Talk:Battle of Sark

Numbers

There is a considerable mismatch between the numbers in the info box and the text. Casualty range is discussed in text was not matched in info box, so I have corrected. However, though I suspect the smaller text figures are correct for participants, I cannot confirm that. Could a more knowledgeable or better equipped editor tackle that, please? Monstrelet (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of edit

I've reverted a major revision of the text in the last few days. This revision deleted most of the references of the current version to create a huge new battle. While the battle is less well known than we would wish, a new theory, apparently derived from original research, should be explored here on the talk page and, if shown to be a legitimate variant based on published accounts, placed in the article along with the more commonly accepted account. Monstrelet (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Just glancing at the figures for e.g. Otterburn, Bannockburn, these edits would have claimed that this was a very large battle by the standards of Anglo-Scottish medieval warfare, which needs firm evidence. PatGallacher (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)