The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This RFC has two sections The consensus for them is as following. Charles Bertram, there is consensus is to oppose inclusion. There is consensus to use a Ptolemy map. AlbinoFerret 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Having some issues with a page owner and need some outside opinions on two points of policy and content in the article on the History of Scotland (specifically a bit about the Roman era: the relevance of Ptolemy's maps and a major fraud that impacted our understanding of it for over a century). — LlywelynII 18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Charles Bertram[edit]

Pace one of the editors here, yes, we absolutely need to mention Bertram and his forgery so that people know not to trust 18th and 19th century accounts of Scottish history. Everyone understands any earlier than that is iffy and likewise know that more recent discoveries wouldn't be included but the scale of the forgery and its success was massive and these poisoned accounts are what people can get to easily at Google Books, Bartleby, and the Internet Archive. I think the current parenthetical handles the situation well, but regardless of the phrasing there needs to be some discussion of and link to Bertram's book in the Roman history section. — LlywelynII 16:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Please consider what this article is attempting to do. It is meant to be a very general guide to the entire swathe of the history of Scotland. Most readers are unlikely to understand the significance of this or, frankly care. It would, however, be entirely appropriate in one of the more detailed articles to which this one provides links, such as Scotland during the Roman Empire.--SabreBD (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be the one who doesn't quite get how WP:SCOPE works. (Feel free to review it.) First, we err on the side of inclusion, even in general articles. We're not a print book. Second, our treatment of the "History of Scotland" will include major features of historiography along with the actual historical events. A hundred-year period of seemingly trustworthy and highly-available material poisoned by reliance on a fraud completely accepted by the highest authorities is a necessary thing to discuss, even in the broadest overview articles (although, yes, short of Scotland#History level). Please consider that this is not an edit war: I have in fact made an improvement to the article and you're (in all good faith) simply making it less good, less helpful, and less informative. There is no reason to do that. Pretty much ever and regardless of any policy.

I'm not sure why you're being so WP:OWNERy, but step back and get some outside advice here. I can be kind of an ass in my blunt way of making points (sorry), but I'm not actually wrong about this and your protectionism isn't actually helping anyone. — LlywelynII 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if you realise that your possible attempt at conciliation here is undermined by the accompanying accusation of ownership, or the puzzlement at how questioning two edits our of ten and then going to the talkpage for wider opinions indicates ownership. However, moving on, surprisingly I have a very full understanding of how WP:Scope works, particularly the bit that says "is an editorial choice determined by consensus" and I am very happy to do that here. Again, I hope other editors will come in with their views so that we can develop a consensus over this issue. Also, although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we do have to keep in mind WP:SIZE (this article is already 196,187 bites) and most importantly here I think WP:SUMMARY. My point here is that this kind of detail is more appropriate at linked articles of which sections of this article are in effect summaries. I should also point out that the section of text was also unsourced (although I have no doubt that it can be easily sourced), so was likely to be questioned here in any case.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Clarification request: Having read the Charles Bertram article and the The Description of Britain article, I'm unclear how this actually impacts the History of Scotland. Can some detail be added here to clarify the need for inclusion, specifically in the Roman section? --Haruth (talk) 04:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. What specific misconceptions were created or reinforced by the DoB? Have any of these persisted (either as ‘conventional wisdom’ or as bases for controversy) since the forgery was exposed?—Odysseus1479 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've come to this discussion from the RfC and had a read through the article and the single sentence that seems to be the dispute. My first observation is that, in common with many articles like this, it is a real challenge to write a good quality article that gives this helicopter view on a subject that could, of course, fill many volumes. As such I'm inclined to say if in doubt, leave it out, and of course include it in the sub-article that's linked. I do agree that historiography is very much in scope for this article, but I didn't get the impression from The Description of Britain that many misconceptions persist in modern understandings of Scottish history - please correct me if I'm wrong. On this basis I'm afraid I agree that it would be better left out of this particular article. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• (via Feedback Request Service) Oppose inclusion per SabreBD and AndrewRT. I don't think there's much to add to what they've said already. Just keep it a straight narrative as that's what readers expect. Samsara 22:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Ptolemy[edit]

Similarly, we don't really need an image of Romans butchering innocents. That was what they did and is implicit in any attempted conquest anywhere in history. We do need some image from Ptolemy's Geography (not necessarily this one, although it's big, Greek, and fairly well annotated) showing the misunderstanding of Scotland's geography that was current in European thinking for over a millennium. — LlywelynII 16:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not particularly wedded to the "attacking Romans" picture and I am quite prepared to entertain arguments for replacement with the Ptolemy map. However, my revert did not replace one with the other. I removed the map because it had been added in such a way that it broke the guidance of the MOS on sandwiching of text. That said it is putting it a bit strongly to say we don't need one and we do need the other. They are just illustrations. Which of those best illustrates the points in the article and the general article best is not really a matter of need, but of preference. I suggest, per WP:BRD you make a case here for your preference and then we see whether other editors agree.--SabreBD (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

No, we actually do need to illustrate the Ptolemaic (mis)understanding of the area, as above. The "attacking Scots" picture is fine; I was just noting that if you are wedded to removing images for whatever reason, you took the wrong one. I found a compromise with you by adjusting the images so as to meet your somewhat finicky complaint. ("Avoid"≠"never".) My compromise edit actually improved the placement of the original image, putting it beside the text discussing the relevant invasion. Now, kindly stop being obstructionist to no purpose and let it stand or make a point about why the actual image doesn't merit inclusion. — LlywelynII 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I returned to the "consensus" version while we discuss things. Putting it back was not a "compromise", a compromise would be worked out here first. Since the image is tied to the text issue above I suggest that we resolve that one first and then come back to this. But again, views from other editors would be welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Include. Not sure under which section, but the Ptolemy adds an interesting detail on how the "civilised world" viewed what would become Scotland. Always fascinated me how this map could be so right (general shape), yet simultaneously so wrong! (orientation relative to the rest of the Isle) --Haruth (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• Include The issues is getting a consensus now and I agree with Haruth and LlywelynII. Sabrebd has too often taken a proprietary approach to this article, Which means erasing sourced material that he personally doesn't like. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact I do not have objections to the inclusion of this image, but wanted to get consensus here first - pretty much the opposite of a propriety approach. But thanks for the moral support in my efforts to improve the article, it really helps encourage effort.--SabreBD (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sabrebd Has a sense of ownership in a number of ways – one is that he is the one who decides what consensuses like. That's usually after he had erased other people's work. In my experience, repeated interference and a very narrow viewpoint discourages other people from wasting their time on Scottish articles. Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Amazing and really borne out by this talkpage, where I agreed several points with you by compromise. Yes, its just full of me deciding consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.