Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Loudoun Hill (1296)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus to delete. Overall consensus seems broadly in favour of keeping at least some of this content somewhere, but there's no solid decision as to how and where. It appears to me that consolidating these into an article covering Blind Harry's various reports would be a logical next step; but it's an editorial decision - there isn't enough agreement in this discussion for me to pull some kind of binding AfD merge closure out of nowhere. ~ mazca  talk 13:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Loudoun Hill (1296), Battle of Earnside and Battle of Elcho Park

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Dubious historical material. PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating these articles for deletion for similar reasons:


 * PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PatGallacher (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

We have had some problems recently with a user who was eventually banned for adding unsourced or poorly sourced material about the life of William Wallace. Eventually I went through all the articles in the category "Battles of the Wars of Scottish Independence", if in doubt checking them against Peter Traquair's "Freedom's Sword". The bulk appear to be legit, although some of them refer to rather small skirmishes. However these 3, created by this user, are likely fictional, they are probably a regurgitation of material from Blind Harry who is not regarded as a reliable source. Two are opposed prods but I suspect those who opposed this did not fully understand the issues. I have listed them in order of implausibility. Anything about Wallace from 1296 is likely fictional as the first act known to be carried out by him was the Action at Lanark in 1297. A significant Scottish victory at the time claimed for Earnside seems most unlikely, particularly in the vicinity of the major English base at Stirling, seen against the tide of events in the war. PatGallacher (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. The battle of Loudon Hill (1296) appears to be mentioned in the source cited at the article and available online here.  Burke's Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry seems a reliable enough source.  Groomtech (talk) 19:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One reason for caution about using these online books as sources is that they are quite difficult to read. This book dates from 1847.  This is a problem I have seen with a number of Wikipedia articles, they can be based on very dated sources which in some cases are at variance more recent scholarship (see discussion history for Guthrum II and James Hamilton (assassin)).  In this case this looks like an uncritical regurgitation of Blind Harry, not a reliable source.  I have in front of me Peter Traquair's Freedom's Sword from 1998, which reflects the current view that William Wallace's career starts with the Action at Lanark in 1297. PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see, I thought that by "fictional" you meant it had been made up by the article creator (that is, a hoax). Groomtech (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It was made by by Blind Harry, some 200 years after the battle purportedly took place.  Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment These may be myths, but that does not mean they are non-notable myths. Edward321 (talk) 23:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does in at least the case of Loudoun Hill. The only source available that documents this purported battle is Blind Harry's Wallace, a source that histories from earlier centuries merely parrot.  Modern historians hold that poem to be generally unreliable, based upon numerous contradictions that it has with the established historical record (including the wrong side winning in some cases!) and other problems.  So the only source documenting Loudoun Hill is an unreliable one. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —AustralianRupert (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can have Wikipedia articles on fictional matters which have been rejected by modern scholarship e.g. Pope Joan, Prester John. However, the threshhold of notability should be rather higher than with historical incidents.  At the very least, they should be clearly stated as unhistorical.  Battle of Elcho Park is completely unreferenced, which suggests lack of notability.  Anything legitimate should be dealt with in Blind Harry. PatGallacher (talk) 00:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I had no difficulty finding a full account of Battle of Elcho Park - it was just a matter of looking, per WP:BEFORE. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Battle of Loudoun Hill (1296) as an article saying "ascribed to William Wallace by Blind Harry and referred to in earlier sources but now thought to be fictional" (with appropriate references of course). This one is clearly notable enough.  Groomtech (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This raises the question of whether we should have an article on all fictional battles ascribed by Blind Harry to Wallace, e.g. the "Battle of Biggar", which doing a quick search you can find mentions of, but which is now regarded by historians as fictional. I suggest this should be a redirect to Blind Harry.  The William Wallace article could do with cleanup and an attempt to separate fact from fiction. PatGallacher (talk) 10:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have lots of articles in Category:Obsolete scientific theories. If the sources are considered to be dubious by contemporary historians, why not Category:Probable fictional battles or possibly a "List of probable fictional battles ascribed to Blind Harry"? Something does not have to be a proven truth to be notable. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no it isn't. There's one source documenting it.  All others simply parrot that source.  And that one source is an unreliable one. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Battle of Elcho Park - uncited. Ben   Mac  Dui  12:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added a citation and so this opinion is obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete all The only potentially savable article is "Earnside", which is notable only as it is Wallace's last recorded military activity. It should still go however. It was an unimportant "skirmish", which was more likely than not one of scores of isolated attacks on English military parties, only difference being that this one got noted in passing in English government records. It is based on one historical source, found here, s.v. Yrenside. Not a set-piece battle, just an attack on small group of English soldiers probably conducting routine business. It will never have enough sources to state anything more than "it took place and involved x and y" and treatment of it, not that it's needed, can be adequately dealt with in other articles. "Earnside" very likely isn't even a place, just an English word for "a bank of the river Earn". Same goes for the others. Totally unnecessary event spamming. Elcho "Park" is unmentioned in Barbour's Brus, it is not mentioned in Barrow's exhaustive account of the wars, and appears to come only from Harry. Loudon of 1296 is also unmentioned in Barrow. If Barrow doesn't mention these, it is utterly incredible that wikipedia should have an article on them. Skirmishes reported only in Blind Harry are very unlikely to be based on fact, as this source relies on later oral history which, due to the legendary nature of events, is filled with fictitious anecdotes produced by, among other forces, everyone's natural desire to forge a connection between the great man and their locality. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The result of this would be to ensure that anyone who comes across these things in Blind Harry, or other sources, and goes to Wikipedia for more information, will learn precisely nothing. An article, or a redirect to a list of probably fictional battles, would, on the other hand, inform them.  Groomtech (talk) 14:09, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The article on Blind Harry should inform them that Wallace is regarded as unreliable and in a number of instances outright counterfactual by modern historians. That doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to invent original analyses of every single thing in Wallace. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Might it be a solution to redirect these to William Wallace, including in it a section of (perhaps) legendary battles. I do not know enough of the subject to vote.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * merge in some fashion, either in the main article--or, the separate article about Bling Harry. We certainly need some description of them, since they're in a   famous legend. DGG (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have tried to look into this further. I have consulted Paterson's "For the Lion" but I am not sure if it is a 100% reliable source. Loudoun Hill: looks clearly fictional, but fiction on the borderline of notability, not sure if it deserves its own article but I have been bold and added something to Blind Harry, suggest we turn this into a redirect. Elcho Park: A significant Scottish victory in the vicinity of Perth is consistent with Wallace's movements and the military situation generally around that time.  Paterson mentions one near Scone, but does not give it this name, and the description is nothing like this article.  Doing an online search, I came across mention of this battle in an online book on Wallace written in 1851 (!) which incorrectly describes him as "Governor General", these online books are difficult to read and I cannot be bothered ploughing through it, but it is probably an uncritical regurgitation of Blind Harry.  I suggest we just delete this article, unless anyone can come up with any better sources. Earnside: I have not managed to read the source which supposedly backs this up, another difficult-to-read online book, maybe there are problems with my computer.  It would be helpful if someone copied the relevant text, until then I remain cautious.  Can we be sure that "Yrenside" does mean "Earnside"?  Did this action definitely involve Wallace?  Paterson does mention this action, and an online search has found a purported video of the battle site next to the river Tay.  However these scraps of information are seriously at variance with the account in the article.  From what we know of Wallace's movements around then, it is surprising that he was temporarily that far north.  I suggest turning this into a redirect to William Wallace, but further investigation would help. PatGallacher (talk) 15:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll transcribe the text:
 * Thomas de Umframville pro restauro unius equi nigri liardi appreciati pro Willelmo de Echewyke socio suo et motrui apud fugam factam super William le Waleys subtus Yrenside mense Septembris anno presenti, lx s; unius equi ferrando appreciati pro Rogero de Wetwode socio suo et perditi ad eandem fugam ibidem eodem mense, x marcas; et unius someri sui badii redditi ad elemosinam apud Dunfermelin xxix die Decembris, xl s; per compotum factum cum eodem apud Westmonasterium x die Aprilis anno xxxiij.
 * I'm assuming this is some record of the English exchequer. I'm no Latinist and its full of jargon about horses I don't understand, but this is a rough translation:
 * Thomas de Umfraville for the reimbursement of the value of one dark dapple-grey horse for William de Echewik their associate, and the dead during the act of flight from William le Waleys behind Earnside [or side of the Earn], month of September of the present year, 60 shillings; of the value of one iron-grey horse for Roger de Wetwood their associate and the injuries at this same flight at this same place, 10 marks; and of the rendering [of their bay horses?] in alms at Dunfermline 29th day of December, 40 shilling; per the account [given] of this at Westminster, 10th day of April [regnal] year 33. 
 * So as I said, it's not notable. Thomas is claiming from the government compensation for losses he suffered after a party of his men were attacked by William Wallace. There was no battle as such, just a "flight". This is the kind of thing that happened all the time, and is not notable just because it got recorded in passing in an English government document. Re Yren, yes, the river is being referred. That's how its usually spelled in the era (Gaelic is Eireann, same as "Ireland"). Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 11:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right, although a quick search for "Yrenside" just came up with references to "Edmund Yrenside" i.e. Ironside. I suggest we mention this briefly in William Wallace and turn it into a redirect. PatGallacher (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I sense a consensus emerging that these articles should be turned into redirects to either William Wallace or Blind Harry, and anything legitimate should be merged into these articles. I have already done this merge, unless anyone objects I will be bold and make the change to redirects in the next couple of days. PatGallacher (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. Ben   Mac  Dui  08:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * On further examination, changing to a redirect would mean removing the AFD notice from the article, which I don't think I am able to do, it needs an administrator to close this. PatGallacher (talk) 09:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to, because I gave prod2s. Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat what I said in my prod2s:
 * Loundoun Hill: Completely unsupported by reliable sources. The only source available that documents this purported battle was a poem published some 200 years after the fact, Blind Harry's Wallace, that is held to be unreliable by modern historians.
 * Earnside: Completely unsupported by reliable sources. The only source available that documents this purported battle was a poem published some 200 years after the fact, Blind Harry's Wallace, that is held to be unreliable by modern historians. The nearest that accepted modern history seems to come to anything like this is Thomas Umfraville, Constable of Dundee, and a garrison of men pursuing Wallace "beneath Ironside", which was a hill near Dundee, in 1304. (See page 40 of Edward J. Cowan's The Wallace book, ISBN 9780859766524.)
 * Uncle G (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Read above. Earnside is also mentioned in contemporary English chancellery records; I quoted and translated the record. The record is also cited by Barrow, who thinks it refers to "Earnside". Ironside doesn't sound like the name of any Scottish hill in the 14th century, but I guess it could be. Which contributor argues that? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See ingilbyhistory - Umfraville Gilbert de (1244-1307).pdf. For what its worth there is an Ironside Hill at  just off the A928 "at the back of Dundee".  Ben   Mac  Dui  18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit from Dundee, but interesting nonetheless. I wonder if either party had any specific reason for preferring Ironside over Earnside and vice versa. Here's Barrow's on it. Interestingly, the Fiona Watson article you posted is derivative from Barrow on this part, but not with the name. I'm guessing she probably contemplated it and choose to contradict Barrow. EDIT: Now that I've thought about it, Side probably doesn't represent English "side" (an absurd name for a hill), but Gaelic seat (suidhe), a reasonably common one. What Yren would mean then I don't know. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's you who perhaps should "read above". &#9786;  It's not a "contributor" who argues that.  It's Edward J. Cowan who argues that.  I did give a citation that included the page number of the book. Uncle G (talk) 23:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we might be communicating at cross-purposes. I took your "which contributor" to be a question about Wikipedia contributors, and of course no Wikipedia contributor argued that.  The argument is in Cowan's book.  But it occurred to me that you might have meant book contributor.  Page 40 is part of Fiona Watson's "Sir William Wallace : what we do &mdash; and don't &mdash; know". Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was referring to the contributor in the Cowan edited volume. Ben's piece above is the ODNB article on Gilbert de Umfraville by Fiona Watson. I guess Earnside very Ironside is G. W. S. Barrow versus Fiona Watson (historian). Might actually be worth keeping it as an article on second thoughts. It's his last known encounter and it is debated whether it refers to the hill near Dundee or a place next to the Earn. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 08:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "Battle of Earnside" is nudging towards notability, but we may have to move it to "Action at Yrenside". PatGallacher (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The plot thickens. "To the west of Newburgh there stretched for several miles a wood known as Black Earnside, or as it was sometimes known, Black Ironside. It was a dark wood which covered the hillside and extended down to the waters edge. ... Sir William Wallace in his fight against the English often used Black Earn side as a sheltered and there is still a bridge along which the road passes near the top of the ascent, about two miles east from the Abbey which is known as Wallace's Bridge. In 1298 in the month of June, Wallace fought the Earl of Pembroke at Black Earn Side." There is even a plaque with a date of 12 June 1298! See . The Abbey is Lindores Abbey and Wallace's Bridge is marked on the OS -  Ben   Mac  Dui  17:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, while researching this, I've discovered that apparently the English word "iron" is a borrowing from Celtic. Mostly irrelevant, but interesting nonetheless. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.  —Mais oui! (talk) 08:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all History is increasingly tenuous as we go back in time but this does not stop us from talking of such debatable matters as the Siege of Troy, Robin Hood or King Arthur. If the accounts of these battles are disputed by modern scholars then we should, of course, say so.  But it then follows that we should retain these articles in some form so that their status - mythic or otherwise - may be properly covered here.  Deletion is not helpful in this in that it obscures rather than informing.  Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But we do not have an article on e.g. every individual legendary battle fought by King Arthur. See Historia Brittonum for a sensible way this can be handled. PatGallacher (talk) 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Consider the Battle of Fort Guinnon for example.  This started as a small stub and is currently redirected to the Historia Brittonum article.  In that case, we also see considerable vagaries of spelling, as above, and the locale and its etymology have been puzzled over by scholars.  In that case, the notable title of the battle was not deleted but was instead consolidated.  For more recent example, please see Battle of the Cowshed AFD.  That was a quite fictional battle but it was determined again that we would best serve our readership by consolidating rather than deleting.  Deletion is quite inappropriate in such cases as it is unhelpful to our readers and disrepectful to our contributors.  As it seems that the nominator in our case -  User:PatGallacher - now sees that digging into the matter may be productive, this deletion discussion should be closed and the matter pursued by means of ordinary content editing and discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.