Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Legobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,627,530 edits
m BOT: Adding |oldid=580164397 to {{GA}}
Legobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,627,530 edits
m BOT: Adding |oldid=580164397 to {{GA}}
Line 1: Line 1:
{{GA|15:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)|topic=Royalty, nobility and heraldry|page=2|oldid=580164397}}
{{GA|15:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)|topic=Royalty, nobility and heraldry|page=2|oldid=580164397|oldid=580164397}}
{{talk header}}
{{talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory

Revision as of 00:01, 6 November 2013

Former featured articleCharles I of England is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 30, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 13, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
June 3, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
June 6, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

"Many this, many that"

MANY times within this article, statements are made presenting a stance which is strongly bias against Charles with an unsourced statement, which supposed "many" people said. This is a violation of WP:WEASEL.

  • "Many of Charles's subjects felt this brought the Church of England too close to Roman Catholicism."
  • "Ruling without Parliament, though an exceptional exercise of the royal prerogative, was supported by precedent. By the middle of the 17th century, opinion had shifted, and many held the Personal Rule to be an illegitimate exercise of arbitrary, absolute power

Also this sentence is unsourced."

  • "Those actions were open to misinterpretation, and there were fears as early as 1626 that he was a potential tyrant."

A person who abores Charles has clearly made many biased and unvertified edits to this article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Many' is legitimate in the article (its used 15 times in total). It is more than one, fewer than all. It is somewhat colloquial, but does not define the number as a majority, nor does it specify only a small minority (as the word 'some' would suggest). 'Many' thus serves to underline the fact that there was a significant number of whatever is specified. In particular, the strength of support for Charles and his policies fluctuated over time, so to say a majority of MPs opposed Charles due to his exceptional use of royal prerogative would be misleading. Moreover, 'many' doesn't have any bias either in favour or in opposition to Charles within the article. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious icecream?

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the article makes no sense to me: "Religious icecream permeated Shermin's reign." Maybe vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.18.20.155 (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pastors pasteurize religious icecream, which is more appetising to puritans' pallets than a diet of worms.

Page should probably be semi-protected to prevent random acts of vandalism. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 18:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC) he had many children and was married to a poo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.8.124.238 (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of Allegiance

The Oath of Allegiance section appears without any reference to it elsewhere in the article. Why is it there? --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say that 'early modern usage of such an oath was instituted by James I'. What about Henry's VIII Oath of Supremacy? I don't see the difference really, especially since Charles' oath retains the idea that Kingly authority is above the church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andwats (talk • contribs) 00:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

charles 1

charles was well cool and is well cool —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.235.42.18 (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles I of England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment

  • I am very close to simple quickfailing this article; there are massive unreferenced chunks which should be easy to spot (if you need a more detailed list of examples, say so). At the moment this article wouldn't even pass muster as a B-class. If you can fix the referencing issues I'm prepared to give a more detailed review, otherwise it will simply be failed. Ironholds (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah- point out the main areas and I'll have a go. What does it need? Roughly another 30 references? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
..err, slightly more than that. A complete list of unreferenced statements:


  • the Court of High Commission [...] The former could compel individuals to provide self-incriminating testimony, whilst the latter, essentially an extension of the Privy Council, could inflict any punishment whatsoever (including torture), with the sole exception of death.
  • Under Charles's reign, defendants were regularly hauled before the Court without indictment, due process of the law, or right to confront witnesses, and their testimonies were routinely extracted by the Court through torture.
  • Of the 493 MPs of the Commons, 399 were opposed to the king, and only 94 could be counted on, by Charles, for support.
  • And that's up to less than halfway through the article. I'll give you a chance to try and fix those before pasting in more. Ironholds (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's well established as B class btw.--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 10:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Established, absolutely. Deserving of or in line with the requirements? absolutely not. Ironholds (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By well established I mean that it is significantly better than it was when it received that class. It is infinitely better shape than it was when it was last a featured article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Charles_I_of_England&diff=135326373&oldid=135323172).--AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 16:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can paste in the rest whenever you like. --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okie dokes:
  • the New English settlers in Ireland were Protestant and could loosely be defined as aligned with the English Parliament and the Puritans; thereby fundamentally opposed to the crown due to unfolding events within England herself.
  • many members of the House of Commons fearing that forces raised by Charles might later be used against Parliament itself.
  • He put himself into the hands of the Scottish Presbyterian army at Newark, and was taken to nearby Southwell while his "hosts" decided what to do with him.
  • The Presbyterians finally arrived at an agreement with Parliament and delivered Charles to them in 1647. He was imprisoned at Holdenby House in Northamptonshire, until cornet George Joyce took him by force to Newmarket in the name of the New Model Army. At this time mutual suspicion had developed between the New Model Army and Parliament, and Charles was eager to exploit it.
    I'll leave it there for now until you've dealt with a bit more. Ironholds (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can stick in the last heap at this stage --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just had a brief look at this, and noticed the following things:

  • The short-form references need to be unambiguous. I noticed a few cases of "Smith" that could be one of two books.
  • I see no reason why the "Ancestors" footer should be in the middle of the articles, footers normally go on the bottom.
  • The "Legacy" section needs more references. More importantly though, it says little about one of the most important things: the development of the historical view of the king. There is a comment from the contemporary Laud, while Dutton gets to stand as the only voice of an historian. The article also needs to explain historiographical development. Lampman (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that the bibliography seems to have some obvious omissions: Morrill, Russell, Sharpe etc. I'm not an expert on the period though, ideally the article should be looked at by someone who is. Lampman (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this is a long and complex topic, but can we get an ETA from either side on when this GA review will be finished? Looks like it's just been sitting here. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me this article fails - as so many others - on the issue of "Legacy" and "Assessment": the idea that this is all about what's been named after the subject, and not about his historiographical assessment. This is the major problem, the rest are details, as Einstein said. The article's been on hold for over two months, which should be more than enough. I'll fail it if no-one else will. Lampman (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I am failing this nomination as little progress has been made. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warrant signed in Leicestershire

I have removed a suggestion that the death warrant was signed in Leicestershire. The supporting reference seems to be local tittle tattle. I am not aware of any reliable source that suggests the warrant was signed anywhere other than Westminster.

Text removed: ", possibly at the Red Lion Inn in Stathern, Leicestershire[1] on 29 January 1649" Rjm at sleepers (talk) 04:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the claim in the pub and its unequivocal. However FAQs:I've got...a Death Warrant of Charles I! Is it worth much? suggest copies are ten a penny and I think someone in the past overhyped it. I was surprised the pub wasn't better known. Belated apologies for the error. JRPG (talk) 09:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quarrel between Buckingham and the Spanish nation?!

Moreover, a personal quarrel erupted between Buckingham and the Spanish nation between whom was mutual misunderstanding and ill temper

How can one have a personal quarrel with a nation?!

Top.Squark (talk) 10:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction with Puritan: Reason for absence of consort at coronation

Although he stated to Parliament that he would not relax restrictions relating to recusants, he promised to do exactly that in a secret marriage treaty with Louis XIII of France. Moreover, the price of marriage with the French princess was a promise of English aid for the French crown in the suppressing of the Protestant Huguenots at La Rochelle, thereby reversing England's long held position in the French Wars of Religion. The couple were married in person on 13 June 1625 in Canterbury and Charles himself was crowned on 2 February 1626 at Westminster Abbey, but without his wife at his side due to the controversy.

According to this article, Henrietta Maria was absent from the coronation because of the "controversy" i.e. due to the disapproval of the marriage and/or its terms within England. However, according to Puritan:

...he [Charles] married Henrietta-Marie de Bourbon of France... who refused to attend the coronation of her husband in a non-Catholic cathedral.

That is, Henrietta was absent out of her own choice.

Who is right?

Top.Squark (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Coronation of English monarchs is an Act of Communion of the English Church, and while Charles I was a member, even ex officio head, of the Church of England, Henrietta-Maria was throughout her life an unequivocally declared Catholic, therefore not within the Communion of Church of England and as such uneligible for coronation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.171.38 (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Catholic view, Protestant view

Do any "Catholic" churches, besides the Anglican Communion, specifically the Roman Catholic Church, have any official views on Charles I? I know he is not recognized as a Saint in the RCC, but is there an official opinion of him? Are there any Protestants, say- the Lutherans, who include him in their Saint calenders? Or is he purely only a saint within the Anglican Communion? I know he was only canonized in the Anglican Communion, but is his sainthood recognized by others? Or denied by others? Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicans consider him a saint because he died for the Established Church; I don't see why one would expect Lutherans or (especially) Roman Catholics to appreciate this. In general, non-Roman Catholics aren't canonized by the RCC. john k (talk) 02:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know that non-Catholics are not canonized by the Roman Catholic Church. I was asking what their views, if there are any official views of him, are.. since he was married to a Catholic and was a very pro-catholic traditionalist within the Anglican Church. Lutheran Saint Calenders include important Christian figures, such as John Wesley, who was not Lutheran but Anglican (and also an Anglican Saint), but is still recognized as "Saints" by Lutheran Churches. So I was wondering if anyone knows if he is in the Lutheran Calender of Saints.. Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since there is now the Anglican Use, or Anglicans who have joined the Latin Rite (Catholic Church), and are now in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church but still maintain Anglican customs, is St. Charles Stuart venerated within that specific form of Catholicism? Since the Roman Catholic Church never canonized or venerated him, other catholics would not. But as he is a Saint of Anglican tradition, would Anglican Use Catholics venerate him? Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Anglican Use observes the [Roman Calendar] with some additions,. Charles Stuart is not amongst them. I doubt that the Catholic Church has an 'official' position toward him. His father favoured episcopacy over presbyterian government, and he himself furthered a liturgy within the Church of England that shared some elements with Catholicism. His wife was of course a Catholic. His first son married a Catholic and probably died one.None of these kings relaxed the penal legislation concerning Catholics however. His second son James II was a Catholic of course, as are his descendants to this day.And Henry IX, the last Stuart pretender, was a cardinal in the Papal Court.Gazzster (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles I was still not a Protestant or an Anglican. If the Stuarts were Anglican, James II wouldn't have been forced to abdicate. 92.20.197.74 (talk) 13:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC) James II/VII converted to Catholicism. Also Anglicism is a forms of Protestantism Bevo74 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Successor

Should the sucessor be Oliver Cromwell or Charles II?Cooltiger989 (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alletta Hogenhove

FWIW: Alletta (or, more common in Dutch: Aletta) Hogenhove was not married to Robert Carey, 1st Earl of Monmouth, but to Robert Carey, the son of Sir Edmund Carey of Moulton Park and his first wife Mary Crocker. This Sir Edmund Carey was the brother of the 1st Earl of Monmouth. See for instance Cracroft Peerage [search for "Hunsdon, Baron (E, 1559 - 1765)"] and Genealogics.org. To make things more complicated: according to GenealogieOnline the mother of Sir Edmund Carey's wife Maria Cocker was also called Aletta Hogenhove. Best, Jozefus (talk) 11:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Clean-Up

I'm going to clean up the page soon, it looks a bit odd to me currently. User:Tomtomn00/Signature

reference missing

Several times the text refers to "MacCulloch," (notes 83 & 84, a & b both). There is NO SOURCE for this. Please can someone add the source. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gobears87 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only reference that is completely missing. This page is really a mess. Is anyone watching?? I spent some time looking back at revisions to find the lost citations, and am tempted to insert notes alongside the footnotes "citation missing". It's not my page, or my expertise, but SOMEONE has to have been paying attention somewhere along the way? Hello? Anyone?? --gobears87 (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When did Charles II become king?

The article says "Charles' son, Charles II, though he became king at the death of his father, did not take up the reins of government until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660".

What about saying "Charles' son, Charles II, who dated his accession from the death of his father, did not take up the reins of government until the restoration of the monarchy in 1660". That Charles II was the king during Cromwell's reign seems to rewrite history. Even say "became king in exile". Something. "Did not take up the reins" seems like a description of the interim rule of a regency council. I dare say that the beheading of Charles I triggered no preparations for the the opening of the reign of Charles II. The fact that he became king only after reaching an agreement with Parliament means that he was not king, in the opinion of many, until that agreement. In that case, that he was king prior to that was generally disputed; ie POV at best. ( Martin | talk • contribs 20:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Malformed possessives

It's annoying to see the possessive form of names such as Charles and James being written with trailing apostophes. They should properly be written Charles's and James's, as they are pronounced. It is a widespread American misapprehension to think that the possessive of any word ending in 's' should be formed by a trailing apostrophe, but in fact this rule applies only to plurals ending in 's'. Please correct these errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mconnally (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 22:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb opening?

An examination performed in 1813 at Windsor suggests that the execution was carried out by an experienced headsman. This means his tomb was opened, right? Wouldn't there have been a good documentation of this, since it would be have been a big deal at the time? The article only contains this one line. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 11:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page title: King of Scotland (and England)

Why does the title page restrict his title to King of England, omitting Scotland (and Ireland)? His father was King of Scots (there were no monarchs of Scotland, only the Scots people, for more details, please see the Declaration of Arbroath for more information ), before his acquistion of the kingdom of England. Further, Charles was born in Scotland. To that extent, he and his father were primarily Kings of Scots and only subsequently of England. To restrict his title to one of his kingdoms, England, thereby rewriting history, is not only historically inaccurate and, therefore, out of place in this encyclopaedia, but smacks of English cultural imperialism.

I disagree that this is a matter of cultural imperialism, but I do agree that the title is problematic. Yes, Charles' father James VI&I was king of Scots before he acceded the throne of England also, and yes, Charles was born in Scotland as a Scottish royal exclusively, but Charles' rule of all his kingdoms was conducted from England, and he is far more significant in English history than Scottish history. I could only propose that the article is moved to "Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland". I believe it would be correct to list his kingdoms in order of precedence and that this order is correct. Correct me if I am wrong. 78.86.61.94 (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The longer title would presumably be more accurate, if a little more cumbersome. I appreciate the point being made, but the simple " .. of England" is sufficient to identify and distinguish him from other monarchs named Charles I, while also focusing - for better or worse - on the most significant of his titles, and at the same time being the description that is probably found most often in reliable sources. I'm easy as to whether it's worth changing it to the longer form. N-HH talk/edits 13:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He was also the king of France! :D --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Saint"

Currently we have an explicit reference in the first sentence to a claim that Charles is "a saint in the Church of England", with a section in the main body that claims he was "officially canonised" as a saint. I'm not an expert on royalty or the Anglican Communion, but this leaps out slightly. The only source cited in this article for the claim - this BBC profile - makes no such assertion. Researching it further, the issue seems a little more complex than that - he does possibly have some form of status as a "martyr" and is the object of special reverence by some Anglo-Catholic groups, but it seems a bit of a stretch to say that he is "officially" or formally a saint; or indeed that the CoE has saints at all in the sense they are commonly understood. Regardless, it is hardly the main thing he is known for, or something that is given quite such prominence in other profiles. It's a fairly arcane and technical issue that doesn't need to be among the first things said about him here. N-HH talk/edits 12:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography notes "In 1660 parliament declared Charles a martyr, added him to the calendar of Anglican saints, and ordered prayers to be said in his memory and honour on the anniversary of his death, a practice that quickly became a duty cheerfully taken up by some and ignored by others." It has a single sentence on the subject, and it's not as prominent as the first sentence, perhaps indicating that it's not as significant as Wikipedia's article may suggest. Nev1 (talk) 12:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My "research" (aka Google search), which found the main results thrown up were either WP-derived pages or links to obscure groups such as this one, with none to serious biographies or profiles, suggest the same - both that the WP page is giving too much prominence to this and also that some groups have taken up the issue "cheerfully". Anyway, it should definitely be in the body with a bit of explanation and qualification, as currently, but I'm minded to remove the bold explicit statement about sainthood from the first sentence of the lead. I would also lose the BBC source along with it; it's also cited for some other content, about the execution, but doesn't seem to support that either so is redundant both ways. N-HH talk/edits 13:51, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to assure everyone that the independent Church of England has never "done" Saints (in the Roman sense of accrediting miracles and canonising deceased souls), but then I did some research (excluding this 'pedia) and founds claims that he is either the first or the only Anglican Saint. I even found a claim he was "canonised" (although that may just be used to mean "made a saint" rather than refer to the Roman church's processes). Certainly the Anglican Communion commemorates saints (small s), and King Charles the Martyr is among those, but whether he was canonised as a Saint (in a Romanish sort of way), I'm not completely sure... ✝DBD 17:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Church of England and broader Anglican Communion does 'canonise' in dividuals, though not frequently. St6 Charles the Martyr was commemmorated every year in the Book of Common Prayer until 1859, when the service was removed. The Collect from January 30: 'BLESSED Lord, in whose sight the death of thy saints is precious; We magnifie thy name for that abundant grace bestowed upon our late Martyred Soveraign; by which he was enabled so chearfully to follow the steps of his blessed Master and Saviour, in a constant meek suffering of all barbarous indignities, and at last resisting unto bloud; and even then, according to the same pattern, praying for his murderers. Let his memory, O Lord, be ever blessed among us, that we may follow the example of his patience, and charity. And grant, that this our Land may be freed from the vengeance of his bloud, and thy mercy glorified in the forgiveness of our sins: and all for Jesus Christ his sake. Amen'
Though C of E doesn't follow the same exacting process as the Roman, the Sovereign, as Governor of the Church, may declare some individuals worthy of commemmoration. Gazzster (talk) 21:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013 Charles as saint

I've removed references to Charles being a saint in this article, Canonization and Society of King Charles the Martyr. I don't claim special expertise and I'm open to considering sourcing, but at the moment it doesn't look to me like there is a basis for saying that he was canonised. He does have a day dedicated to him in the Anglican calendar, but this doesn't seem to be any indication of sainthood. There are many people also commemorated in the same way who are clearly not saints (e.g. Samuel Johnson, Florence Nightingale, William Wilberforce, Josephine Butler - also, surprisingly, non-Anglicans such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Martin Luther and, though strictly not a non-Anglican, John Wesley). Formerip (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Anglicans have different ways of doing things and formal canonization is not something they do. However Charles I has been considered a saint (martyr to the faith) by certain parts of the Anglican church for centuries (other parts have less kind words to say about him). They also tend to be broad in who they consider Christians in good standing (Catholic Archbishop Romero is considered a saint by many Anglicans). Erp (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so, with appropriate sourcing, we might say that a handful of/some/many Anglicans consider Charles to be a saint. But that would be very different from saying that he has been canonised or describing him as a saint in Wikipedia's voice. Formerip (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Executioners' masks

This article states that the executioners of Charles I wore masks. Is this correct? It would be unusual and against custom. Most drawings of Charles's execution do not show masks and there is no reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.101.77 (talk) 11:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment of Henrietta Maria

The article says that Charles moved to arrest the pym et al when he heard that Parliament was intending to impeach Henrietta Maria, and the authority cited is Loades, D.M. (1974), Politics and the Nation, London: Fontana. There is no mention of any such threat in Adamson, Noble Revolt, but only mention of the Parliament moving against her Capuchin monks. I wonder if anyone could shed further light on this? 1f2 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

date (and day of week) of Charles I's execution

For his execution, I am seeing (in this Wikipedia article) "Tuesday, 30 January 1649". When I run "cal 1 1649" (the Unix calendar command, to plot out January 1649) I do get 30 Jan. on a Tuesday, but the problem is that this is before 1752, and that command, for that time period, is using the calendar of England and its colonies, so I expect to see "Old Style" (Julian). What we now call "New Style" (the Gregorian calendar) wasn't in use yet, and at the time it was 10 days ahead of Julian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both Gregg and Cust say it was a Tuesday. From Cal (Unix)#Features, it looks as though the dates went forward but the days of the week stayed the same. DrKiernan (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Over in France, where the Gregorian was in full swing, the same day was called Tuesday 9 February 1649. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you may already understand this but I need to be explicit: Gregorian calendar wasn't in use yet IN ENGLAND, but it's pointed out it was already in use in France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's clear. It was in force in France, Spain, Portugal and Poland from 1582, but was not adopted in England until 1752. See my post above. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we or do we not assume that event dates from England before 1752 are understood to be noted here in Wikipedia as New Style? I recall reading that Jan. 30, 1649 date for Charles I execution very long ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline for this is at WP:OSNS. Dates in this article are OS. DrKiernan (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will try to look at that. A footnote would help; consider this from the Wikipedia article about Queen Anne:

"All dates in this article are in the Old Style Julian calendar used in Great Britain throughout Anne's lifetime; however, years are assumed to start on 1 January rather than 25 March, which was the English New Year."

Queen Anne's lifetime stretched across 1700, the year when the gap between Old & New styles widened from 10 to 11 days, but is still entirely during England's use of Old Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a footnote. DrKiernan (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did I overlook an existing footnote? Apparently, the footnote has been shifted to the death date, which is where Queen Anne's Wikipedia article has it. Looking at 1 or 2 "selected anniversaries" pages (links provided on the page you are reading), I discovered Charles I's execution listed on Jan. 30, but it seems we have an Old-Style date included with at least some events of Jan. 30 New Style. Maybe someone should review the anniversaries pages (and consider footnotes when Old Style is used), because of Charles I's execution being listed with an Old Style date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Charles I of England/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mark Miller (talk · contribs) 22:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have some patience with this review, it may take a little time just to check quick decline criteria and to verify reference formatting as it looks like the article is using two different forms or citation style and I am uncertain as to how that immediately effects the article if at all. I do believe that we are to use one form of citation and not switch between two. While it appear the formatting begins at a point and does not return to the other format I am unclear if this passes GA. I will look into this before I begin the review. Also I am requesting the major contributor and/or nominator to feel free to look into this themselves to check our policy on this before the review officially begins. Thanks.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to review. I have amended the citation style. DrKay (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick decline criteria

An article can be failed without further review if, prior to the review, it has cleanup banners that are obviously still valid. These include {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}). If the article is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria then it can be failed without being placed on hold. If copyright infringements are found in a nominated article then it can be failed without further review. In all other cases a full review against the six criteria is to be conducted and the nominator given a chance to address any issues.

Green tickYArticle appears to be stable and free of clean up tag/banners.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review criteria

1.Well-written:

a.the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and

Green tickY British/English variants seem consistently used. Spelling and grammar appear appropriate.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Green tickY Appears to comply with MOS. The reference section is split into three sections:

1.explanatory footnotes that give information which is too detailed or awkward to be in the body of the article, 2.citation footnotes (either short citations or full citations) that connect specific material in the article with specific sources, 3.full citations to sources, if short citations are used in the footnotes. I think there should be a separation by subeheader for the full source information to be clear what we are looking at. Suggest "Notes" (the explanatory notes section as it is titled now) "References" (the short citations for the individual segments of material) and "Sources" (the full source information the citations derive from}.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Note: The early life section seemed over weighted by sectioning that did not seem needed for such a small section. It was this reviewer's opinion that it gave undue weight and drew attention to subjects in a manner that was not needed. I will say that, as a comparison to this former feature article and to simply demonstrate how it would be acceptable I used Charles II of England. Although a smaller section in that article does separate even smaller sections, they are also much more important subjects for the period and section. Since this is not an outright reason to hold back a GA rating, reverting that sectioning back would not change compliance to MOS in my opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2.Verifiable with no original research:

a. Green tickYit contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

b.Green tickYit provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and

c.Green tickYit contains no original research.

3.Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic;

and

Green tickY Article appears to be broad in coverage.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

b. Green tickYit stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4.Neutral:

Green tickY it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.

5.Stable:

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

Green tickY No ongoing edit wars or content disputes. Light vandalism expected of a subject studied in mass from a younger, less professional student group, but does not appear to effect stability in any way.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:

a.Green tickYimages are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

These images have been deleted as non free, third party copyright claims and can easily be replaced with free images: :*We cannot accept File:Anne of Denmark; King Charles I when Prince of Wales; King James I of England and VI of Scotland by Simon De Passe (2).jpg. While Commons allows this work on their site, all third party copyright claims cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is basically a copyrighted work and therefore our policy would require it to be uploaded as a non-free image with full rationale and only if there were no way to replace it with a free image, and here it certainly can be replaced. For this reason the image has been removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We cannot accept File:King Charles I by Gerrit van Honthorst.jpg. While Commons allows this work on their site, all third party copyright claims cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is basically a copyrighted work and therefore our policy would require it to be uploaded as a non-free image with full rationale and only if there were no way to replace it with a free image, and here it certainly can be replaced. For this reason the image has been removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cannot accept File:Thomas Wentworth, 1st Earl of Strafford by Sir Anthony Van Dyck.jpg. While Commons allows this work on their site, all third party copyright claims cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is basically a copyrighted work and therefore our policy would require it to be uploaded as a non-free image with full rationale and only if there were no way to replace it with a free image, and here it certainly can be replaced. For this reason the image has been replaced in order not to break the double image and caption.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We cannot accept File:King Charles I from NPG.jpg. While Commons allows this work on their site, all third party copyright claims cannot be used on Wikipedia. This is basically a copyrighted work and therefore our policy would require it to be uploaded as a non-free image with full rationale and only if there were no way to replace it with a free image, and here it certainly can be replaced. For this reason the image has been removed.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Done by reviewer.[reply]

All of the images mentioned above are the copyright of the National Portrait Gallery in the UK only, due to the "Sweat of the Brow" doctrine which the United States does not recognize. A legal threat has been documented on all of the images from this set to the original uploader (at Commons) and communications to the Wikimedia Foundation have gone unanswered. It appears that these images do not fall afoul of our policies, regardless of the claims of the National Portrait Gallery and their representatives. I will attempt to add them back as time permits or others may do so at the leisure or in haste!--Mark Miller (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

These images have issues needing to be addressed, replaced or removed to meet GA:

  1. There is an issue needing to be addressed on File:Charles I at his trial.jpg. PD ART notice for template parameters, country of origin copyright law and US copyright law may differ.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what you mean. Images like text copyright are covered by US law. --PBS (talk)
GA articles require all images not violate MOS, policy or guidelines for copyright in anyway. these images have third party claims directly on their image pages. this is not acceptable for GA or FA.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Amended. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the point being made is that the copyright claim only holds in the UK. It's fine to use the image in the US, where the wikimedia servers are based. The warning on the file page is saying that the image can be used on wikipedia but might not be usable in other jurisdictions. Some of these images are already in use in featured articles and are featured pictures: e.g. File:George Douglas Campbell, 8th Duke of Argyll by George Frederic Watts.jpg, File:The Anti-Slavery Society Convention, 1840 by Benjamin Robert Haydon.jpg, File:Charles Robert Darwin by John Collier.jpg, File:Darnley stage 3.jpg. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

b.Green tickYimages are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Some of the images have captions making claims unsupported by inline citation to a reliable source. Some do. Please review all images to simplify captions, remove all claims that are likely to be challenged or please reference the following claims:
  1. In the section "English Civil War": "A nineteenth-century painting depicting Charles before the battle of Edgehill, 1642" There is nothing particular to make this image clearly as captioned.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the section "Trial": "Charles (in the dock with his back to the viewer) facing the High Court of Justice, 1649" also is a claim that is likely to be challenged and requires a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In the "Legacy" section:"Another of Delaroche's paintings, Charles I Insulted by Cromwell's Soldiers, is an allegory for later events in France and the mocking of Christ". Such an interpretation or analysis requires a reliable source.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The clue is in the title of the painting![1] So it is unlikely to be challenged so no need to put in a citation.
  2. Likewise clicking on the image gives details of the picture and the source from whence it came.
  3. I agree.
--PBS (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Captions on all three amended. Further details from the sources added to each of the file pages. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what is being argued or challenged here. be specific please. Which image are you referring to?--Mark Miller (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended all three, and edited my comment above to clarify. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to list this article as GA --Mark Miller (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

User:Mark Miller I have asked you on your talk page a specific question about copyright I am copying it here so that others can see the question an your answer:

"We cannot accept File:Anne of Denmark; King Charles I when Prince of Wales; King James I of England and VI of Scotland by Simon De Passe (2).jpg" Who says? because I do not see such a restriction in Wikipedia:Image use policy indeed it specifically says "For example, a straight-on photograph of the Mona Lisa is ineligible for copyright", or under Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Legal -- PBS (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, third party copyright claims restrict their use as non free images. These may be hosted on Commons but are not used on an FA or GA article. If the images are returned I will simply call the GA declined.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used File:Anne of Denmark; King Charles I when Prince of Wales; King James I of England and VI of Scotland by Simon De Passe (2).jpg as a test image, and I directed you to the policy on this issue. I do not find your answer very persuasive: "On Wikipedia, third party copyright claims restrict their use as non free images", yet you have not indicated under which policy you are drawing this conclusion. -- PBS (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you were perfectly correct.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have let this review go stale and will be returning to it shortly. I apologize for leaving it this long. I tend to get distracted easily...oh look...shiny thing!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations format

I think the appendix section for notes and citations would be better if the short citations were laid out as they are in the Charles II of England. Unless any objects I will implement the change. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many citations

There are many comprehensive biographies on Charles I, as there is a limit to the primary sources available give or take a few facts they all say much the same.

I think that this article has too may citations. Here are four examples, although there are hundreds (I exaggerate not) of others:

  • Charles assented to the petition on 7 June (Carlton 1995, p. 101; Cust 2005, p. 74; Quintrell 1993, p. 39.) – Three citations for one date.
  • the indictment held him "guilty of all the treasons, murders, rapines, burnings, spoils, desolations, damages and mischiefs to this nation, acted and committed in the said wars, or occasioned thereby." (Gardiner 1906, pp. 371–374; Gregg 1981, p. 437; Robertson 2005, pp. 15, 149.) — Three citations for one quote.
  • Fifty-nine of the commissioners signed Charles's death warrant (Edwards 1999, p. 162; Hibbert 1968, p. 267.) — Two citations for one fact
  • The following morning, he called for two shirts to prevent the cold weather causing any noticeable shivers that the crowd could have mistaken for fear: (Official website of the British monarchy; Carlton 1995, p. 352; Edwards 1999, p. 168.) – A very well known fact such as this does not need three citations.

-- PBS (talk) 17:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead picture

If you check out the picture on Wikimedia Commons, (which I have just corrected) you'll find that the painting that was first uploaded there was the original by van Dyck. But someone uploaded a larger clearer image of a studio copy over the top. That is the painting that you are currently looking at. The description says, correctly, that it is a studio copy, but the artist was still listed as Van Dyck (which is what I have corrected.

I was alerted because, on enlarging the image (the lead image) it was clear to me that it was a studio copy and definitely not by Van Dyck. The name of the file still attributes it to the Master, and that should be fixed, except that I don't know how one goes about changing the file names of images.

I would go for the triple portrait as the lead pic, or the Daniel Mijtens, rather than having an image of very dull colouration that turns out of the page instead of inwards. Amandajm (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "Red Lion Inn, a Pub and Bar in Stathern, Leicestershire. Search for Leicestershire Pub and Bars". Information Britain. Retrieved 2008-10-27.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Charles_I_of_England&diff=580380971&oldid=580231268

Leave a Reply