Talk:Charles Vyner Brooke

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Malaysia Mid‑importance

	Malaysia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Malaysia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Malaysia and Malaysia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MalaysiaWikipedia:WikiProject MalaysiaTemplate:WikiProject MalaysiaMalaysia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Devon Low‑importance

	Devon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Devon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Devon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DevonWikipedia:WikiProject DevonTemplate:WikiProject DevonDevon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article name

shouldn't the Article name incorporate his title as Rajah of Sarawak?--Couter-revolutionary 00:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Titles are not generally included in Article Titles. LordAmeth 10:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see whay you mean, but the article title is wrong. See; Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, to call this article what it is now is like calling the Queen's, Elizabeth Windsor. I suggest this article title be changed to Charles of Sarawak. Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Counter-revolutionary (talk • contribs) 10:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Charles Vyner Brooke.jpg

Image:Charles Vyner Brooke.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British citizen?

What was his nationality, if not British he wouldn't be allowed to use the prefix sir but could use post nominals.--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, anyone know if he was a Moslem?--Counter-revolutionary (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my research on him (which admittedly was a few years ago now), I never came across any mention of him being muslim. --Roisterer (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. It's just Sarawak was totally governed by Islamic law, he banned missionaries, &c., I can't see that the population accepted a Christian ruler. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which they did. What in the world are you going on about? – Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 19:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Support per nomination though, I think Charles Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak is equally acceptable. Narson (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
- Who is under Charles Anthony Johnson Brooke. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the ship SS Vyner Brooke. – Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

Great

Surely it isn't just me who thinks that the change to Charles Vyner Brooke doesn't really account for are discussion. I shall be requesting another move shortly to Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak, to account for the name he was referred to and his ruling title as a monarch. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do decide to cause the cafuffle, at least put in the option for Charles Vyner Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak. Narson (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it did account for the discussion - it simply didn't align with your opinion, which is a different matter. You have every right to request another move, of course. Neıl ☎ 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will pass more readily with evidence of the non-use of Charles, especially actual citations of works of general reference. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here: RajahBrooke.com, The Borneo Project, A forum, but all the same..., Kuching tourist site, Sarawak Chronology, Book search, Japanese Occupation, Malaysia.info, Michael Palin's full circle. All results, and there were more!, for "Rajah Vyner Brooke" - not a 'Charles' in sight! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's one right here! Charles 22:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be held as a positive thing. Henq (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean. What I'm showing is that the article is inappropriately named as he was known by his middle name Vyner. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henq, if I get the feeling again that you are "stalking" me because you disagree with me disagreeing with your unsourced and original research Saxe-Altenburg, etc, edits, I *will* report you and you will have to answer to the administration regarding it. Charles 22:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with both Charles Vyner Brookee and Vyner Brooke as the article's name. – Matthew A. Lockhart ^(talk) 12:27, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Vyner Brooke or Vyner Brooke

User:Counter-revolutionary has presented ten websites to support "Vyner Brooke". He says that there is "not a 'Charles' in sight!" He might actually want to look at some of his own evidence. The FIRST ITEM on the link he provides for "Book search" [7] is a link to the Columbia Encyclopedia under "Sir Charles Vyner Brooke".

Google Books is a reasonably good way of seeing how a topic has been treated in published scholarship. When one looks for "Charles Vyner Brooke" one gets 635 results [8]. When one looks for "Vyner Brooke" and excludes "Charles Vyner Brooke" one gets 311 results [9]. THE ONLY THING I'M SAYING is that "Charles Vyner Brooke" is used much more frequently than "Vyner Brooke". Can anybody explain why Wikipedia should not use the most common form of his name used in published scholarship? (By the way, I have no objection to "Rajah of Sarawak" being added after his name in the article title). Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one explanation why Wikipedia should not use what you call the more frequently used name; because that's not what he called himself! I've provided reliable sources to show this and believe wikipedia is much more than a measure of google hits! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles go by the common name though, not by whats correct or what they called themselves (Notice the article on Hirohito is at Hirohito, not his now official name of Showa, for example) Narson (talk) 10:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does Vyner come from?

I've never heard the name before. Was he related to the Vyner family? Or is there an Asian connection? Why did his parents choose it? BrainyBabe (talk) 07:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure on that point. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MV Vyner Brooke

The merchant vessel named after Charles Vyner Brooke, the MV Vyner Brooke, is notorious in Australia as it was bombed by the Japanese while fleeing Singapore laden mainly with civilians shortly before Singapore fell. A number of medical staff and soldiers survived the bombing and sinking of the ship, only to be machine gunned on a nearby beach while unarmed and helpless.

There does not seem to be any publicly available photograph of the MV Vyner Brooke. If anyone is aware of a photograph or has access to it I would appreciate hearing about it.

Stephen Home Perth, Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.152.130 (talk) 00:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why abdicate and cede to Britain?

What possible reason would a ruler give up his kingdom to another country? What was Vyner getting out of it? Was he offered compensation by Britain? If he wasn't interested in ruling after 5 years away, why didn't he just let his nephew take over? Was there bad blood between them? Ideological differences? If England did compensate Vyner, shouldn't his nephew also have received compensation? Did he? Ileanadu (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: add short description for article

Is adding the short description “Third and last Rajah of Sarawak” for this article a good idea? Thanks. Colathewikian (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]