Talk:George I of Great Britain/archives

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Our job is to get the title right.

no it isn't its to make a accesible, and factual, encyclopedia.

And that is perfectly straightforward. Pre 1707 Kingdoms of England, Scotland.

and numerous colonies, the Isle of Man, claims to France, etc.

1707-1800 Kingdom of Great Britain.

and the American colonies, and much of the West Indies, etc.

1800-1920s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,

and King of Canada, and Empress of India, and King of Australia
1920s-present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is that simple, that straight-forward, a perfect case of right or wrong. And anything other than those names by those dates is wrong. JTD 08:14 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
getting the title right is no where close to straightforward. George III of Great Britain, it is not correct, it leaves out a lot of areas that consider themselves important. What you are proposing is a shortened version of the official title, cutting off all you don't think is important enough. Most people do not have the hubris to do so. That is why almost everyone uses King of England, yes it excludes the vast majority of the area and people controlled, yes it is not legally correct, but it is also always right because the monarch always did control England, and spent the vast majority of their reigns concerned with English affairs. 'of England' is certainly the most common title, since we cannot include the legal title, we should include the most common. -SimonP

Some rules from wikipedia naming conventions:

  • Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature
  • As to names of persons, there are two schools of thought: use the most commonly used name, or use the person's full name. After a vote among those interested, we've come down in favor of the former. Names of persons should be the most commonly used name
  • In general, use the most common form of the name used in English
  • Names of kings and queens of modern kingdoms should include their kingdom This is to differntiate between many rulers with the same name and number. English rulers get "of England" added. No Cognomens (nicknames) in article titles -- they go in the first line of the article.

Since a recent study showed that only something like 5% of Americans knew what the United Kingdom was, and my google search has showed England is the most popular name, I think we should move them to 'of England.' (As the naming conventions already agreed.) -SimonP

Wow! What a lot of fuss over the UK from people who don't even live here! Some of the controversy can be easily eliminated - the title of the article doesn't have to contain all the additional bits and pieces, such as "Empress of India", because they can be mentioned within the article. However, to call British monarchs "of England" would be totally wrong and offensive to a large proportion of British people. The point is that it is foreigners, who are generally ignorant of our internal affairs, who usually use the word "England" when they mean Britain/UK. We use the latter terms interchangeably, although admittedly there are a few ignorant English people who think they are at the centre of the universe. No, it has to be either Great Britain or the UK after 1707. I don't much mind which, but I always thought that "Anne of the United Kingdom" had a very strange ring to it. Deb

Correct, Deb. England is totally wrong for the post 1707 period. Polls suggest that most Americans don't know where most countries in Europe are, struggle to know where Asia is, and haven't a clue beyond that. Maybe Simon would suggest we re-do the map of the world to relocate countries to where Americans think places are. Or replace most of the Republic of Ireland page with pictures of leprechauns, catholic priests and a photo of John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara from the Quiet Man because after all that's what all too many Americans think is Ireland. Our job is to get the title right.

no it isn't its to make a accesible, and factual, encyclopedia.

And that is perfectly straightforward. Pre 1707 Kingdoms of England, Scotland.

and numerous colonies, the Isle of Man, claims to France, etc.

1707-1800 Kingdom of Great Britain.

and the American colonies, and much of the West Indies, etc.

1800-1920s United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland,

and King of Canada, and Empress of India, and King of Australia
1920s-present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is that simple, that straight-forward, a perfect case of right or wrong. And anything other than those names by those dates is wrong. JTD 08:14 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)
getting the title right is no where close to straightforward. George III of Great Britain, it is not correct, it leaves out a lot of areas that consider themselves important. What you are proposing is a shortened version of the official title, cutting off all you don't think is important enough. Most people do not have the hubris to do so. That is why almost everyone uses King of England, yes it excludes the vast majority of the area and people controlled, yes it is not legally correct, but it is also always right because the monarch always did control England, and spent the vast majority of their reigns concerned with English affairs. 'of England' is certainly the most common title, since we cannot include the legal title, we should include the most common. -SimonP

Some rules from wikipedia naming conventions:

  • Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature
  • As to names of persons, there are two schools of thought: use the most commonly used name, or use the person's full name. After a vote among those interested, we've come down in favor of the former. Names of persons should be the most commonly used name
  • In general, use the most common form of the name used in English
  • Names of kings and queens of modern kingdoms should include their kingdom This is to differntiate between many rulers with the same name and number. English rulers get "of England" added. No Cognomens (nicknames) in article titles -- they go in the first line of the article.

Since a recent study showed that only something like 5% of Americans knew what the United Kingdom was, and my google search has showed England is the most popular name, I think we should move them to 'of England.' (As the naming conventions already agreed.) -SimonP

Wow! What a lot of fuss over the UK from people who don't even live here! Some of the controversy can be easily eliminated - the title of the article doesn't have to contain all the additional bits and pieces, such as "Empress of India", because they can be mentioned within the article. However, to call British monarchs "of England" would be totally wrong and offensive to a large proportion of British people. The point is that it is foreigners, who are generally ignorant of our internal affairs, who usually use the word "England" when they mean Britain/UK. We use the latter terms interchangeably, although admittedly there are a few ignorant English people who think they are at the centre of the universe. No, it has to be either Great Britain or the UK after 1707. I don't much mind which, but I always thought that "Anne of the United Kingdom" had a very strange ring to it. Deb

Correct, Deb. England is totally wrong for the post 1707 period. Polls suggest that most Americans don't know where most countries in Europe are, struggle to know where Asia is, and haven't a clue beyond that. Maybe Simon would suggest we re-do the map of the world to relocate countries to where Americans think places are. Or replace most of the Republic of Ireland page with pictures of leprechauns, catholic priests and a photo of John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara from the Quiet Man because after all that's what all too many Americans think is Ireland.

Just because such a large proportion of Americans are so ill-informed about the world does not mean that Wikipedia has to drop down to the level of their ignorance. The people of Britain deserve nothing less than to have the pages that refer to their monarchs accurate. And Simon doesn't seem to grasp that we are supposed to use the most common correct name. Just because Americans mostly know the incorrect one, is no justification for using it, anymore than because people call Bush the 'President of America' would justify Wikipedia using that incorrect title, or because in the 1980s, most Americans used the term 'Russia' would mean that at the time Wikipedian should not refer to the 'Soviet Union'. We may disagree on titles, but at least Deb, we seem to appreciate the subtlties of our two islands' histories, and the different meanings involved. According to the index of Norman Davis' The Islands (which is focused on clarifying the technicalities and twists & turns of the history of the islands), he refers to 'Anne, Queen of England', 'George I, King of Breat Britain, France and Ireland', 'George II, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland', 'George III, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland, later of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland'. 'George VI, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'. p.1198. (As you know, the 'France' bit was just a claim that was made but never taken seriously, even by the monarchs concerned.) JTD 20:19 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

I don't understand why you felt you had to drop to the level of name calling, Jtdirl, it adds nothing to your argument but make you look small-minded. And who in the world ever calls our President "President of America"? -- Zoe

Sorry, folks, I was trying to put some of the last page in an archive, and I think I did something wrong somewhere. I'm not trying to edit out opinions, honest!