Talk:Competitors for the Crown of Scotland

message: The article lacks any kind of synopsis, and instead has, as an introduction, something that approximates a "Hollywood" teaser trailer.  The introductory two paragraphs should condense the essential elements of the article.50n0m4 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. This is not your average Wiki article as it defies the standard layout. I hope to amend in the near future if I have time in my busy life. Pericles of AthensTalk 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of Summary

message: Recently, User:Surtsicna has removed the names of all the fathers of the claimants to the throne of Scotland. I found this to be an odd move, not only because patrilineal descent was so important to making claims to birthright and property in the medieval world, but also because it would be odd to list only one of their parents and not the other. In fact, both matrilineal and patrilineal lines were used by medieval rulers and nobles to make arguments about birthrights to feudal lands and properties. It wouldn't take one long to realize this after merely reading this article, let alone making a thorough examination of the historical record. 
I invite Surtsicna to make a rebuttal, but I would ask that this issue be discussed first before making another radical cutting of arguably relevant information from the article.Pericles of AthensTalk 15:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted all of your edits because your improvements to the article's grammar were nonetheless tied up with your edits that removed names from the article. It was impossible to divorce the two. That said, your argument is fairly sound and I think you've convinced me here until I can find a reason otherwise to include the omitted names. Cheers. Pericles of AthensTalk 16:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing the fathers' names from the claimants section

message: For Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford the article says "He didnt make a claim for the throne as it would be a conflict of interest but had the strongest claim after John Balliol." How does that make any sense? He was a descendant of David of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon's sister Margaret, so Bruce, Balliol and Hastings would have had a better claim than him because they descend directly from David. Even if one is to argue proximity of blood, Humphrey is one of the farthest down in the line since so many generations separate him from his Scottish ancestors.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This never received sufficient discussion.  Humphrey de Bohun was added into the list by an IP without explanation, with the statement that though he had this descent, he did not make a claim for political reasons.  When the fact that he didn't make a claim for the specific reason given was challenged for want of a source it was removed, thereby portraying him as an actual 'competitor' who put a claim forward, which he was not.  This page is not a genealogical entry, where editors decide who all had descents that would qualify them to have made a claim - it is a political-historical page listing those who actually came forward.  One could easily go through the genealogies of the time and identify others who had such descents, but that is not what this is about.  Historical accounts of the Competitors that I have seen give 13 names (in addition to Edward), in some cases explicitly calling the group the Thirteen Competitors, with Humphrey de Bohun not among then.  I am going to remove him, pending the provision of a source that lists him along with the others as a competitor. Agricolae (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford 

message: Current article name feels rather ambiguous and would be better changed to something like Succession of Margaret, Maid of Norway? FlagSteward (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It could be renamed 'The Great Cause', as that is indeed what this article is describing. The article is otherwise difficult to locate, and the current name could seemingly refer to many things. It is very vague. 2001:8003:2817:6800:7D47:25AB:A599:C94B (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename