normal royal procedure, for safety—not that it saved Duncan in Macbeth. The heterosexual behaviour of James, Lennox, Carr and Buckingham with their wives is a balancing factor; another balancing factor is that, considering how hated James was, no one ever came forward during his lifetime or after it to claim that James had slept with them or with someone they knew. These balancing factors aren't conclusive either, of course.


 * I am not denying that James may have slept with these men; I am saying that it cannot be proved. All we can do is base our statements on the evidence; and because of the limitation of the evidence we cannot state as a fact that James had sexual relationships with men—we mustn't compromise on that, in my opinion. Of course, it is possible to find books that say that he did, but those books have access to no more evidence than anyone else. However they might phrase it, they are interpreting. We can record their interpretations (and balance them) but not as fact. This is one difference between the responsibility of a neutral encyclopedia and the licence for interpretation given to scholars. qp10qp (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The "placeholder version"

 * I read footnotes! Anyway, I've integrated the footnote. See what you think of this wording: "'Throughout his life James had close relationships with male courtiers, in particular Esmé Stewart, 6th Lord d'Aubigny (later 1st Duke of Lennox), Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset, and George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. There has been debate among historians about the nature of these relationships: 'The evidence of his correspondence and contemporary accounts have led some historians to conclude that the king was homosexual or bisexual. In fact, the issue is murky.' (Buckholz, 2004)[103] In Basilikon Doron, James lists sodomy among crimes 'ye are bound in conscience never to forgive'. (Sharpe, 2000)[104] 'The same pattern repeated itself with these men [Carr and Villiers] as had earlier been the case with Esmé Stuart. The evidence suggests that both had a physical liaison with their sovereign'. (Barroll and Cerasano, 1996)[105] As well as his relationships with his male courtiers, James married Anne of Denmark, with whom he fathered his children.'" Is that suitable as a temporary placeholder while Personal relationships of James I of England is brought up to scratch? Carcharoth (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is OK with me as a placeholder. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ Works for me! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 19:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also happy to sign off on that paragraph. Wow. It seems without the sockpuppets, we can actually come to consensus! Jeffpw (talk) 19:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I as well find this more acceptable. Thanks. --  ALLSTAR    ECHO  22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In general it is an improvement, but I think we all know there is zip actual evidence of any physical liason in the normal modern sense. I would prefer emphasis on emotional relationships or dependence, for which there is ample evidence.  Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. But can we say for now that this is OK as a temporary placeholder while work takes place on laying out all the sources at Personal relationships of James I of England and deciding what exactly to say? Carcharoth (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. Thank you for reworking the paragraph, Carcharoth. I, too, see this as simply a placeholder and a show of your good faith. Jeffpw (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just edited the placeholder version to add details about the royal bedchamber that qp10qp mentioned above - something I'd forgotten about. I've just realised though that this may break the possibly fragile and hard-won consensus, so if people are happier reverting to the previous version, that is fine with me. I'll add it to the daughter article instead, including more of what qp10qp says above, and then when that article is satisfactory, we can return to include it here if it is deemed a necessary part of a summary of that article. Carcharoth (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)