Talk:Border reivers

	This article is supported by the Clans of Scotland WikiProject, which gives a central approach to Scottish clans and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Border reivers, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.Clans of ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Clans of ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Clans of ScotlandClans of Scotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lancashire and Cumbria Mid‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

North East England Mid‑importance

	North East England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland High‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Medieval / Early Modern Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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 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)
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)

"Reiver" and "bereave"

I have removed this ridiculous claim:

The reivers also left us with the term "bereave", a telling reflection of the violent nature of much of their activity.

"Bereave" has been an English word since Anglo-Saxon times (the Old English original was berēafian). In the original sense, it meant "deprive of", which could include possession and money. In its modern sense, the meaning has become restricted to "deprive of a spouse".

So the word "reiver" and "bereave" are undoubtedly linked; however, "reiver" comes from the older more general sense of the word "bereave", not the other way around. --Saforrest 16:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of the problems with this article is that it is rather incomplete, I grew up in Northumberland and was taught a lot of this history (a long time ago), the reavers or reivers surely are connected to piracy. I seem to remember that the Riddley's and the Armstrong's were both once river pirates (on the Tyne) - that the aristocracy of Northumberland themselves had obtained much of their wealth originally from piracy - and the dates all go back I think to as early as the 800's.

Trouble is its all confused - I suppose I could try to find out more from a local historian. - Maybe could put some of it here if wanted, the problem as always is finding references. - I know that a lot of Northumberland's oral history is recorded but generally in very obscure, hard to find, small run books.

- My real question was on the status and history of the word Reaver itself, was it an old name for pirate, what groups of pirates is it connected to etc. - Its research I need for a book. - thanks. Lucien86 (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POV

This article is dripping with POV, and there are no sources cited for any claims. Dave420 16:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only book I have read about the subject, "The Steel Bonnets" is mentioned at the bottom of the article. It is fairly comprehensive. The article rings true to what I remember from reading the book some years ago. ^ross ^nixon 11:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive, maybe, but is that book a reliable source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.35 (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Pinkie

I have been reading a book by Alistair Moffat called "The reivers" which states at the beginning of chapter 2 that the Scottish and English borderers were talking to each other in the midst of the battle and when spotted put on a show of fighting each other! I have been looking for other sources for this but could'nt find any.I think this would be a good addition to the article but would'nt want to add it for reasons already given!Any ideas?--Jack forbes (talk) 20:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)P.S I have gone ahead and added it anyway.--Jack forbes (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law and Order

I have inserted a reference to the sleuth hound and a link in the law section. What is said here seems to relate to the law of 'hot trod'--Cleanboot (talk) 13:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murderers

The Border Reivers were murderers. - 81.156.6.170 (talk) 23:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and blackmailers and thieves... So what's your point? Eastcote (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Along with the Highlanders. Welcome to Scotland, lad. Laodah 03:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames

There are two lists of surnames in this article. One is only Scottish Surnames from the 1597 Scottish Roll of Borders and Highland Surnames. The other has both English and Scottish surnames as compiled by George MacDonald Fraser in The Steel Bonnets. Please do not add names to these lists of surnames, as these are specific, referenced lists. If you wish to add a surname to the article, please do so to another part of the article. And please provide a citation that identifies the surname as one of the historic Reiver surnames. Thanks. Eastcote (talk) 11:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English officers

Many English officers were from southern counties in England and often could not command the loyalty or respect of their locally-recruited subordinates or the local population.

The sentence is far too simplistic and misleading as it implies that families like the Percies anf the Nevilles did not exist. -- PBS (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence itself is fine. It is true that "many" English officers were not from the Borders. What it needs is the addition of such as the Percies and Nevilles as notable exceptions. Eastcote (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Border Reivers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304074111/http://www.go-britain.com/html/borders_map.htm to http://www.go-britain.com/html/borders_map.htm#borders

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Border Reivers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Dunbar's Curse

I didn't see any inclusion of modern efforts to allay or retract Bishop Dunbar's Curse of Monition. His Curse is nearly 600 years old now, and from what I read is directed towards the Border families, their homes and livestock, and (here's the relevance to this edit) their descendants.

I'm certain someone has petitioned Rome to have one of the Popes since Bishop Dunbar's days lift the Curse from the Border families. Yet, I've seen nothing about this either in this article or on the Web. Here in the 21st Century we read about border disputes and immigration strife near daily from every part of the planet; two examples are that of modern Europe and the influx of African regugees, and quite topically the American/Mexican border dispute and what California's Governor Jerry Brown has done with his Sanctuary State effort. Humanitarian efforts are chronicled in each instance, tolerance and compassion are sought for the immigrant's plight.

So, where would the difference lie from Bishop Dunbar's day and the present? It's obvious someone has to have noticed this before and saw how important it is to seek Rome's salvation from the bishop's damnation. If not, the Border families and all their descendants have a great wrong against them, one initiated centuries ago and quite undeserved when viewed with Rome's tolerance of our planet's present border dilemmas.

The obvious rebuttal to this would be that no, the Scottish/English border families weren't refugees or immigrants from other lands seeking sanctuary. True, but, for example, the American/Mexican border issue is quite similar, for one. This has been an on-going struggle for decades and more with quite a lot of crime, atrocities, and illegal activities very well documented in the media. Here, to further this point, for Rome to condone and/or encourage this type of border insurrection all the while letting Bishop Dunbar's Curse to remain in place is paradoxical, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AC50:61D0:D019:BF6E:F13D:8FBA (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone have a link for this anywhere? Could you include this in the article, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AC50:61D0:D019:BF6E:F13D:8FBA (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics – Dependance/dependence/dependences/dependencies

The text states:

In 1606 an act (4 Jas. 1. c. 1) to assist the recent Union of the Crowns was enacted; it was long titled An act for the utter abolition of all memory of hostility, and the dependance thereof, between England and Scotland, and for repressing of occasions of disorders, and disorders in time to come.

Someone just changed 'dependence' to 'dependence'. Can someone in the UK with access to original statute law, find an early copy and identify the correct word. Google Docs provides at least three possibilities, but who knows if any of the authors checked the original. This is different to 's's being typed as 'f's. Thanks! Q8682 (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

disputed section - Borderers as soldiers

There is a {{disputed section}} template at the head of this section. However, there has been no discussion on this talk page concerning it, nor can I see anything in the section which can be criticised as biased or partial. If there is no change in the next few days, I propose to remove the template as frivolous. HLGallon (talk) 12:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 January 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Editors were split on how to apply WP:NCPLURAL to this situation: are the border reivers a defined class, in which case a plural title would be more appropriate, or not, in which case singular would be preferable? With comparable strength of argument on each side, even after a relist, my finding is that the discussion did not lead to a consensus in either direction. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Border reivers → Border reiver – Per WP:SINGULAR and WP:NCPLURAL, the title should be in singular form since this article refers to the concept of a border reiver, not a list of such reivers. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is an article on concept/history of border revievers, an "occupation" of sorts, not an article on an ethnicity, like Gaels or Picts. To the extent is refers to a group of people, it is more like Scottish clan (which is not at Scottish clans despite there being lots of them). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 02:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Almost always seen in the plural. Per WP:NCPLURAL, a defined class just like, say, Barbary pirates. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. A quick search around and ngram seems to suggest it's very much more often desrcibed in the plural. — Amakuru (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.