Jump to content

Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleMary, Queen of Scots is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 9, 2012.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 10, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 19, 2004, February 8, 2005, February 8, 2006, February 8, 2007, February 8, 2008, February 8, 2009, July 24, 2009, February 8, 2010, February 8, 2013, February 8, 2015, February 8, 2017, February 8, 2019, February 8, 2020, July 24, 2023, and February 8, 2024.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hdgoble (article contribs).

Scot(s|land), pt. 1 million

[edit]

@Zacwill, sorry about that, hit the button without typing the summary. While I agree it should have a link/a proper summary of the consensus somewhere, it appears that the last part of the first archive of this talk page, as well as throughout the second archive contain the consensus referenced in the infobox comment. Cheers! Remsense留 12:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Remsense: can you be more specific? I did in fact look in the archives before I made my edit, and I found nothing that addressed the infobox question specifically (with the exception of this, which does not seem like much of a consensus). I note that articles on Queen Mary's predecessors use the phrase "King of Scots" in the same section of the infobox (though there is some inconsistency: see e.g. the article on James V). Zacwill (talk) 05:50, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's more useful to use that parameter for the office and de facto position held. If it's for title only, then it will cause trouble and inconsistency across other articles, such as using titles for pretenders instead of their actual roles or overly long infoboxes for monarchs who held multiple titles but whose domains can be summarised in a simple unofficial phrase like 'Commonwealth realms'. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I understand it is helpful to put that there's consensus there, perhaps it would be helpful to state that consensus somewhere distinct, like in the "FAQ" section sometimes seen at the top of talk pages. Remsense留 21:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, can you tell me where this consensus is to be found? It seems to me like it doesn't exist outside the mind of whoever put that note there. Zacwill (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell you for certain since I am not a major contributor to this article—I will defer to those that might be. Remsense留 06:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's the editor who wishes to make a change who needs to show consensus not the other way about. DrKay (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was that the case when the infobox was first changed back in 2017, by a single-purpose IP? Points in favour of "Queen of Scots" are that it was the title Mary herself used in both English and Latin. See her letters, seals, and coins. This is in common with other Scottish rulers. "Queen of Scotland" is not a great deviation from this, and is still intelligible to the reader, but I don't see a reason not to use the official title. Zacwill (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to the first question, yes. That's how consensus works: if someone changes it and no-one complains then that becomes the consensus position. The longer the time since the edit, the stronger the consensus becomes. Over six years since the change would count as strong longstanding consensus. DrKay (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The title king/queen of Scots resembles the idea of popular monarchy, where the monarch is thought to reign over a people/nation rather than a specific territory. Dimadick (talk) 12:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, "Queen of Scotland" should be used in the intro & infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arms: is the escutcheon right?

[edit]

The blazon of the escutcheon is given as

Sable a lion rampant argent on a canton of the last a cross gules.

or, roughly, a white lion on a black background with a red cross on a white background in the top left.

But the image of the arms shows a red lion on a yellow background with a border.

Is the problem in the blazon, the arms, or my understanding? Molinari (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'd already corrected one mistake but had missed that one. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“of Scots” vs. “of Scotland”

[edit]

Is there a reason in particular that requires “King/Queen of Scotland” to be used in the infobox succession section instead of the preferred style “King/Queen of Scots?” Louis Philippe I had King of the French instead of King of France and all Belgian monarchs use King of the Belgians instead of King of Belgium. Has this been discussed before? If not, is it possible to reconsider the title used in Scottish monarchical infoboxes? AKTC3 (talk) 14:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See above [1]. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The English language

[edit]
Three walruses bashing their heads against each other. DrKay (talk) 12:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I didn't fly to the United States by an aeroplane. I flew to the United States by air. I didn't come to New York by an automobile. I came to New York by car. I didn't cross the Hudson by a ferry. I crossed the Hudson by ferry. Similarly, Mary didn't cross the firth by a boat. She crossed the firth by boat. This is standard idiom that any native English speaker is familiar with. DrKay (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And she didn't drive down the freeway in a Tesla. She probably took a coach? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange how my addition of the indefinite article would stir up such a reaction. So, if its your intention to educate me in the use of English grammar, your examples should at least be grammatically correct as well. For example, I didn't fly to the United States by an aeroplane. I flew to the United States by air. The sentence “I flew to the United States by air” contains redundancy. The phrase “by air” is superfluous because the verb “flew” already implies that the manner of travel was by air. A more concise and grammatically correct version of the sentence would be: “I flew to the United States.” or, for our grammar lesson, " I travelled to the United States by air". So, your example "Mary didn't cross the firth by a boat. She crossed the firth by boat." needs examination as well. You're correct, Mary didn't cross the firth by boat, but she did cross by a fishing boat. Now that is grammatically correct although I agree that the accepted phraseology is as you describe. Your final sentence is insulting. Suggest though, that the next time you make a correction such as this to a fellow editor, a simple statement in the edit summary would be sufficient. Bill Reid | (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Mary crossed the firth by a fishing boat" and "Mary crossed the firth by boat" would be grammatically correct alternatives? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC) p.s. if you were Superman you could easily fly to the United States without an aeroplane.[reply]
I tried a simple statement in an edit summary[2] but you chose to ignore it, making further explanation necessary. DrKay (talk) 21:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're referring to my change of "cipher" to "cypher" and your reverting edit comment "correct as it was". I didn't challenge your revert (although I did think about it) so fail to understand what the "you chose to ignore it" comment is meant to convey. Regarding the alternate use of these words, "cypher" is the British use of the word (see Merriam-Webster, entry: cypher, cy·​pher, chiefly British spelling of CIPHER), so as the article carries a 'Use British English' template, that is what we should use. Also see as an example: The Government Code and Cypher School, Bletchley Park. Bill Reid | (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm referring to you changing "by fishing boat" to "by a fishing boat" and me changing it back again with a simple edit summary. Look at the edit again. DrKay (talk) 10:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not this edit (labelled "copyedit"), followed by this edit (with no edit summary)? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are the article page revisions that are relevant to you and me:
29 April 2024
curprev 16:03, 29 April 2024‎ DrKay talk contribs‎ 92,299 bytes −2‎ No edit summary undothank
curprev 15:31, 29 April 2024‎ Billreid talk contribs‎ 92,301 bytes −8‎ copyedit undo
27 February 2024
curprev 17:33, 27 February 2024‎ DrKay talk contribs‎ 92,065 bytes −2‎ correct as it was undothank
curprev 17:30, 27 February 2024‎ Billreid talk contribs‎ 92,067 bytes −7‎ copyedit undo
I can see no other edit comments that are relevant. Bill Reid | (talk) 10:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think any discussion about "cipher" vs "cypher" might warrant a separate thread? This thread is about "by boat" vs "by a boat"? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you admit that you changed "by fishing boat" on 27 Feb at 17:30. I reverted with a simple edit summary at 17:33 27 Feb. You ignored that edit summary and undid the revert at 15:31 29 Feb, making further explanation necessary when I reverted for a second time at 16:03 29 Apr. It is recommended to start talk page discussions rather than use edit summaries as a means of communication if an edit is contentious. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Follow the normal protocal: "To help other editors understand the reasoning behind your edits, always explain your changes in the edit summary. If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale." Hence, everything I have said and done is correct. DrKay (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DrKay, your edit at 17:33 27 Feb, just reverted "cypher" to "cifer." Your "second" revision at 16:03 29 Apr, which changed "by a fishing boat" back to "by fishing boat", had no edit summary. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total garbage as anyone looking at the diff can verify. DrKay (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, just partial garbage, I think. Your edit at 17:33 27 Feb also changed "by a fishing boat" back to "by fishing boat" (easily missed, which may be where the confusion has arisen), so I have struck out "just" above. But your other edit at 16:03 29 Apr had no edit summary that I can detect. So that bit is non-garbage? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale." DrKay (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, quite right. I generally put "see Talk page" or similar. But perhaps there's no written requirement to do so? Although I'm not sure I'd see your edit as "too complex to explain in an edit summary" or "contentious". Martinevans123 (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: no actual pinnipeds where harmed in the making of this discussion. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Queen of Scotland Impact

[edit]

Today a great contribution to make the text about Mary impact much more clear and compact was reversed twice without any discussion or debate; it seems we have a certain ownership of the article; Using artificial intelligence in part is not a crime also it is not based solely on this but on actual facts including the article and other articles on wiki ; we are simply putting a much better and coherent text on the impact; this is only the beginning of a big debate Beitmerryprof (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a lot of gall to click a button that functionally spits out a rehash based on what is already written in this article, and then add it back to the article without any awareness how ridiculously redundant and out of place it is. it is not helpful, it is a huge waste of time for people who actually read and analyze these articles.Remsense ‥ 论 12:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unacceptable to expect us to read the article for you and tell you what it says. If you are not willing to read the article, then I have no idea how you expect to be able to make it better. Remsense ‥ 论 12:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read the article dozens of times I like it very much; it is one of my favorites in wiki ; still it is not perfect and not all events in Mary life are mentioned; it focus Like a lot of her biographies on her love life and Darnley and bothwell while Mary life was much more than that ; in the actual text of the impacg section of the article we don’t see any mention of her other impacts in history like the foundation of the Stuart Dynasty or the union of the Crowns or the consequences of her execution as simple examples Beitmerryprof (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we represent figures proportionately to how published biographies do. As one of several issues I wish I didn't have to concern you with, the Stuart dynasty was founded centuries before Mary was born. In order to contribute, you need to be familiar with complexities such as these, or rather e able to check what our sources have to say. We can't just introduce what we please because we find it important; that's not what readers come for. They come for a tertiary, balanced summary of what has been written. Remsense ‥ 论 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't own this article, thanks. Your addition was utter rubbish. But then, it wasn't really "your" addition anyway, was it? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First hello ; mainly my work I gave the parameters to AI plus second I used the wiki article and other articles; a question are all matters of the Mary impact mentioned in the current text . Beitmerryprof (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. You gave the parameters. Congratulations. I think the addition was a wholly unnecessary regurgitation. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Man the union of the crowns or the foundation of the Stuart dynasty or the consequences of her execution or her importance in politics and wars are not mentioned by the actual impact section; not even mentioned indirectly; this is shameful really ; I m proposing a simply mention of them in less than 5 lines as a compromise do you accept as a sign of good faith . Beitmerryprof (talk) 13:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Union of the Crowns was not caused by Mary any more than Henry VIII or any other involved figure who lived 150 years before it transpired, and biographies of Mary do not say this was the case. Remsense ‥ 论 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing on words ; the union of the crowns happened in 1707 officially true but the king of Scotland and England was the same monarch after 1603 because of the Stuart Dynasty or Succession Beitmerryprof (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are right here and I am embarrassed that my American brain mixed up the Acts of Union and the Union. Remsense ‥ 论 13:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mary married Darnley; got a son , even the name was changed from Stewart to Stuart and she claimed the throne ; the Stuart succession was not guaranteed it happened because of many even with Mary at their heart ; her catholic connection and her connections and her captivity and her execution made her miss it but her son received it Beitmerryprof (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(For the sake of my own ego in front of my betters here I feel I have to make explicit that James I & VI is my favorite British monarch and I just mixed up the terms somehow.) Remsense ‥ 论 13:41, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is Mary son ; he received his legacy from her and was good in managing it ; in the end he rejected his Tutor Buchanan theories and he built his mother a tomb twice bigger than Elizabeth Beitmerryprof (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Fraser and many biographies mentioned the royal succession came through Mary not Elizabeth Beitmerryprof (talk) 13:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary, Queen of Scots, was far more than a tragic figure. Her life, reign, and death profoundly shaped political, religious and cultural landscapes in Britain and Europe. She was a catalyst for political and religious conflicts, a martyr for Catholicism, and a precursor to modern challenges to absolute monarchy. Her legacy remains as complex and multifaceted as her life making her one of history’s most enduring symbols:

1. Founder of the Stuart Dynasty and the Union of the Crowns: Mary’s son James 1 of England, united the crowns of Scotland and England in 1603 after the death of Elisabeth Tudor. This made Mary a pivotal figure in the foundation of the Stuart dynasty in England ending the Tudor line. While her personal reign in Scotland was tumultuous, her dynastic legacy shaped the British monarchy for over a century, culminating in the eventual creation of the United Kingdom under her descendants.

2- Mary’s unwavering Catholic faith made her a martyr or a symbol of hope and resilience for Catholics in Britain and across Europe. Her sacrifice and execution was a rallying cry for Catholics in England, Scotland, and Ireland, as well as on the European continent.

3- Mary was seen as a Catalyst and Symbol for Religious Wars and Conspiracies. Mary’s existence as a prisoner Catholic queen with a strong claim to the English throne acted as a lightning rod for Catholic plots and Protestant fears; a few examples are : - In England The Northern Rebellion 1569 , The Ridolfi Plot and Babington Plot.

- In Ireland: Spanish support for Irish Catholic rebels was often linked to broader plans involving Mary as the figurehead of a united Catholic resistance.

- In the Netherlands: Spain’s Don Juan of Austria sought to use the Netherlands with plans to marry Mary and rule as Catholic monarchs which accelerated the English Spanish War .

- In Spain: Mary’s execution was one of the catalysts for the Spanish Armada, which sought to invade England in retaliation and restore Catholicism.

- Mary’s family, the Guise, led the Catholic League during the French Wars of Religion, using her as a symbol of Catholic legitimacy.

4- Mary execution in 1587 was unprecedented- the judicial killing of a monarch claimed by divine right. This event sent shockwaves through Europe, undermining the sanctity of monarchy: The execution foreshadowed events like the beheading of Charles 1 of Englandin 1649. It set a precedent that monarchs could be held accountable, eroding the divine-right ideology. Later monarchs like Marie Antoinette during the French Revolution and Tsar Nicholas 2 during the Russisan Revolution can trace this shift in part to Mary’s death.


That’s the text removed violently with less than one minute without any debate ; let the community judge if it was better or worse to make the article Impact section more clear and coherent. I was and stil ready to work together. This is mainly my contribution; I m honest I use AI but I give him the parameters plus I used the wiki article and other wiki articles.

My first question is all the material I mentioned available in the impact section of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beitmerryprof (talk • contribs) 12:43, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worse. Firstly, all content on wikipedia must be cited to reliable sources and this contains no citations. Secondly, LLMs like ChatGPT can generate AI hallucinations that are not grounded in fact. In addition, they are trained on data scraped from the internet, which includes fictional, fringe, incorrect, or vandalised content and is therefore never reliable. Thirdly, you used "the wiki article and other wiki articles" to create the content. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it: we should not use wikipedia as a source. Fourthly, it's not formatted in the usual way that biographies are formatted on wikipedia: we don't number paragraphs, or use capital case for sentences, or use dashes instead of full stops, or use Arabic numerals instead of Roman numerals for regnal numbering. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I accept all you say on technical issues; you are almost completely right ; I will use biography like Fraser to put my case because in the end I only mentioned facts ; in the current section of the impact of Mary only her live life is mentioned; that’s shameful Mary you love her or hate her played a very important role in the politics of her days Beitmerryprof (talk) 13:48, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Beitmerryprof, what were the sources for "your" addition? They weren't immediately apparent. Or would you argue that they are simply "not required"? Do you think it's useful for articles to have particular sources? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I use sources or Fraser are you open to a very limited change in the impact section a few lines Beitmerryprof (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have no idea what you mean here. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok fair as a sign of good faith forget all the text today ; in the next period I will propose simple very limited a few lines of events nor mentioned in Mary impact and It will be based on sources and biographies. Because the current impact paragraph is one of the weakest in the article; any reader not familiar with Mary will nor see any description of Mary true impact on history Beitmerryprof (talk) 14:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will your proposal be your own work or the "work" of an AI chatbot? Just another question on the side, if I may - is English your first language? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it will be my own work and English is not my first language also I m fascinated by Mary and Elizabeth and British and French history the century of the renaissance and reformation; I have dozens of books on Mary and more than 10 on Elizabeth Beitmerryprof (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love this article simply want to make it if the majority agree a little better Beitmerryprof (talk) 14:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm sorry, but I'm not sure what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank for the positive attitude; I will propose my changes here in order to it to be consensual as much as possible. Sometimes I talk too much sorry for that also Beitmerryprof (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you are motivated by a genuine desire to improve this article. But I regard the use of AI chat bots, for content creation at Wikipedia, to be anathema. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay agree I will not use it you will see references based on books and biographies; I will propose them here and do whatever you want with them ; by that I mean the community Beitmerryprof (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mary,_Queen_of_Scots&oldid=1263441325"