Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal relationships of James I of England


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. The article most definitely has a problem, in that it is called the "personal relationships" of James I. The problem is that this doesn't necessarily have to mean sexual relationships (there are other kinds you know - why is everyone so obsessed with this to the exclusion of all else?) However, there is enough literature that discussed James I's alleged homosexuality that it is significant for us to note this in it's own article. I don't see how the article is a POV fork, because it was named well enough to allow for expansion to other types of relationships, as I noted above. It's a verifiable article, if fairly controversial. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal relationships of James I of England

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to me to be a WP:POVFORK. Large amounts of information in the article is totally unreferenced, including the core assertion that "throughout his life James I had relationships with his male courtiers", as well as the details about his alleged sexual relationship with Esmé Stewart. Almost all of the cited, referenced information is already included in James I of England, a featured article, under the appropriate heading. Certainly there are enough citeable, verifiable historical suggestions of James I's homosexuality that it merits mention in the main article on him; however, this article seems to give undue weight to the view that he was an active homosexual, and makes a lot of assertions about his relationships without providing sufficient citations. I therefore propose to delete this article; a merge is unnecessary, since most relevant and cited info can already be found in James I of England. WaltonOne 14:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Tag as NPOV.Operating 14:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The issues are not just with NPOV (and lack of verification); the article title itself is unnecessary, and implicitly POV. Since the cited and neutral information is covered under James I of England, there's really no need for this article. WaltonOne 14:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment He was a homosexual king. This is unusual and somewhat unique, and as such the matter is notable enough for a separate article. Keep and tag appropriately. Operating 15:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well established theory, with cites to back it up. If this was better covered in the main article this one might be unnecessary, but the main article is rather coy about it, so keep for now. If you feel the article has POV issues possibly they'd be better dealt with by editing the article? Artw 15:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Walton - James's homosexuality is well dealt with in the main article. This one is superfluous to that. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Just barely. I don't believe the word actually appears in the article. If this artcile is deleted the smerge suggestion below has a lot of merit. Artw 16:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Smerge Shorten and merge whatever content has supporting cites and which is not already in the main article. This seems to be a POV fork from the main article. Any referenced statements about his sexual orientation or relationships can go in the main article. Here I would say that it is not necessary to have documented sworn statements from first hand participants or verdicts from a court of law, since the standard of WP:BLP is inappropriate for ancient historical figures. If respected historians through the ages have promulgated rumors and beliefs, the article can say exactly that, without going the step further and promoting the beliefs and rumors to facts. Fight the battle in the main article to present a balaned and NPOV discussion which mirrors the coverage in reliable historical works, rather than creating a separate article to emphasize one point of view. Modern works which assert without proof that he was (or was not)a homosexual may not qualify as reliable sources, because we must also consider the possible agenda and quality of scholarship of the author. The assertion above "He was a homosexual king." is not in accord with the main article statement that he fathered eight children with his wife, with whom he was "infatuated" for a time at least. The claim of paternity might be supported or refuted by DNA testing on the royal lines of Europe. Could he have been a bisexual king?    Edison 16:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, gay people having kids is not unheard of you know. Artw 21:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I question the claim that if he was infatuated with his wife (as the main article states) and fathered eight children, that he was exclusively or even predominantly homosexual rather than bisexual. What is your definition of "homosexual?"Edison 03:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this POV fork, and provide a little weight to this in the main article. A separate article is undue weight. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep & Rename this aspect of James has been the subject of much study, debate, and scholarly writings - so while a merge would give this topic undue weight in the main biography it is a notable field of inquiry and scholarship - a not unprecedented move: Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, Hitler's sexuality, Jesus' sexuality, and Sexuality of James Buchanan and no doubt others. "Personal relationships" in the title is used euphemistically to mean "Sexuality" and the title should be changed accordingly, because euphemisms are to be avoided especially in titles: that's why we have an article at death, not at passing on. Carlossuarez46 21:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. In particular, Hitler's sexuality and Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (yes, I know the latter survived AfD, but that's for complex reasons) are very poor examples of how to treat topics like this. The existence of separate articles on these issues is a POV fork, which gives undue weight to the opinions of those historians who've questioned the sexuality of prominent historical figures. Certainly such opinions, if notable, should be noted in the main articles, but we really don't need the separate articles. If the people in question were living, this would be a serious WP:BLP violation; although BLP obviously doesn't apply to historical figures, we should still try and apply the same principles of neutrality and fairness. WaltonOne 12:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 *   Oh how quickly the essay is trotted out to see how to categorize a position contrary to one's own. Let's see; what part of: "this aspect of James has been the subject of much study, debate, and scholarly writings" can you contradict? with which part of "a merge would give this topic undue weight in the main biography" do you disagree? and do you really dispute my statement that having such a subarticle is "a not unprecedented move"? the essay is becoming the Bible around here and is being as misused as the Bible as well. Carlossuarez46 16:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, leaving the essay aside, I can counter most of your points. Firstly, yes, his sexuality has been the subject of various academic studies; however, these are adequately covered in the main article, while this article is mostly full of unsourced assertions that give undue weight to a certain point of view. Secondly, I agree that a merge would give this topic undue weight in the main biography; that's why I'm arguing for a straightforward Delete, not a merge. Thirdly, although you're right that the subarticle is a not unprecedented move, it's a very bad move IMO, in all cases. Having an article solely on a historical figure's sexuality, and filling it with original research and unverified claims, seems like POV-forking to me, and certainly gives the topic undue weight in relation to James' life. WaltonOne 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork. CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article is sourced to published works, and problems with POV can be fixed. Mandsford 16:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as notable and verified by reliable sources, except for one section. I may be blind, or it may be fixed, but where is the POV?  The city of Albany, New York was named for him, which I noted in my research on this exact issue!  I'll get the cite for you, but that may be a COI for me to insert it into the article. Bearian 20:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that was a different king (James II of England, Duke of Albany). And I don't see how this would have been relevant to his personal relationships, anyway. I'm certainly not arguing that King James or his sexuality aren't notable; I'm arguing that we don't need a separate article on his sexuality, giving undue weight, when it's adequately covered in the main article. WaltonOne 12:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrrected! Bearian 14:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge This should be a subsection of an article, not an article unto itself. Tiptopper 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Terms used for "homosexuality" were as laced with vitriol and derision in the past, as they are now and established records show, that puritannical opponents of the Stuart court called all Cavaliers and Catholics, "effeminate" and "foppish"--invectives no doubt.  The late king's penchant for bombastic and melodramatic speech, used a philosophical approach that makes him father and male (including "god" on Earth) to all his subjects, including his closest confidantes.  Modern scholars are confusing that for some homosexual affection or tendency, even though Alison Weir states that the king had an affair shortly after marrying Queen Anne, with Anne Murray, which no doubt put strain on their relationship, as Anne was with child or soon to be, at the time.  Lacey Baldwin Smith is a modern historian, who says that James's father Lord Darnley was "effeminate" and "vicious".  How so?  Darnley murdered in a fit of jealousy over his wife's possible infidelity, which was common in those days and cnsidered a typical masculine over-reaction.  This is why such articles on Wikipedia need to go the way of the dodo, when they only give revisionists a reason to do their worst.  Fergus Mór 14:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.