Talk:The Widows of Culloden

Battle of Culloden
The lead reads, in part "It is named for the widows of the Battle of Culloden (1746), a major conflict between Scotland and England." This is not reflective of what the main article says and is incorrect. Perhaps tweak it to match the article's phrasing? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I admit it's a simplified explanation, but I don't think it's fair to say it's incorrect. It was a battle of English against Scots Jacobites which led to some very nasty consequences for Scotland as a whole, all of which is supported by my sources. In my opinion it's unnecessary to get into the nitty-gritty of Jacobitism in the body here, you don't need it to understand McQueen's fashion. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The battle of Culloden was not fought between Scotland and England and to say it was is incorrect. The source you cite does not support this assertion. I think the article is great. I was skimming through it because I want to schedule it as a TFA in May. I have taken 11 articles on various Anglo-Scottish wars and battles through FA. I really, really know what I am talking about here.
 * Can I suggest that the main article be tweaked to "It was named for the women who were widowed following the Battle of Culloden (1746), an engagement which marked the defeat of the Jacobite rising of 1745, a failed attempt by Charles Edward Stuart to regain the British throne and a major conflict between Scotland and England ." This would be a minimal change and the text would then match your source. Or, perhaps, "It was named for the women who were widowed following the Battle of Culloden (1746), an engagement which marked the defeat by the British government of the Jacobite rising of 1745, a failed attempt by Charles Edward Stuart to regain the British throne"? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have a look at my revision. I've added a few citations to historians, reworded it as "mythologized as", and added some context about the outcome that I think supports McQueen's resentment a little more. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers. That looks better. If you were to change "The battle led to English efforts" to 'The battle led to British efforts', then it seems ok. Royle is as sound a source as there is, and he sticks it on page 1; end of argument. It's a fine article, even for FA, but seemed to me to have slipped a bit into presenting the mythology as fact. Nicely sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. I'll admit I'm not as strictly familiar with the history so I figured glossing over it for the sake of getting to the fashion would be fine, but I do think it looks better with the context now. Thanks as always - my articles always look better after you've had your eyes on them. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2023 (UTC)