Talk:Action at Lanark

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lanark, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.LanarkWikipedia:WikiProject LanarkTemplate:WikiProject LanarkLanark articles

Military history: British / European / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Untitled

William Wallace emerges into history with his killing of the Sheriff of Lanark in 1297. However I am not aware that much is known about this incident beyond this bare fact, so is it worth an article, or even the term "battle"? PatGallacher (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, their were as many as 300 soldiers involved, they fought, how the heck is it not a battle. And the whole "He emerges into history with his killing of the Sheriff of Lanark in 1297" shows alot of ignorance. Wallace had killed at least three other English nobles of importance, and fought in over four skimishes. Anyway, read the article, it was a battle. It had two armies which faced eachother, what more do you want?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian of Scotland (talk • contribs) 24 June 2009

What are the sources for these assertions? If they are reliable, please add them. If they are not, remove the unsourced material. We are all in ignorance until this is done. Simply asserting that something was so is neither here nor there. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to "what more do you want?", I implore you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. You must understand this policy or you will have a frustrating experience editing on Wikipedia. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Mutt Lunker (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We might be able to keep this article with some work, but I suggest moving it to "Action at Lanark" or something similar. PatGallacher (talk) 11:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article...

is a disaster. Only one paragraph actually describes the incident referred to in the title, and it is speculative, basically admitting that nothing is known for sure about what happened. Furthermore, the article is poorly referenced, at best, and there is no indication that anyone refers to it using the term that is the title of this article. I see no reason, given the dearth of actually accurate information, for this article to even exist. What little is presented here could be discussed in the article on the rebellion. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 22:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]