Talk:The Incident (conspiracy)

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

James Livingston

Someone might like to add something about James Livingston, 1st Earl of Callendar. David Stevenson, (Livingston , James, first earl of Callendar (d. 1674), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004) writes:

That the covenanters' doubts about Almond's reliability were justified was confirmed in October by ‘the Incident’, a plot whereby a group of royalist officers planned a coup d'état. Proposals to arrest the earl of Argyll and the marquess of Hamilton were alleged to have been made in Almond's house, and he was said to have been assigned a leading part in seizing the two nobles. However, the matter was not investigated too closely, as both king and covenanters were determined not to let the affair prevent them reaching an agreement. As part of the settlement Almond was created earl of Callendar on 6 October 1641.

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

I believe this article needed (and still needs) its "references improved", not because of there are not enough, but because they are not very good. Also three of the four references come form the same website. Its a matter of quality, not quantity. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]