Talk:Malcolm III of Scotland/Archive 2

This is a Good Article

After a review, I'm promoting this article to Good Article status, based on the qualifications. It is impressively referenced, well written, and fairly comprehensive. I'll admit, I like the infobox.

Calgacus nominated two additional articles at the same time Malcolm II of Scotland and Constantine II of Scotland. Both are good as well, though this one is the best of the three, I feel. Part of the 'stability' qualification, in my mind, is consistency between 'sets' of articles. If someone would be willing to add the Monarch infobox to the other two nominees, and makes sure that they include all the same relevant info that is included here in Malcolm III of Scotland, I'll promote them too.

Good writing, folks. Keep up the good work. Phidauex 23:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Note that Mr. McLellan has begun a requested moves vote at Talk:Cináed I of Scotland, to discuss the naming issue. john k 23:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Update) The article has been restored to its original name. --Elonka 04:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gospatric, Cristina

Asthere is no good reason not to link to Gospatric, Earl of Northumbria and Cristina, daughter of Edward the Exile please do not remove the links. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"It is now thought"

It has been hypothesised that Malcolm's exile, if any, may have been spent in Orkney. Perhaps that is more likely than England. But "it is now thought" implies a consensus which does not in fact exist. Indeed, no consensus will ever be possible, given the paucity of the evidence. (And if Thorfinn's pilgrimage to Rome was made in company with Macbeth - which given the closeness of the dates seems likely - they must in 1050 have been allies. In which case, even if he had previously been sheltering an enemy of Macbeth's, it seems somewhat implausible that Thorfinn would continue to do so.)

As a matter of fact, I'm not even 100% certain that the "son of the King of the Cumbrians" wasn't this Malcolm. If the Cumbrian / Strathclyde kingdom did fall to Scotland in 1018 as has conventionally been supposed - and there is no evidence that it didn't - then a post-1018 King of Scots could be described as being King of the Cumbrians as well, especially in the context of an invasion which secured him the Strathclyde kingdom but not the north. I would consider the existence of two Malcolms to be a probability rather than a certainty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.10.228 (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The king list in Lebor Bretnach, which originates in the time of Malcolm III of Scotland, calls Malcolm III: "Maelcolaim Mac Colaim Mic Donnchaid". Hence it is at conflict with Malcolm III being: "Maelcolaim Mac Donnchadh".

Chronicle of Florence of Worcester, tells for 1054: "Strenuus dux Northymbrorum Siwardus jussu regis Eadwardi, et equestri exercitu et classe valida Scottiam adiit, et cum rege Scottorum Macbeotha prælium commisit, ac multis millibus Scottorum et Normannis omnibus quorum supra mentionem fecimus occisis, illum fugavit, et Malcolmum regis Cumbrorum filium, ut rex jusserat, regem constituit. In eo tamen prælio, suus filius et multi Anglorum et Danorum ceciderunt." Translation: "Siward, the stout earl of Northumbria, by order of the king entered Scotland, with a large body of cavalry and a powerful fleet, and fought a battle with Macbeth, king of the Scots, in which the king was defeated with the loss of many thousands both of the Scots and of the Normans before mentioned; he then, as the king had commanded, raised to the throne Malcom, son of the king of the Cumbrians. However, his own son and may English and Danes fell in that battle."

Mariani Scoti Chronicon, s.a. 1056=1034 records: "Moelcoluim rex Scotiae obiit 7. Kal Decembr. Donchad, filius filiae eius, sibi successit annis 5, mensibus 9."

Mariani Scoti Chronicon, s.a. 1062=1040 records: "Donnchad rex Scotiae in autumno occiditur [19. Kal. Sept.] a duce suo Macbethad mac Finnloech, cui successit in regnum annis 17."

AT1040 tells "Donncadh mac Crínan, aird-rí Alban immatura etate a suis occissus est.", i.e., he was killed at an untimely or premature age

Name usage

Google results are: "Máel Coluim mac Donnchada", 3210; "Malcolm III of Scotland" 16900. "Malcolm III of Scotland" is thus overwhelmingly the most common form of name. Michael Sanders 14:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't news, Michael. There is still an ongoing discussion on this, in which you are involved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you yourself have claimed that it isn't going anywhere, it seems simpler to go with the basics. The Anglicisation is far more common. Readers thus are more likely to expect the Anglicisation than an unused Gaelic form. Michael Sanders 14:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's an English encyclopaedia, not a Gaelic one. 91.105.202.227 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and me aren't getting anywhere atm; there are many others involved too, and just because they don't sit at their computers 24 hours a day doesn't mean they've left the discussion. It's rude and generates bad faith to start a discussion to promote your own believes, whilst meanwhile prosecuting a revert war.

For third parties, the discussion is Talk:Constantine II of Scotland and here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, since you are unwilling to comprehend the notion that the Gaelic form is not the most commonly used form, it seems necessary to confront you with the basics. Michael Sanders 14:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Confront"ing anyone will not do anyone any good on wikipedia. And that it seems necessary to repeat such information only indicates that you've not as yet made any allowances for the arguments I and others have made. Your strategy is just repeat yourself incessantly, while ignoring everyone else. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could say the same about you, except that you scurry from argument to argument, from "But the names come from Gaelic culture" to "but they are more commonly used", and then, when that is disproved, "but it would look strange if Gaelic names were set beside English names" (it would also look strange if rarely used Gaelic names are used in place of commonly used English names). Michael Sanders 14:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having finally figured out what all the gaelic arguing was, IMHO gaelic should be in a secondary style in these articles & their infoboxes (Michael's way); not in a primary style (Deacon's way). GoodDay (talk) 14:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The avoidance of using the native name smacks of legacy of colonialism and just simply English xenophobia. If discussing World War One would we refer to German Kaiser as William, because William is the English form of the name? English speaking historians of good standing are using the native Irish form, presumably to avoid the lose or false conveyance of information...

Possible error

Unlike in 1072, Malcolm was prepared to fight, but a peace was arranged by Edgar Ætheling and Robert Curthose whereby Malcolm again acknowledged the overlordship of the English king. It would make more sense that it was William Rufus, and not Robert Curthose, who followed Malcolm north, and then made a peace treaty. This must be a slight slip of the pen. --FinnWiki (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The main body of the article is very good, my concerns are based on the popular fiction section which is a single line, yet shuld be more given this persons featured role in Macbeth. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 09:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birth date

The best I've been able to track down in independent sources is "c.1031" but no specific date.

In December 2011, the date 26 March 1031 suddenly appeared in the infobox, via this edit. No citation was ever supplied. The editor only ever made a handful of edits, the last being in 2012, and none of the others show any connection to Scottish history.

In September 2013, the month was changed from March to August, courtesy of this edit from an IP whose sole WP contribution this was. Again, no citation.

Rather than stick a citation required tag, I've decided to simply remove the uncited parts of the date and leave it at "c.1031", and also add that year to the lede. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious etymology and misleading misnomers

First, Canmore does not translate as "big head" than US president ever translates into any language as "sits in front of Americans". Canmore is a a dead metaphor - exactly like "her majesty". It is exactly (and I do mean exactly) the same as beginning the page on the present UK monarch by telling us that "Her Majesty" means "her bigness".

It's specious to give prominence to a "literal translation" when a literal meaning never applied in the original language. Translating any metaphor literally is not acceptable, because it's misleading. (In the case of this hoary old schoolboy joke, "big head", it was also used for generations render Scottish history trivial & amusing. If that was the intent here, all the more inappropriate.)

Second: "great chief" is not a euphemism. This is not what the word "euphemism" means. A euphemism is word used as a polite substitute that disguises &/or prettifies reality. (eg "passed away" instead of "died". Saying that it is a euphemism inadevertently implies that King Malcolm actually did have an unusually large cranium. That is, it implies it to people who do know what "euphemism" means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.169.125 (talk) 00:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]