Talk:Union of the Crowns

A Bad Translation?

I really don't know what to make of this article: it is either a bad translation from a foreign language, or it has been written by someone who is not an native English speaker. As a possible alternative, it might, I suppose, have been co-written by a panel of minor bureaucrats at the Ministry of Circumlocution. It is so badly phrased that it breaks down at several points into complete incoherence. Given the importance of the topic it is in urgent need of rescue. I'm not sure if I have the time or the inclination. Rcpaterson 00:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I have the time or the inclination. Why not, if you think its so important?

Yes, I suppose you are right; its wrong to raise a problem and assume others will attend to its resolution-thanks. Time is still an issue, though, but I will do my best. I have to say, in fairness, that I would come as a 'resurrectionist' rather than a surgeon; the patient in his present condition is beyond saving. I am, I should also say, new to this whole project, and am not sure if it is legitimate to submit articles to wholesale substitution? Rcpaterson 09:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, the tone of the article is a bit odd for an encyclopedia. I have added the {{tone}} tag. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Union and Crowns

Having found the time-and the inclination-I have built the ship anew. It's an important story, worth telling and worth understanding. Rcpaterson 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Plagiaristic Prose?

I have taken it upon myself to expand into detail the background of British identity in the Anglo-Scottish borderlands and its impact upon Northern Ireland, whilst the rest of the article appears glossy and poetic as opposed to dealing with the grey areas--I leave that for others' fixing. Lord Loxley 10:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I further explained the Scottish monarchy's connections with England and revised the error which purported that George III was sympathetic or even cared about Scotland any more than he had an understanding of America--that we leave to his rebellious heir. Lord Loxley 10:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Mais oui! is one of those Scottish editors who cannot bear English presentations of events which affect both England and Scotland. S/he automatically reverts anything beyond the sense of "cliqueness" of his/her immediately approved consensus among like-minded folks in the Scottish community. Please, there can be no cookie-cutter poetry to describe the events which led to British Union. They were not all of one source or intent; one should hardly think it is necessary to omit the Catholic contribution to the Union, when merely skimming through history books casts this to light on Tudor-Stuart affairs. Lord Loxley 11:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that you are missing the point somewhat. There are three objections that I can see to your edits. None of them particularly to do with factual accuracy, with "English presentation" or with Catholic/Protestant bias.

1) Your edit of the paragraph on the Plantation and its British nature has split the introductory sentence from its explanatory follow-up by interpolating information on another topic. Now there's nothing wrong with adding more examples of the king's attempts to Britonise the Scots and the English but you shouldn't mess up the explanation of the most succesful attempt in your haste to do so. The current result of your edit is that the explanation of the Britishness of the Plantation has beeen confused and diluted.

2) Both of your major edits are chronologically wandering. If you read the article version last edited by RCPaterson carefully, you will note that it moves steadily forward chronologically as you read. This style makes it easier for our readers to grasp "the story" and thus to see how the facts fit into place. Now if you look at your additions you will note that they "flashback" to earlier events, all true but some not particularly relevant, thus interrupting the flow of the story. This is Not Good, however accurate the facts added, since it makes the article more difficult to read. Our aim is not throw a random assortment of facts at our readers although you could be forgiven for thinking that it is, given the state of many of our other articles. Nevertheless this article has been nicely rewritten by a professional writer on history and thus we must take more care when we want to add to it, that we apply higher standards to our own editing.

3) Your replacement of George III by George IV seems ill-advised. Granted that G IV visited Scotland whereas G III didn't, but that merely suggests that he liked Scotland better than his father may have. It tells us nothing about his feelings of Britishness vs Scottish/Englishness which the older version did. The important contrast is between Anne who stated that she felt English at heart and G III who stated that he was proud to be a Briton. That explanatory contrast was lost when you made your edits.

So while I think that Mais Oui! often reverts in circumstances where I would hesitate to do so, I think that he is entirely right to do so in this case and I will be doing likewise. However I think that you deserve the courtesy of an explanation which is why I have spent this time explaining my reasons for you. I will also be correcting a few spelling mistakes which I have noticed while reading the article. I will then see whether there is some way that some of your additions to the Plantation paragraph can be added back in to the article, since they are quite informative. It's just that they are in the wrong place and they are unsourced. If that can be sorted out they should make the article better. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Having tackled the two sections affected, my comments largely coincide with Derek's. The article's about James's attempts to achieve a unified kingdom, not hypothetical aims of a union of the parliaments. The point about granting of cross-border titles is only relevant in this section if a citation can show that this involved creating a British identity: it should be noted that aristocratic and royal titles have long crossed borders without any indication that the countries are merged: IIRC an earlier example is the Bruce, and a later one Hanover. The first part of the paragraph starting with the north of England would perhaps have some relevance in the "The Thistle and the Rose" section, along with an indication of James's care to position himself to take the Protestant throne of England, but the Catholic bit that follows is off topic, and the Henrican comment ill judged as James had long worked to achieve the same kind of royal control of the church in the Scottish context, with some success despite widespread opposition. I've left in the .doc from Northern Ireland, but note that it concludes with a misleading comment about Presbyterianism and doubt its reliability as a source. ..dave souza, talk 00:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I left in the bit about where the Planters came from which seemed plausible, but this should really have a reliable source. ..dave souza, talk 00:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you both, except the part on King George--although I know the Highlanders were Loyalists in the American wars, for this, George handed Henry Benedict Stuart a pension and the future was sealed under Georgie Porgie. My formatting was horrible, but the presentation of facts was a reflection of actual events. Why should only the slimmed down, Protestant version be used as the standard of British history, when the Union occurred in a backdrop of varied relationships? Catholic Stewart court was a large part of the Union (just as Parliamentarians were Calvinist), while aristocratic titles and feudal associations long tied Reivers on both sides into the same culture. When James assumed both monarchy-titles, so did his nobles in the status they held as peers of the realm: England and Scotland, York and Albany, Richmond and Lennox, Prince of Wales and Lord of the Isles--these arrangements were just as monumentous as the Union of the Crowns and took place before government machinery had a chance to solidify in 1707. I still believe that the issue of passive background to the Anglo-Scottish Union of Crowns should be explored, with detail on the Douglases. Lord Loxley 07:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

A Tragic Waste

I have to add a word or two to the above, and I address these remarks to the community as a whole, not to any particular individual. I first read the previous piece on the Union of the Crowns not long after I started to dip in to Wikipedia. It was so bad, both in point of fact and in style, that I though it was some kind of joke: it really did look as if it had been translated from a foreign language. I am indeed a professional historian, but I know how Wikipedia operates, and I have absolutely no desire to make a claim to 'ownership' to any contribution I make. Moreover, I welcome thoughtful editing and comment. My sole purpose has been to spend some sleepless hours trying to extend-and deepen-the range of topics touching on Scotland. This article has not been edited; it is being smothered by fatuous and incoherent additions which robs the piece of both integrity and sense. My suspicion is that this is being done by the original author; for though a different name is used the same atrocious style of writing and ignorance of the facts is clearly evident. As things stand I would rather return to the original contribution than allow what I have written to be aborted by degrees. I will leave this for a day or two to allow others to comment as they wish before reverting. Rcpaterson 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Please note my edits and comments above: there are some points which I've left in, but am not confident of their accuracy. On a stylistic note, - between-words should really be an n-dash – and quotations should probably be in "double quotes" rather than 'single ones' for reasons which I've forgotten, but there was a discussion of that somewhere. Will try to assist with that kind of copyediting when time permits. ..dave souza, talk 00:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Because of the nature of Wikipedia some change in the article is inevitable. However this article could deteriorate considerably and still be much better than its predecessor. I don't believe that it would serve the interests of Wikipedia to revert to the old article and I would be very unhappy if that were to happen. Please don't think that a "deteriorated" article would harm your reputation. Wikipedia's history feature makes it absolutely clear who is responsible for the good article versions and for the bad...

In any case perhaps the way forward is for a new category of article. Perhaps in the same way that we currently have "Featured Articles" we need a category for "Finished Articles" where the coverage and writing standard of an article is such that people should only suggest changes to it on its discussion page rather than making them directly to the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

RCP, your predilection for insomniac editing has brought a comical aspect to the article which has a veritable light and thin countenance. Maybe you'd appreciate that this is not novelisation of issues; this is an encyclopaedia, which depends on monotonous descriptions and information. Lord Loxley 07:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert to Original

I've reverted this to the original. My reasons for doing so can be found in the talk page history of JW1805 (talk · contribs) Rcpaterson 00:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)