Talk:Battle of Bannockburn

message: I have removed mention of the following book from the list of references:
* Scott, W., "Bannockburn Proved", 2006
as added without explanation on 13:00, 18 July 2013 []. I note that Mr Scott's work has been discussed in the past on this talk page, and nothing convinces me here or a quick Google search that these books are anything other that the fringe theories of one man. Most of the activity involving Mr Scott's work seems to come from one editor, and that editor's edits solely concern adding mention of Mr Scott's work. I have also removed the 2 other remaining mentions of Mr Scott's books on Wikipedia, along with seemingly promotional links to his website, from the articles Henry de Beaumont and John III Comyn, Lord of Badenoch. Rubiscous (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Your responding to an old post by someone who hasn't edited for over a year. No matter. We don't care about editor's opinions on the subject of an article, we care about the sources used, and this one is a self-pulished book by someone who is an expert in a number of fields but not history. We almost never use self-published books. Read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. If you disagree and want to use it you'll need to ask at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of promotional mention of fringe works 

message: This section is weird and doesn't seem to align with either day 1 or day 2 of the battle, as set out in the subsequent paragraphs. Is there some confusion here between English and Scottish forces? I'm not very knowledgeable by any means, but I thought it was the Scottish pikemen who advanced in formation [schiltrons] against the English cavalry. That's what Britannica and the subsequent text of this article seems to suggest.  MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair points.  The word English is probably a mistake for Scots given the context but I don't have the cited text to check.  The description of the Scots army here really best fits the Day 2 situation but might attempt to describe the Scots army as a whole, thus duplicating the last part of the previous section.  These two sections could possibly be edited together to reduce duplication.  Monstrelet (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Agreed. If the prelude section isn't actually the prelude at all, and is wholly or partly wrong, it can be mostly deleted with anything useful merged. I wasn't able to find a copy of the cited sources online. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prelude section is odd 

message: Needs heavy editing. 86.16.88.22 (talk) 11:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is like an A-level essay 

message: I have removed a reference to "Sir Robert The Bruce's leadership" and changed it to "Robert the Bruce's leadership". At this time Robert the Bruce was King of Scots (and before that he was an Earl from 1292 and so would have been referred to as Robert, Earl of Carrick)so it is nonsensical to refer to him as Sir Robert - it would be like calling Edward II  "Sir Edward of Caernarfon" or "Sir Edward Plantagenet". Moreover using Sir Robert the Bruce here could easily cause confusion with another individual present at  the Battle Bannockburn -  King Robert's illegitimate son (Sir) Robert Bruce. he was knighted by King Robert at Bannockburn and who was then known as Sir Robert Bruce, later becoming Lord of Liddesdale.  Dunarc (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to "Sir" Robert the Bruce 

message: Could Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March, be added to the list of captives? Mortimer being captured at the battle is mentioned in the Bruce Campaign in Ireland page, but not in the Roger Mortimer article. 
Thanks. Geographynerd101 (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captive List