Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/James II of England

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 04:25, 4 November 2007.

James II of England

edit
previous FAC
FARC
Note for Raul: has already been on main page, update former featured articles if re-promoted.

This article was featured in 2004, then de-featured earlier this year. Its most notable failing at the time was the lack of citations. I have added quite a few from several sources, and have reworked a great deal of the prose. I believe it now meets the FA standards. Coemgenus 13:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to see articles restored. I fixed a few of the image captions (see samples and WP:MOS#Captions), but there are more to do. Can you ask Brighterorange (talk · contribs) to run his script to fix the endashes on the page ranges in the citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, will do. Coemgenus 14:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Great article. DrKiernan 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support --Mini@ 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet Certain weakness of language remain.
    • Did James actually act as Lord High Admiral before the Restoration? if so, when?
      •  Done Fixed. According to Callow, he collected prize money from Royalist privateers while in France, but did not wield any true power as Lord High Admiral until after the Restoration. Coemgenus 23:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "proved his gallantry upon the battlefield". See WP:PEACOCK; better to say which battle, and what he did.
    • "Fighting against his former comrades". The wars of the 1650's are confusing enough without being allusive. Is this the English navy, Turenne, or somebody else? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cromwell died in September 1658. There had been much confusion after Cromwell's death in 1658; in 1660 Charles II was restored would be clearer.
    • He and his wife, Anne, became drawn to the Catholic faith, Treacly writing, and (about Anne Hyde) novel teaching.
      •  Done I've reworded and expanded the point, but it's not wrong. Miller, at pp. 58-59, says that James and Anne converted at the same time and that Anne pressured James to go public with his new faith. Callow, at 144-145, makes the same point. Coemgenus 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • James was forced to consent to his daughter Mary's marriage to the Protestant Prince of Orange Really, now? This sentence would be improved by saying who "forced" the heir to the throne; and vastly improved by a neutral source. Somehow Ungrateful Daughters: The Stuart Princesses who Stole Their Father's Crown does not reassure this reader's qualms about POV. Please do not cite a polemic as though it were the consensus of scholarship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Done James was compelled to acquiesce in the marriage because his brother, the King, had already agreed to it. I've added a source. I'm unsure if Miller constitutes a "vastly improved" source, but I've found him to be quite reliable. Coemgenus 23:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • attempting to force the Protestant Fellows of Magdalen College to elect Anthony Farmer, a suspected Catholic, as their president when the Protestant incumbent died. "Suspected" Catholic only? It would also be nice to mention that this was also resisted as a violation of the rights of Magdalen to elect, no matter who the King's friend was.
      •  Done You're quite right about the king infringing the college's statutes, which I added. The "suspected" part is because the sources disagree on whether Farmer had actually converted to Catholicism. I'll add that to the footnote when I have the sources in front of me later today.
    • Belloc's thesis failed to alter the course of historical opinion completely. "At all" would be closer. Belloc's claim was not novel in Catholic apologetic, and we really should have a source that he had any real influence outside Catholic scholarship. The implicit denial in this whole paragraph that James sought a modern, up-to-date, absolutist monarchy, in the manner of Louis XIV, as good in itself, seems tendentious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The following extract from ODNB seems both more reasonable and more likely to be widely supported among historians:\
        James was genuinely committed to religious toleration, but also sought to increase the power of the crown. He wished that all his subjects could be as convinced as he was that the Catholic church was the one true church. He was also convinced that the established church was maintained artificially by penal laws which proscribed nonconformity. If these were removed, and conversions to Catholicism were encouraged, then many would take place. In the event his optimism was misplaced, for few converted. James underestimated the appeal of protestantism in general and the Church of England in particular. His was the zeal and even bigotry of a narrow-minded convert. But he was aware that not everybody would see the light as he had done. Religious toleration was still desirable because it encouraged commerce and helped a nation to prosper. This view was shared by many of his critics. But where James looked back nostalgically to France before the revocation of the edict of Nantes, when toleration and absolutism had gone hand in hand, they tended to look to the United Provinces, where toleration and republicanism combined to create a powerful mercantile economy. James was too autocratic to combine freedom of conscience with popular government. He resisted any check on the monarch's power. That is why his heart was not in the concessions he had to make in 1688. He would rather live in exile with his principles intact than continue to reign as a limited monarch. The fact that he had to make concessions suggests that the English were not prepared to accept the kind of polity James sought to impose upon them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to say that I think your posting of a POV notice on the historiography section is over-hasty. Why not give me a chance to respond to your questions? The only reason I added it at all was because the FAR comments mention the lack of an historiography as a reason to revoke FA-status. I'm sure there is some compromise we, and the other editors, can arrive at. Coemgenus 20:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Fine, take it off; but I do have qualms about the whole section. I am not sure we need, or that Zantastic wanted, a historiography section; what we need are acknowledgements where (and by whom) there are significant disputes, per WP:NPOV. Is Belloc receiving more weight than his due?
                • On the other hand, I miss what Zantastic expressly wanted; the observation that James' subjects distrusted his sincerity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Quite right, I agree that they doubted James's sincerity, and that many historians still do. I'll try to work that in, and to examine whether Belloc's role is over-emphasised. Coemgenus 20:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I've added part of the above quotation from ODNB, and tried to separate Belloc's analysis from that of neutral historians. Do you think this is closer to what it should be? Coemgenus 19:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                      • I've tweaked Belloc; I'm still not convinced his position was new within Catholic apologetic. I would like to see some of the end of the DNB passage: James was too autocratic to combine freedom of conscience with popular government. He resisted any check on the monarch's power. That is why his heart was not in the concessions he had to make in 1688. He would rather live in exile with his principles intact than continue to reign as a limited monarch. The fact that he had to make concessions suggests that the English were not prepared to accept the kind of polity James sought to impose upon them. James was an autocrat on principle, as well as a bien-pensant Catholic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, we should say something about the Dominion of New England; a sentence or so should be enough. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be also be nice to make the point (which goes back to Macaulay) that the function of the doctrine of non-resistance before James, whatever its rhetoric, was to tell the Dissenters that they should not have resisted Charles I and should not currently resist the Restoration settlement. I'm not sure how to phrase this neutrally and briefly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone else should have a close read before this gets promoted; but these weaknesses have been dealt with. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support This is a very good article and a pleasure to read. I just have a few minor comments.

  • My largest overall comment is: I suppose details about James the person had to be sacrificed? I felt as if the page didn't really explain who he was a man very clearly, although it explained his place in the large historical sweep very well.
  • Is Parliament a singular or plural noun? In other words, should it be "their opposition" or "its opposition" in the lead (and elsewhere)?
  • Only two daughters survived: Mary (born 30 April 1662) and Anne (born 6 February 1665).[21] Anne Hyde was devoted to James, and influenced many of his decisions.[22] Even so, James kept a variety of mistresses, including Arabella Churchill and Catherine Sedley, and was reputed to be "the most unguarded ogler of his time. - I felt some slight confusion here initially over who was advising - the daughter or the wife.
  • There is a lot in the article about James' appointments to various posts; I think this can be cut down, unless it is explained what he did in those posts, if anything.
  • The hysteria of the plot eventually faded as Oates's accusations became more fantastic - This sentence comes as a bit of a surprise, as the "Popish Plot" bit seemed to be over. Perhaps a slight rewording or reordering?
  • Perhaps one sentence explaining why expanding the standing army was such a controversial move? A reference to the Civil War, maybe?
  • At the University of Oxford, James offended Anglicans by allowing Catholics to hold important positions in Christ Church and University College, two of Oxford's largest colleges, and attempting to force the Protestant Fellows of Magdalen College to elect Anthony Farmer, a man of generally ill repute who was believed to be secretly Catholic,[73] as their president when the Protestant incumbent died, a violation of the Fellows' right to elect a candidate of their own choosing. - feels like a run-on sentence
  • Perhaps explain the significance of throwing the Great Seal of the Realm into the Thames?
  • I think it is a courtesy to the reader to offer the publication location in the reference list, although I know it is not technically required by wikipedia. If someone wants to find one of these books in a library or request one of them from interlibrary loan, that information is often required.

Well-written - I made a few copy edits as I was reading. Feel free to revert any that don't meet with your approval. Awadewit | talk 20:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • Support. Very interesting article. I made a small change in the beginning of the article about the dates. This article is so much better than another FAC (near the top, initials are S.B.) but I didn't have the heart to mention it there. If Sh.B. is a FAC, then this one deserves 5 FA stars. Mrs.EasterBunny 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I fixed a few typos and inconsistencies, and found a handful of issues that need more finesse:
  • Inconsistent capitalization of the King, the Throne, the Crown, Dissenters.
  • "He and his wife, Anne, became to doubt their allegiance to the Church of England and became drawn to Catholicism." : I imagine this was meant to be 'began to doubt' or 'came to doubt', but how does one doubt their own allegiance?
  • "his engagement to Anne Hyde, the daughter of Charles's chief minister, Edward Hyde, Charles's adviser." : minister and adviser?
  • "Exclusion Crisis" : the word 'crisis' is not capitalized in the Exclusion Bill article itself, so perhaps it should not be here.
  • "The hysteria of the plot eventually faded": 'of the plot' rather implies there was a plot.
  • "James's relations with many in Parliament, including the Earl of Danby, a former ally, were forever strained and a solid segment of Parliament had turned against him." : verb tense switch in mid sentence (were strained and had turned).
  • "During the French Revolution, James's tomb was raided and his relics scattered." : 'relics' seems inappropriate, as he was not canonized.
Congrats on a great article! Maralia 05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've fixed all of these except for the capitalization of "king." I'm not sure which is correct -- any ideas? I thought maybe when we're talking of a specific King is should be capitalized, but lower-case when talking about the idea of a king in general. Also, I think "Crisis" should be capitalized, so I changed the other article to match. Coemgenus 15:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in your summary of the King/king distinction (see WP:MOS#Titles), but in application within the article, there are a couple mistakes:
  • "the king's illegitimate son"
  • "The king's judges"
One further question: the explanatory text appended to the "See also" link to Robert Bellarmine reads as a bit of a non-sequitur, in that the link is clearly to a bio, but the explanatory text seems to refer to a written work. Maralia 16:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think the "king" thing should be okay, but if you think one is wrong, feel free of course to change it. I removed the Bellarmine link from the See also field. I don't know why it was there. Coemgenus 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/James_II_of_England&oldid=1138464389"