Talk:James IV

Howard Dean

Always late but worth the wait. If you check the Howard Dean article you will find a link to his family tree that traces back to James IV.

I am slightly suspicious of this unsourced addition by an anonymous user that Howard Dean is descended from James IV. It is not wildly implausible, he must have hundreds of descendants, but is trivia like this encyclopedic? The user might have said which of his children Dean was descended from. I propose to revert if we do not get a reply in a reasonable time. PatGallacher 21:36, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray is attributed to be the illegitimate son of James IV AND James V in the respective Wikipedia articles. It is far more likely that he was the grandson of James IV, not his son. Is a correction of James IV warranted? (Last sentence of the article as it stands on 5.20.05) --Dog Whisperer 03:23, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray, Regent of Scotland, was the illegitimate son of James V, King of Scotland, by Margaret Erskine. - Nunh-huh 03:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

People are getting confused. James IV and James V both had illegitimate sons called James Stewart, who were both Earl of Moray. This was already explained in the article James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray (1501 creation). Read the relevant articles properly before changing things. PatGallacher 13:45, 2005 May 21 (UTC)

I didn't change a thing. I asked if a change was warranted. Thank you very much for the explanation about the duplication of names. I appreciate it. However, when the James V page says "James Stewart, 1st Earl of Moray...." one might be forgiven for assuming that he actually WAS the first. --Dog Whisperer 20:07, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Pat Gallacher: In response to your message (which I have found no way of responding to privately), I would only remind you that I simply asked a question on the talk page (as you suggest), and also did not change anything on either James IV or James V. Being now twice reminded to discuss on the talk page before changing anything is contrary to both facts. I am very much a student, not an authority, of this period of history, and I thank you once again for your assistance. --Dog Whisperer 19:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

more info

James IV and V were named Stewart. But James VI was named Stuart. Is this an error, or did he change the spelling of his family name?

It was changed by Mary Queen of Scots during her time in France, as the French did not have the letter "w". PatGallacher 13:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When war broke out between England and France as a result of the Italian Wars, James found himself in a difficult position.

Why? Widsith 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Because he'd signed the Treaty of Perpetual Peace (1502) with England when he married Margaret Tudor, but already had an alliance with France, the so-called Auld Alliance. Whatever he did, he couldn't please everyone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

But there is no mention of any alliance with France in the article. Widsith 08:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There is a mix up with which king performed early language acquisition experiment. Think is should be James IV, but it is actually mentioned on the James V page. KC1987 (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Excommunication

The article mentions that there were problems with his burial because he had been excommunicated, but this is not explained, or even mentioned, anywhere else in the article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Celice

The story of the iron chain is doubtful, and Pitscottie writing 60 years after calls it a 'girth of iron' and later mentions it as possible identifier of the king's body as a 'belt of iron.' So I'm surprised to see it described as a 'celice', and though it was thought of as a penitential accessory, there is no suggestion that it more than cumbersome and uncomfortable. Unoquha (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Mistresses

There could be an element of doubt creeping in about his mistresses. As well as his three better-established mistresses, he had a daughter by one of the Buchan family, but it's not clear which. Anyone clarify? PatGallacher (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Scots vs Scotland

Since his title was King of Scots, shouldn't the article be named James IV of Scots? —JadziaLover ^{(talk | contribs)} 18:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, see WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Great Britain

I don't see why there is a problem with GB in the intro, as KJIV certainly was the last monarch from this island to die in battle. The last English King to do so being Richard III. Great Britain isn't a political name, it is a topographical one, no? Brendandh (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to put in British Isles rather than GB, but then Shane O'Neill has that dubious honour! Brendandh (talk) 16:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Pedro de Ayala - Spanish Diplomatic letter

Though the Spanish diplomatic letter from Pedro de Ayala was indeed partly written in cipher the sections regarding James IV are not encoded. The 19th century translation from Castilian (i.e. Spanish) is not always prefectly accurate or complete: and in this instance has actually inserted a non-existent sentence about Spanish letters, as well as making an improbable guess that an indecipherable word is 'biblios'.

The original document, which says much more about James IV than is quoted here, is held in the Spanish archives and can be read at:

General de Simancas,PTR,LEG,52,DOC.166 - 857V - Imagen Núm: 2 / 26

http://pares.mcu.es/ParesBusquedas/servlets/Control_servlet?accion=4&txt_accion_origen=2&txt_id_desc_ud=2207889

The extract quoted in this article reads in the original:

El Rey es de XXV años y algunos meses, mas creo tres. es muy bien proporcionado: no es gra[n]de ni pequeño: es muy hermoso hombre en color y faciones quanto dezir se puede, tiene muy buena gracia en hablar, habla estas lenguas: Latin muy bueno, frances, Aleman, Flamenco, Italiano, español como mastre marqués y mas claro y no quiere que yo le forma fino en Spañol, y sui su lengua natural scocessa la qual es con la Inglesa como aragones con Castellano, habla otra len- gua que tienen los Salvajes en cierta parte de su Reyno y ciertas Islas: que es con la Sco- cesa como lengua Vizcayna con Castellana, es cierto es en esto tan general que es cosa de miramillar. tiene bien leyda la… [bruna?brima?brinia?]… y algu[n]os otros libros devotos de la sacra scriptura.

A different translation reads:

The King is XXV years old and some months, I think three. He is extremely well proportioned, neither big nor small. He is as handsome in complexion and form as a man can desire. He speaks very gracefully. He speaks these tongues: Latin very well, French, German, Flemish, Italian; Spanish as well as a marquis would, and clearer, and does not need me to speak carefully in Spanish; and his own natural tongue [lengua natural], Scottish, which, compared to English, is like Aragonese compared to Castilian. He also speaks another tongue the like which the savages have in a certain part of his kingdom and on certain islands. This, compared to the Scottish, is like Basque compared to Castilian. He is so proficient in this that it is a thing to marvel at. He has well read the [word indecipherable] and some other books devoted to the sacred scriptures.

Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.111.131 (talk) 09:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this: the exact archive and digital image reference for the paragraph is; 'Carta de Pedro de Ayala a Miguel Pérez de Almazan, (Secretario de los Reyes Católicos, sobre asuntos de Inglaterra, Flandes, Francia y Escocia)'; Archivo General de Simancas, PTR, LEG,52, DOC.166 - 857V - Imagen Núm: 2 / 26. The illegible, or rather not readily recognisable word could be "brivia," perhaps a form of Latin breviarium, breviary, which would make perfect sense here. I shall put the link on Pedro de Ayala.Unoquha (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Excommunicated?

What does Excommunicated mean? I'm 3/4 Scottish American. Darth Jadus (talk) 21:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Excommunication (Catholic Church) – SquisherDa (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Early Years

I don't understand the last paragraph of the first paragraph of the Early Years section. Could someone with more understanding of the subject clarify what exactly "his role in his father's death" means? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earthliz (talk • contribs) 03:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems a lot clearer now than it was at the time you queried it. Do you reckon it’s now OK? – SquisherDa (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Illegitimate children

His illegitimate children seem poorly sourced. It is possible that some who died in infancy may have slipped through the radar, but 2 who supposedly reached adulthood are not sourced anywhere, and the source looks poor, giving a supposed first marriage which is news to me. PatGallacher (talk) 17:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Looked into into further, this was an anon IP edit in May, so it looks hoaxy. PatGallacher (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Legends of the King's resting place

The section "Legends of the King's resting place" has a paragraph beginning with the word "However" and I was wondering whether it is a good idea to do this. Vorbee (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Article rating

This articles rating has just been raised from C to B, any thoughts on how we can get it up to A? PatGallacher (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi PatGallacher, it was me who rated it B, which is the highest I'm qualified to do. To be honest a lot of WikiProjects don't actually make use of the "A" rating, though MILHIST does. You might want to request a review at WP:MHR. More generally, I'd recommend looking at WP:GAN in order to request a review to bring it up to "Good Article" status.

I have not reviewed this article thoroughly myself, or done any kind of proof-reading. I would generally expect every paragraph to end in a reference though, but not all in this articles currently do. Also a couple have been marked as "[failed verification]" by another editor. From a personal point of view, I admit I'm not a fan of the current method of referrencing individual pages, and prefer use of Template:Rp, but that's my opinion.

Hope that helps! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

James IV king of Scots

The entry is largely accurate but if you look at the entry in Scotland per se Ie not in him himself it refers to him as last British king to die in battle . Wrong . He was never British ! Ensb1 (talk) 19:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Peer review

James IV of Scotland

I've listed this article for peer review because I am considering putting it forward for Good Article status, but it would be nice to have some feedback first.

Thanks, PatGallacher (talk) 18:43, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

• I added some "citation needed" templates to the article. These will need to be resolved before a GAN.
• For the "Fictional portrayals" section, I would only include mentions where the book/movie/piece of media has a Wikipedia article. In other words, if it is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, it is probably not notable enough to be included in this list.

Once these are resolved, I think this can go to WP:GAN, where a reviewer will give more thorough comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article?

Might we even consider putting this article forward as a possible good article? PatGallacher (talk) 01:05, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say you have zero chance of getting this article promoted until you or someone goes through all of the blocked user Reefyj's edits and remove their copy-vios which are still visible. Until this is done then the article will remain in limbo, I'm afraid. Bill Reid | (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

If they're still visible it would help if you could identify them. PatGallacher (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

You asked about the article's potential for promotion. Yes, maybe I should have said 'potential violation edits'. Nevertheless, the banned copyvio editor's edits need to be checked for potential breaches and corrected if necessary, before submitting the article to the GA process. Bill Reid | (talk) 13:06, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I have had a look through the article's history. Reefyj did do some significant work on the article way back in 2022-23, but I didn't see much wrong with his edits, and if there were any problems then they could have been addressed at the time. A handful of his edits were reverted as a copyvio. PatGallacher (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

I have run Earwig's copyvio checker on this article, the only serious chance of a copyvio was found to be with some Spanish state papers on a British history website, which are a free source. So are we in the clear? PatGallacher (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Admin User:Diannaa changed the visibility of 27 copyvios on 15 January2022. Reefyj was subsequently banned by admin User:DrKay who I've seen patrolling several Scottish articles. I suggest you give DrKay a shout and ask them, but I would think that a banned copyvio editor has to be double-checked. This should then ensure that copyvios are no longer present by checking each of Reefyj's edits, ensuring that each edit carries a citation that has been checked for both copyvio and accuracy. Bill Reid | (talk) 11:38, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Went to check reefyj edits and found a copyvio straight away. Stopped further searching. Looked at a bit of text and have marked some bits that are not borne out by the sources. I think maybe they even pre-date reefyj, but not sure at the moment. I put some templates at the places. I'll go through more thoroughly in the coming days. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the reference to MacDougall p. 68-74 may cover the preceding sentences, and I am unsure what you mean by "qualify evidence" in this context (I have read the essay). However, thanks for giving this a look. Should we move this discussion down to the next section? PatGallacher (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I quote the relevant GA criterion "reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);" PatGallacher (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

I feel your laudable wish for the article, as it stands, to get to GA is premature. There are copyvio and citation issues that need to be addressed, but once they've been fixed, then hopefully the review you've requested will help you. So with that in mind, I'll make my own observations as I said I would.

Copyright violations

The copyvio problems, highlighted, need urgent attention. As you can see, I have gone no further than citation [63], and I may have missed issues, but I know there are more copyvios to be dealt with. The only way I can see that these copyvios can be eradicated is for someone to go through a time-consuming check of every citation against the sources. There is the obvious problem in that not everyone reviewing the article will have access to the source material to verify that the text is copyvio-free. It may be that an article rewrite may be the only way forward.

Citation issues

Many paragraphs only have a single citation. Single-cite paragraphs are fine as long as the citation covers all of the factoids. The ones I've checked do not.

• Citations and the Bibliography section need a lot of attention. Many citations point to sources that are not in the bibliography section.
• There are in-line citations that are provided as full citations that belong in the bibliography/sources area.
• There is a mixture of citation styles, i.e. Template:Sfn and the more general citation style, sitting cheek by jowl. One such sfn mentions an author—who ever he/she is, as the entry is missing from the sources section!
• Primary sources should be avoided where possible

Structure

• The article is overlarge. This can be a put-off for many readers. If the article is downloaded as a PDF document, it is 18 pages long. It would be even larger if the sources section was properly addressed.

The citation numbers as they appear in the article

Early life

• Citation [4] — this citation does not cover all of the content; e.g. Whitelaw and Ireland are not mentioned at all in the source. Also, no such position as 'secretary of state', Whitelaw is referred to as secretary, or royal secretary, in sources
• Citations [6] [7] — COPY VIO: Macdougall, pp.1,2
• Citation [7] — source does not mention the two people; you need to give a separate citation for them
• Citation [5] — an interpretation of the first phrase, which is half the sentence, has not been dealt with in citation
• Citation [12] — this citation does not deal with the text at all

Early reign

• Citation [18] — citation has wrong page number; should be p. 51
• Citation [18] — the source makes no mention of Gerhard of Oldenburg
• Citation [19] — errors of fact; Macdougall makes clear that the rebels were not defeated, and "Gartloaning cannot be construed as a victory for them" i.e., the king's party, p.74, also "The rebellion of 1489, like its more ambitious predecessor the year before, had succeeded", p.76
• Citation [20] — the source says about the Drummond-Murray feud that was not brought to an end in this period, but a decade later. Also, the reference to Justice Ayres is not mentioned
• Citation [22] — the article gives reasons for James' support for Warbeck, but the citation covering it says nothing on the reasons (Macdougall p. 117) and doesn't even mention James IV at all
• Citations [24] & [25] — both citations use primary sources and not secondary sources. [25] gives an additional source of an author, David Dunlop. Who is he? No mention in the Bibliography section. Both [24] & [25] seem to be contradictory
• Citation [26] — another primary source
• Citation [28] — primary source
• Citation [29] — description of the large canon, Mons Meg, in the siege of Norham, but no mention that the siege failed

Peace efforts with England

• Citation [30] — primary source
• Citation [31] — not as described in source

• Citation [34] — primary source

• Citation [35] — very poor source

Government

• Citation [44] — COPY VIO: Dawson, pp. 43,44
• Citation [45] — poor online source which is COPY VIO:. Also contradicted by Macdougall, p. 100
• Citation [55] — COPY VIO: Macdougall, p. 170

Finances

• Citation [63] — COPY VIO: Macdougall, p. 151. Also includes non-copyvio unsourced phrases --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 28 April 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus is that the move should be performed per WP:SOVEREIGN. (non-admin closure) ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 14:39, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

---

James IV of Scotland → James IV – Per WP:SOVEREIGN. Absolutiva 12:17, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Support per WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. James IV already redirects here, so it is already considered to be the primary topic. The country disambiguator is in the title is unnecessary. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose Question if WP:SOVEREIGN actually says this. I wasn't a fan of abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation anyway, but this is going a stage further, abandoning it in cases where the monarch is the primary but not sole meaning of a title, could have implications for several articles. PatGallacher (talk) 20:56, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:SOVEREIGN absolutely supports this move, and there are countless examples of this. We only use the country disambiguator when the "common name is ambiguous and not the primary meaning". If it is the primary topic then we drop the disambiguator. If you disagree with the naming guideline, this is not the place to debate that. Take it up at WP:SOVEREIGN if you want to try to change the article naming convention. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing is gained by making the title less recognizable, no matter what some guideline says. "Of Scotland" is not just some disambiguator, it is what makes the numeral "IV" make any sense. Srnec (talk) 02:30, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Weak support. Primary topics seem to be allowed for monarchs, as seen when the Charles III move request failed. O.N.R. ^(talk) 02:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support: per Absolitiva and, for example, ODNB Bill Reid | (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)
• Support per nom and Rreagan007. DankJae 11:06, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

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.