Talk:History of Scotland/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Further reading material

I added two items to the "Further Reading" section. Both by the late Magnus Magnusson who wrote a massive book in 2000 and another one 1993. Im surprised these were not on there. --76.31.242.174 (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

on Magnusson, Publishers Weekly gives it thumbs down, saying "This overly heroic history of Scotland focuses almost exclusively on royalty and warfare. Loosely patterned after Sir Walter Scott's Tales of a Grandfather (1827-1829), Magnusson's narrative purports to describe Scotland from the Stone Age to the present. Yet his omissions are breathtaking." Rjensen (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The further reading is quite thin--I added titles which I previously added to the "Citizendium" article on April 28, 2008 Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Over-fishing, an impactful factor in the contemporary history of Scotland

Only a few years ago, I made a visit to rural & coastal Scotland. Out of this experience, I realised that another important 21st-century history topic is the devastation of some of Scotland's coastal fisheries. Fishing was a very long-standing and key aspect of the Scottish village economy in the coastal areas.

For general information about the pattern of fish-species loss, see the Wikipedia article Fishing in the North Sea. Basically, the serious matter in question is the loss of the large or "noble fishes" at the top of food chains — cod, halibut, etc. Think big fish, and think fish & chips. But what's important, historically, is the dissolving of a crucial aspect of the economy.

This impact is real history... and important. Joel Russ (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a fair point. Rural and coastal Scotland have changed greatly as a result of the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy. The changes should be described. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Rafferty on education

I recently tried to integrate the following addition into the style of the article:

"Raftery et al. (2007) looks at the historiography on social change and education in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, with particular reference to 19th-century schooling. Distinctive systems of schooling were developed in the 19th century that reflected not only their relationship to England but also significant contemporaneous economic and social change. This article seeks to create a basis for comparative work by identifying research that has treated this period, offering brief analytical commentaries on some key works, discussing developments in educational historiography, and pointing to lacunae in research."

It has since been reverted. I am not sure how to explain the problem here if an editor cannot see it already. This is not an historiographical essay, but an encyclopedic entry. This was taken from the abstract of the article here and therefore does not read like part of a subject based article. It can be useful to mention major figures and their conclusions by name, and even major works if they are particularly significant, but this doesn't actually appear to do that. To be honest we have very little idea from this what the article actually says, because we lack context, and it certainly does not seem to be so ground breaking that we need to hear all about it in detail here. If we wrote the entire article in this style it would be about three times the length and very difficult to understand. --SabreBD (talk) 14:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I will reread the article on work on a better phrasing. The way the history of Scotland is handled by the RS (ie the historiography) is an integral part of the article --it helps readers understand the controversies--and puts Scotland into comparison with Ireland and Wales, which is a major trend in recent scholarship.Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

If its part of some important historiographical debate it is fine, but just listing what an article does in isolation is not very helpful. Thanks for taking a look again. I look forward to seeing the new phrasing.--SabreBD (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I have left this paragraph as it is, but just a prompt about the need to recast this.--SabreBD (talk) 09:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

you're right on rafferty, but I have not got around to working on that./ I'll try this week. Rjensen (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great if you can.--SabreBD (talk) 09:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, i used Raftery to go to the RS and used & cited them directly, and thus dropped the passage about the Raftery article. Rjensen (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Great that resolves that one.--SabreBD (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

This is just to let editors know that I am currently working on a clean up of the second half of this article (roughly from 1745 onwards), solving MOS issues and providing sources. This will largely be a summarised version of the material at Scotland in the modern era, but reflecting the organisation used here. If editors have any suggestions of missing elements (or things that should be missing) they would be very welcome here. I plan to come back and do the same for the first part of the article, but this is a very long process as my method of working involves cleaning up all the relevant subsidiary articles first.--SabreBD (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

This now done. I noticed that there were a few sourced bits of the article that are not in the version. I will try to integrate them here, or put them in the relevant sub articles.--SabreBD (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I reverted one omnibus large-scale revision --mistakenly called a "cleanup"--that deleted fully sourced historical detail on major topics. To avoid edit warring please go one step at time, one section at a time. and provide explicit justification for erasing important info on economics, schooling, politics. Rjensen (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My edit summary probably should have said "clean up an expansion", but there was in fact very little information that was removed and, as I noted above I intended to feed that back in. Most of this edit is composed of the information here, but with sources and in more logical order, plus some summaries from other relevant sub-articles. Because of the need to reorder the information for it to make sense it is very difficult to do this piecemeal. At the moment this article has a lot of isolated statements that have been added bit by bit, often with no particular order. Please recover from the shock of someone trying to improve this article in a concerted way and compare the two versions and you will see that most of it is still there. The handful of statements lost in the edit can be added back in and, as I said above, that was my intention.--SabreBD (talk) 07:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest dealing with one section at a time in handling a major article like this. We have lots of editors interested in this topic. Furthermore erasing solidly sourced information with no explanation is a bad idea. Rjensen (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Again - the handful, and it is a handful, of pieces of sourced information can be added back in. If the major concern is that they will in some way be forgotten or that I cannot be trusted to keep my word on this, I can added them to the expanded and cleaned up version before reposting. I am also very open to suggestions about what should be expanded or contracted in the article, which becomes a more significant point in a longer article. Nothing of value is going to be lost here and a lot that is valid is going to be added. I am also happy to explain why changes and adjustments are being made here and to make changes and improvements in line with consensus here. There are 32 sections in the expanded article, since (judging the pace of this conversation) adding a section at a time and waiting for approval (assuming, optimistically, it is immediate) is going to take over a month.--SabreBD (talk) 07:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a frustrating nuisance to deal with a single edit that covers so much territory-- thousands of words spread across many sections. The natural units here are the 32 sections. We all work on one at a time. That way different editors who specialize in different time periods can evaluate what you have added and make the suggestions you are eager to hear. This article has taken years to develop--and taking a few days as a courtesy to the other editors is a reasonable request. And PLEASE stop deleting material for no apparent reason. Promising to put them back later is not satisfactory when they were deliberately removed. Rjensen (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the plea to stop deleting material for no apparent reason. It makes it seem as if I keep doing this, whereas my one edit, which I have not reinstated, but rather come here instead to discuss, meant that some material was lost, as I pointed out, on a very temporary basis. I have also pointed out that I am happy to reincorporate that material into a future edit. But OK if you don't want to have this edit in one go and then consider and discuss it, lets take it a bit at a time, but could you please be clear about the methodology you are suggesting. Do you want one sub-section and then wait for commentary and for how long do you consider that to be reasonable?--SabreBD (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, 1) all edits should be one section at a time. That allows editors interested in that specific section to take notice. 2) I have no complaint about edits that are actually cleanup and format related. 3) Substantive additions should be labeled as such. 4) deletions of serious material should be indicated and explained on the talk page first. 5) time delays are not much of an issue--what is annoying is the omnibus edit that does 1-2-3-4 all at once in a major way on multiple sections. Rjensen (talk) 10:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you answer the issue over how long you consider it necessary to wait for comments on each section please, which is what will determine the pace of this process.--SabreBD (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Could I get a response on this point please, I would like to work out a way of getting back to improving the article.--SabreBD (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

perhaps 24 hours.  :) Rjensen (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets try that for sections that are being changed in some significant way (e.g. a material is being moved elsewhere) and see how it goes. Although I can see it is going to be difficult if I propose moving information from one section to another that I may not be able to post for some time, so you may have to bear with me sometimes. I am largely planing to work through from the mid-eighteenth century to the end. Where there is a section of new material I will just post that and editors can comment in the usual way (for example the new section may give undue weight or be too long for this article), as I take it that those will be relatively uncontroversial. I will also try to indicate before I get there when I want to propose significant organisational changes, so there is a bit of time for comment. Just to make it clear to anyone coming to this debate late, the 24 hours is just a pacing issue, it does not mean editors cannot continue to comment after that.

Having said all that, the first thing I would like to do is deal with some obvious issues in 17th century sections (I will come back to the earlier sections of the articles at some future date). That gives a little time to flag up proposals for the eighteenth century, where I would like to sort out the confusing chronology at the beginning of the section, starting with a sub-section on the 1707 union. I also propose taking all the information on the economy in the century into a separate section so that it is easily found.--SabreBD (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

good--that all makes sense. I think that it's better to move a text from section A to B right away rather than erase it from A, keep it in Limbo, then add it back to B sometime later. That is, if one edit simply moves text from A to B, it is not a substantive change and should not bother anyone and I don't see why a time delay would be needed. Rjensen (talk) 10:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed two bits of "sourced" text in the last edit. One from the "local affairs" section on the Second Great Awakening in the U.S, because I have no idea what it was doing in that section or how it is relevant. The other is the response to Johnson's barb about oats, which, while amusing, did not seem very encyclopaedic to me and seemed to distract from the point being made here.--SabreBD (talk) 11:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just to say I am at the end of this process for the second half of the article for the time being, although there is always work that can be done. I am going to do some work on articles contributing to the early modern section and then will bring some of the results of that back here for consideration.--SabreBD (talk) 07:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

you're doing great! I just finished another project last night and will be returning to this article tomorrow. Rjensen (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Destruction of clans

My recent change to the section of clans in the 18thC has been reverted. The currently unsourced statement that "After 1745, Britain systematically destroyed the old clan system.", does not seem to me to be neutral, or to reflect reality. Michael Barthrop's 1982 Osprey book, while a fine guide to the military aspects, is not a scholarly text and is now somewhat out of date. It does not, in any case, support assertion that the government destroyed the clans, only that they tried, more recent scholarship has revised this view and the article needs to reflect the change in historiography. Can we work out a form of words that reflects that please.--SabreBD (talk) 14:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

it's a matter of semantics. Britain set out to destroy the clan system and the system did collapse. Devine--perhaps the chief specialist here--says the clan leaders suddenly decided to change after hundreds of years and quickly gave up the clan system after 1746. (Devine, Scottish nation p 172) Indeed they did and were under very heavy government pressure to do so--perhaps it was their greed for money to be made by modern methods and discarding tradition. That would appear to be indicate the success of the government's pressure, not its failure. SabreBD thinks the issue is settled--but in fact the historiography is hotly disputed, as explained for example in "Representing the Disputed Past of Northern Scotland: The Highland Clearances in Museums" by Laurence Gouriévidis online. He notes for example the tension between "impersonal factors such as the local, national or international economic situation making change inevitable are opposed to personal factors such as the decisive role of landholders driven by greed and ambition and with little human concern." [p 129]. Some other quotes that show the debate: "The defeat of 1746 sounded the death-knell for the CLAN-system and the traditional way of living in the Highlands" [Koch, Celtic culture: a historical encyclopedia (2006) p 512]; "Repression of the clan system followed, with estates being confiscated, possession of arms forbidden..." etc [Newman, Britain in the Hanoverian age, 1714-1837 p 178]; "The British government now attempted to smash the Highland clan system. It passed laws which destroyed the power of the clan chiefs" [Arman, Reformation and rebellion 1485-1750 (2002)]; [the reforms] "went far beyond earlier efforts to promote economic development in the Highlands and it represented the first real endeavour to transform the region's social system....the post-rebellion legislation certainly seems to have accelerated the change." [Conway War, state, and society (2006) p 139]. Rjensen (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Its not so much a matter of semantics as a matter of weight. In fact I do not think that the issue is settled, only that it has moved on. I could site all the counter examples here, but there is no need (a lot of them are listed in R. C. Ray, Highland Heritage: Scottish Americans in the American South) visible (to me anyway) at Google Books). If an issue is contested in the historiography then the article text should reflect that in a balanced way. I believe it does not do that at the moment. I am happy for you to come up with a form of words that does that and which we can consider. I should say that I am not thinking of something exceptionally long or complicated (perhaps two or three sentences) and the Gouriévidis quote above might provide a useful basis. I am happy to take it on if that is preferable or commitments do not allow. The above research might also form a useful basis for something more detailed in Scottish clans or Highland clearances. I would be happy to add something about alternative views. Experience suggests that I should just make clear that the above is a serious offer as these things can be misinterpreted in print.--SabreBD (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. what we have is a revisionistic argument that (only) long term forces were at work. The serious problems a) the long term forces are very problematic--did they really exist? how long would they take to work absent any pressure--10 years? 100 years?? b) London really did try to make a difference: it made it clear top clan leaders they would be harassed forever is they did not change and would be rewarded if they changed. They changed very quickly and prospered. I read that as saying the govt had a decisive role. The article can include both viewpoints following Gouriévidis.Rjensen (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, you draft something and I will take a look at it. I am sure we can come up with something appropriate.--SabreBD (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I added enough historiography to alert readers to the basic issues. Rjensen (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That is really very good indeed. I think you have summed it up in a concise and well balanced way. Many thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 18:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking ahead to the 19th century

Just pausing to consider some issues that might be contentious in cleaning up the 19th section. If we want to debate these in detail we can open a new topic below. First, the introduction to the whole sub-section. I see no problem with having a brief general introduction, but most of the information here is quite details and looks like it may belong in the sub-sections below, so we may need to recast this to avoid some puzzling repetition. Second, "Religion: The Disruption of 1843" is already fairly long and detailed and deals with only the disruption of 1843 and not the subsequent reunions or other religious events. I would like to consider making this more concise and adding in information on reunions, Catholicism and Episcopalianism. Some of the existing information is a long way from the citations so I am not quite sure how well sourced the first part is. Views, as ever, are welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking ahead to the 20th and 21st century

Dividing up the sections up for the period after 1900 is a little less obvious than for previous sections. I would welcome views on whether we go for one big 20th century header and then have sub-headings within that (for say early 20th, WWII and Postwar), or we can just have individual section with those titles. The number of sub-sections are also up for grabs. At the moment I am heading towards an early 20th/Post-war split (with the two world wars within the early bit), but I have no fixed view on this. This may of course become clearer as those sections are cleaned up and expanded, so we can perhaps reconsider this when that process is complete. An additional issue is the 21st century section, which at the moment has only one sourced statement (and that to me seems a bit over detailed for a history article). Having a 21st century section may be difficult at there will be little to say on other topics such as art/literature, economics and religion that is not already covered in the 20thC. So my feeling is that we should keep that within a post-war section for the time being. Obviously, as the period lengthens and there is more to say, the section will lengthen. Any thoughts?--SabreBD (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

perhaps 1900-45, and since 1945 will do the job. Rjensen (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, lets go with that, we can always change it if we find we have a disproportionate amount in one section.--SabreBD (talk) 09:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The 20c economic history was rearranged in a way that confuses the timeline and obscures the boom-bust cycles. I will get to work on it Monday. Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably the product of trying to fit together a lot of desperate statements from different sources. I will leave that to you to take a look at.--SabreBD (talk) 09:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I want to work on it this week and add some new material on 20c economic history. Rjensen (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, it could use some further expansion. I have paused on the 20th century education sections at the moment as I have encountered some historiographical disagreements that I need to resolve before posting.--SabreBD (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Referencing system

I am happy to fit in with any system of referencing used in the article, but I have never seen one used in Wikipedia in quite this form (which uses most of the information in footnotes, but takes out publisher, place and ISBN no). If we are going to have the full bibliography would it be better to go the whole way to shortened footnotes, which would save a lot of clutter? The sfn system is also an option that uses a full bibliography, but would be a very long job to convert an article of this length.--SabreBD (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My goal is to have trim footnotes that convey the needed info and are in numerical order. I believe the ISBN is rarely or never used in footnotes in academic works and not often in Wikipedia. (I find the ISBN useless and confusing--people expert enough to use ISBN do not need it.) Second, the publisher and place is superfluous in the internet age--certainly it is not needed a 2nd time. The short form is a pain for users and editors and produces too long a list at the end (the article has MANY notes and the number keeps growing.) All the footnotes I think are to standard sources that are easy for readers to find. So the author-title-year-page format I prefer is short, clear, and does not produce a long useless appended list like CITESHORT does. Rjensen (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

As I say, I really don't mind what system we use, but ISBN numbers are very frequently used on Wikipedia articles, particularly at GA and FA level, and are often demanded as part of a review. Personally I am with you on this one as I find it odd as I have never seen an academic text that bothers with this. The most important thing is to be consistent, so just to be clear, does this system mean including all books cited in the bibliography (and then a shorter version in the footnote)?--SabreBD (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

we're agreed on isbn I think. I suggest: a) the first reference to book X in a footnote include full author names, publisher, date (city is not needed anymore). b) further footnotes to same book include only lastname of 1st author & abbreviated title; c) only more important books and articles be included in bibliography.

OK, that's clear, I will start working to that and I will probably begin a clear up of existing references when I have added the last "new" sub-section. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Postwar: Cold War

There is an unsourced statement left hanging in the introductory section of the Post-war section on Scotland and the Cold War. How do we feel about this? It is no doubt true, but is it worth sourcing and expanding to make a section (perhaps on the military history of Scotland in the era), adding into another section (Politics or economics are possible) or should we just remove it?--SabreBD (talk) 11:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

good point. I revised the passage and added a recent cite. Rjensen (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

That answers the "shall we keep?" and sources issues, but this is currently in a slightly odd location. I will look into whether this can be expanded with relevant and notable material to make a sub-section. Certainly Scotland's military contribution continued to be major in the late 20thC.--SabreBD (talk) 06:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

odd location--yes so I moved it up to a new section on naval bases. Rjensen (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Death of James III

I have no doubt that views on this have changed and that the story that he was killed after the battle has been dismissed, but unfortunately the current source I think does not support that interpretation and there do not appear to be reliable sources that support this at the James III article. Can we get a new reliable source? If that is difficult we could opt for some neutral language: perhaps "defeated at the battle of Sauchieburn in 1488 and killed" afterall we don't need to go into great detail here. However, I would like to get this clarified and sourced for other articles.--SabreBD (talk) 21:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up the early Middle Ages

I have been thinking about cleaning up this part of the article, which is largely a process of adding footnotes and adjusting some out of date information. I just wondered what editors thought about the use of the two numbered lists of peoples/minor states. We don't use these anywhere else in the article, but are they useful here in explaining the complex situation. Views welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

An Anglo-saxon Country

Little in this article seems to fully explain the self evident fact that Scotland today is, just like England, an anglo-saxon ('sassenach') country, albeit with a celtic fringe. I'm guessing the reason is that the English-speaking Anglo-Saxons who have lived in the lowlands for fifteen hundred years (exactly as long as the Gaelic-seaking Scots tribe in the highlands and west) and who actually form the majority of the population of 'Scot'land have been largely airbrushed out of history for nationalistic political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.14.210 (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

And we should add your guess to this article because... -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite right one shouldn't 'guess'. Nevertheless there is a huge lacuna in almost all popular histories of Scotland, which usually omit to mention, or skate over, the single most important fact in the story of Scotland: that Scotland is an Anglophone country - and why. The reason is that, put simply, the Scottish lowlands have been Anglo-saxon linguistically, culturally and ethnically for 1,500 years. And politically too they were for long part of 'Angledom'. The Kingdom of the Scots was a gaelic kingdom. When its kings eventually acquired their English mini-empire in the 'Scottish' lowlands i.e.the north of England, 'Scotland' became a bi-cultural country. The consequence appears to be that the indigenous Anglic culture of the lowlands of Scotland eventually gained predominance, and the gaelic culture of the original Irish 'Scots' settlers in northern and western Caledonia declined. The result is that today most of Scotland is to all intents and purposes almost every whit as 'english' culturally and ethnically as England - and 99% of 'Scots' speak English, not gaelic. But what's new? Much of it it has been like that for 1,500 years anyway. Popular Scottish histories seem to either airbrush these 'unwelcome' facts out altogether - or make the spurious assertion that Scotland and its indigenous culture has somehow been a victim of 'Anglicisation' by those rotten English down south in England, rather than recognise that the primary indigenous culture of Scotland, and that of most of its people, are themselves historically part of the 'Anglosphere' which in Britain once comprised several kingdoms, not just the last two standing i.e.England and Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.235 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

England is not even an Anglo-Saxon country today. It's English. Scotland is Scottish. Yes Scotland is not a Celtic country, Celtic is merely a linguistic and cultural term thus the only people in Scotland who can truly be called Celtic are native speakers of Scottish Gaelic, who make up less than 2% of the population. How that makes us a Celtic country I'll never know. Ethnically we're Scottish, distinct (yet similar) from the other "Celtic" nations as well as England and other surrounding countries. To describe us as Celtic due to our past is ridiculous as it would make much of Germany, Spain, France and various other countries Celtic as well. Celtic culture and language is as native to Scotland as Germanic culture and language, they both spread from continental Europe... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.215.249 (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"The reason is that, put simply, the Scottish lowlands have been Anglo-saxon linguistically, culturally and ethnically for 1,500 years." This claim is absolutely incorrect. It simply has no basis. Galloway and Carrick were thoroughly Gaelic speaking through to at least the 1600s. The last speaker of the Galloway dialect of Gaelic who is known by name died about 1760. The very words "Galloway" and "Carrick" are Anglicised Gaelic. Refer to the wiki page on Galloway for ample evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.134.215 (talk) 18:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Immigration/Migration

We have a large section here currently headed up immigration, and referring to immigrants. Since immigration refers to those who move into a country, and immigrants refer to those who so move, I propose changing this section to Migration and referring to migrants, ie those who leave a country to move to another one. I'm going to be bold and make changes in the section based on the above - I hope I'm not being too controversial in doing so - please message me if I am.Berek (talk) 10:20, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Or those leaving Scotland could be described as emigrants I suppose, but migration is probably better as a general heading.--SabreBD (talk) 10:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit history - possible edit log error due to protection?? or possibly in need of sleep cause I'm mixing pages&edits in my mind

For some strange reason my edits (done also today) before this one 10:57, 24 April 2013‎ have all been merged in to that one, are not showing up in the edit history.I think the page was in autoprotected status up until a while ago?? Or am I mixing other pages( all having to do with British Islands and ancient Graeco-Roman-Latin sources) and edits I've done over the last hours in my mind? Has the presumable-hypothetical autoprotection status anything to do with this? Anyway for whatever the reason, the edit summary of my aforementioned edit is therefore not complete and hence inaccurate.One may find the other things I'd done before that by comparing edits.Thanatos|talk 11:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

GA review

I have been thinking that this article is close to the sort of shape that would make it a candidate for GA status, now that it is well sourced and illustrated. The one job that probably needs to be done is to recast the lead to fit with the updated text and I will try to find time to look at that today. Does anyone see any major issues that need sorting before a GA and would anyone be willing to help out with fixes in the review as it is a large article?--SabreBD (talk) 08:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Time for marriage James III - Margaret

This article says that James III married Margaret from Denmark in 1468. The article about Margare says they married in July 1469. At least one of these statements must logically be false. --Ettrig (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)