Talk:Charles Vyner Brooke

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

Y Done - as there are 4 editors calling for a move, 1 for a move to a different title, and 3 for the article to remain at the current title, I can only close this based on the strength of the arguments presented, as it is very close based on numbers alone. PMAnderson and Matthew Lockhart make the strongest arguments in my judgement (based around WP:COMMONNAME, and the precendent set by the father's article). Neıl ☎ 11:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Vyner of Sarawak → Charles Vyner Brooke — The current name "Vyner of Sarawak" does not reflect usage in the English-language scholarly literature. —Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support as nominator. There are 635 Google Books hits for "Charles Vyner Brooke" [1], but only 3 Google Books hits for "Vyner of Sarawak" [2]. While it might be argued that scholarship "should" call this man "Vyner of Sarawak" - the fact is that scholarhsip doesn't generally do that. It is not appropriate for Wikipedia to attempt to change scholarship by establishing such an article title. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose It is much more accurate per the Wikipedia Manual of Style. He was a reigning monarch and should be recognised as such. Vyner was the name by which he was known. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

"Charles Vyner Brooke" is the name by which this man was known as I have shown. IF he had been known by a reign-name, then perhaps "Vyner of Sarawak" would be appropriate - but the problem is that he wasn't called this. Please cite some scholarly sources in support of the present name. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

We looking at this from a quite modern, European-centric view. In Sarawak, during his reign, he was not known as Charles Vyner Brooke. Will look for a good source. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

In Sarawak he is known as Vyner Brooke and/or Rajah Vyner, the former to differentiate him from his father.– Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Here he is referred to as "Rajah Vyner"; The Daily Telegraph, and again in the DT here. If you search google for "Rajah Vyner", the inevitable conclusion of which is Vyner of Sarawak, there are quite a few results.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Books shows 81 hits for "Rajah Vyner" [3]. That still is much much less than the 635 Google Books hits for "Charles Vyner Brook" [4]. It is not a matter of a "modern, European-centric view"; it's a matter of English-language published scholarship. Wikipedia should not be used to CHANGE scholarship. We follow what has been published in the scholarly record. Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

And I'm giving you reliable sources for his correct title. Wikipedia should be correct!--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Correct English is what English speakers actually use. We have no Academy, and Wikipedia is not qualified to invent titles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:13, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is we're not making up titles, we're using them correctly! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If we were using them "correctly", other people would have used the same ones; Matthew Lockhart's comment below strongly indicates this is not the case. Evidence would be appreciated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. "Vyner of Sarawak" returns 3 hits for a general Google search, of which only the first one returns it in the context that we are discussing - and it this article that appeared. Bob Reece, the authoritative scholar on the White Rajahs himself never used "Vyner of Sarawak".– Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 14:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nomination though, I think Charles Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak is equally acceptable. Narson (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I too would have no objection to "Charles Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak". The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) suggest that surnames should generally not be used for sovereigns - but there are exceptions for certain Italian dukes (e.g. Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma). I think that this may be one of those exceptions. Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose suggested move, support move to Charles Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak An acceptable form in my opinion. Charles 04:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly support suggested move. Charles' alternative is genuinely correct, and therefore acceptable, but I think the long form unnecessary. (Idiom for all three Rajahs would be Brooke of Sarawak, but the articles are too long to be merged.) I would recommend making this move, which at least uses a name which the subject is actually called, and then considering Charles' improvement, which may convince me on further consideration. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you've fallen for a problem I was trying to avoid, he was known as Vyner not Charles. Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak would be better. Also, the suggestion of merging all three Rajahs to one article is laughable. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose. Practially every other wikipedia article on a sovereign monarch uses Firstname of Country. There's no reason why this article should be any different, and I seems to me that some people seem to want to downplay Sarawak as somehow being 'less real' a country than any other nation at the time. We must treat nations equally to maintain NPOV, and there is a clear policy on naming articles on heads of state. Of course, keep Charles Vyner Brooke as a redirect so that no-one will have any difficult finding the main article should they search for his full name. If anyone can provide evidence that the Raja was ever refered to as 'Sir Charles Brooke' in official diplomatic correspondence by any other country then I should be most interested to hear. An Edwardian Sunday (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you've made the mistake that Counter-revolutionary sought to avoid (though I did not agree with his stance on 'Vyner of Sarawak'), that is, the confusion between Vyner Brook and Charles Brooke. I have no interest in downgrading the status of Sarawak (my home state), it is just the way it is. – Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 19:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

No, User:An Edwardian Sunday seems to be saying that he was not know as Charles Brooke, rather as Vyner (even though his first name was Charles), thus supporting what I've said above. I quite agree with their assertion. We seem to have reached some sort of consensus for Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak, which I would be willing to accept, leaving his first name Charles out of it. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no such consensus on "Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak". Counter-revolutionary claims that he was known as Vyner not as Charles Vyner. I do not dispute that he was called Vyner - but in PUBLISHED ENGLISH LANGUAGE SCHOLARSHIP he is overwhelming referred to as Charles Vyner. Google Books shows 635 hits for "Charles Vyner Brooke" [5], and only an additional 33 hits (668 - 635 = 33) for "Vyner Brooke" [6]. Please provide some EVIDENCE for claims. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the fact that the ship was called the SS Vyner Brooke, no the SS Charles Vyner Brooke? Aside from that the sources above from the Daily Telegraph, &c. Ps, no need to shout!--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - from what I've read it seems leaving of his first name, Charles, would be more accurate. Perhaps C-R's suggestion of Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak is acceptable? --Christchurch (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It would be preferable to the present incomprehensible title, and so better than no move at all. Among the suggested names, I would not prefer it, on the grounds of Noel's search results. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:

• It also greatly assists with disambiguation. He should be known as Vyner of Sarawak and this avoids confusion with his father Charles of Sarawak. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Who is under Charles Anthony Johnson Brooke. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please note the ship SS Vyner Brooke. – Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Supports the proposition of leaving his first name Charles out of any article title. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure a stub with no reference is the greatest reason I've ever seen to decide the name of something, especially when there could be othe reasons why it is called Vyner Brooke and not Charles Vyner Brooke. Heck, with no refs, for all we know is it was called the SS Goat Humping Cheeseburger really. Narson (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The are actually plenty of references listed above. Yet again, however, that doesn't make much difference to those on Wiki. who disagree with one. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.