Talk:Battle of the North Inch

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Cowlibob (talk) 12:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that in 1396 a trial by combat was arranged between the Scottish clans of Clan Chattan against the Clan Cameron or Clan Davidson? Source: James Browne's A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Volume 1 pages 153-156
  • ALT1:... that in 1396 thirty Scottish warriors on each side fought each other in a trial by combat and that only twelve men survived the battle? Source: James Browne's A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Volume 1 pages 153-156
  • ALT12:... that in 1396, two clans of as few as thirty warriors each fought each other in a trial by combat, and only twelve men survived? Source: James Browne's A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Volume 1 pages 153-156

Created/expanded by QuintusPetillius (talk). Self-nominated at 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC).

• WP:DYKCHECK shows that the article has not been expanded 5x (see WP:DYK#Eligibility criteria). Please let me know if you believe this to be incorrect.

I'd be happy to give some feedback, regardless:

1. The hook should be tweaked to add the "a" to the link (i.e. "...his court arranged a trial by combat) to avoid the potential WP:EGG of a reader expecting the link to trial by combat. Y Resolved; hook amended. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
2. The article states that the King insisted the parties end their feud "amicably", and that the proposal for the trial by combat came from the two chiefs. The original hook implies the King was more involved than being a spectator. This may be clarified in the citation (currently Ref #11) but it's offline so I cannot verify (being an offline reference isn't necessarily a problem in itself) (applies to original hook only) Y Resolved; hook amended. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
3. The article makes it clear that one of the sides may not have been Clan Cameron. (applies to original hook only) Y Resolved; hook amended. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
4. Although it's not WP:SYN, there's (currently) a bit of extra reading needed to extrapolate the numbers—clearly, there is a reference given for 29 + 19 deaths (although this says the opponents to Clan Chattan was the Davidsons). There isn't an inline ref (unless it's the one a few sentences after) for there being 30 people on each side (and it appears not all accounts agree). It's all there in the Brown source—30 vs 30 on page 154 ("...they adopted the singular idea of deciding their quarrel by a combat of thirty against thirty."); 29 + 19 deaths on page 156 ("...twenty nine of the Davidsons had fallen [...] nineteen of Cluny's men also bit the dust..."). Y Resolved; references clarified. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Article expansion aside, just a few referencing improvements would make ALT1 eligible. MIDI (talk) 11:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Replying to comment on my talk page: The first paragraph of the "Battle" section is only supported by one footnote. Because of this, it is not clear to which statement the footnote applies, or if it is a citation for the entire paragraph. If that footnote does support the entire paragraph, that's absolutely fine (and I presume this is the case). However, if this is the case, it means there is an unreferenced statement in there (Brown does not support the "Although the numbers involved in the battle have been increased by various historians" statement). MIDI (talk) 21:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have changed the line in the Battle section of the article to that the numbers have been "variously reported" specific to as be what is said on page 154 of the book being quoted as source for the whole paragraph. I hope that this is sufficient. Thanks.QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reworded slightly to clarify what is backed up by the Browne reference. I have put a {{cn}} tag in where more referencing is needed. We're now straying away from the remit of this DYK nomination; I feel that point #4 of my list above will be resolved with the extra citation, but anything not related to the other three issues (i.e. general article improvements) should be taken up at Talk:Battle of the North Inch. MIDI (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I have added Browne as the source where you added the citation needed template as page 154 does clearly state the numbers have been "variously reported". However, finding examples of historians who have actually given different numbers is another thing. Both Browne and Keltie (also quoted in the article) state that some writers have mis-interpreted the works of Hector Boece and George Buchanan to say that 300 warriors took part, but they do not actually specify which writers do this. As you have mentioned any further adjustment to the article would be straying to far from the DYK nomination and should be taken up at the talk page. Regards. QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That's entirely my fault - I have read the reference god knows how many times and did not see that part! I'm very sorry! This is no longer an issue to be resolved. Thanks for your clarification. We could perhaps reword the hook to say something like "as few as thirty warriors on each side" as that corroborates the link (any other reports are greater than 30). Therefore the link would be fully sourced and not potentially incorrect. Just the other points (namely article length) to sort now. I see it's undergone further expansion so I'll run DYKCHECK later when I'm not mobile editing! MIDI (talk) 08:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• I have just run DYKCHECK—to help you, the expansion started with this edit on 31 October (prose of 3956 characters). Per the 5x expansion rule (WP:DYKRULES), the article needs to be 19,780 characters to be eligible; it is currently at 4,865. Updated proposed ALT below. MIDI (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• ALT2:... that in 1396, two clans of as few as thirty warriors each fought each other in a trial by combat, and only twelve men survived? Source: James Browne's A History of the Highlands and of the Highland Clans, Volume 1 pages 153-156

So regarding the number of characters, how did the Battle of Craig Cailloch manage to get a successful nomination when it is even shorter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuintusPetillius (talk • contribs) 18:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

(passerby)Hello! You need to expand an article five times the size you start with no matter how big it is. If it had a single short paragraph, you could make it five short paragraphs which would make the article both five times the original size and about the minimum acceptable size for DYK. You started on the article when it was 13 short paragraphs, roughly speaking, so it requires to either become about 65 short paragraphs long or a Good Article to be DYK eligible, I would bet on the latter being easier. Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 06:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Alt2 doesn't work, because the men did not comprise clans, they represented them. They were groups of thirty men, not clans of thirty men. -Freekee (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• - I would try to take this to GA status. --evrik ^(talk) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Total number of survivors

The VisitDunkeld reference states eleven Chattans survived, while Clan-Cameron.org gives the number as four. The latter appears to be an American site (judging by the favor spelling), so I think we should go with the former, since it's a Scottish website, until a definitive version is found. What's more The Fair Maid of Perth states there was twelve survivors. - Dudesleeper · Talk 01:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal o' the Wynd

Do we have a source for his identity? I know the name precedes Scott, but as far as I remember the earliest sources don't name him. We should find out when the name first appeared and mention it in the body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.10.228 (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

And was he among the survivors, or was he killed? Pimlottc (talk) 17:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's mentioned here that he was a survivor. - Dudesleeper / Talk 19:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hal O' the Wynd

This picturesque person was first named and described centuries later: made up, in other words. There are half a dozen earlier versions that have him as an ignorant country-person, distant kin of one side, a brawny man by the name of Gow (ie a smith) and just about any other stock chracter you could think up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.176.41 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Clan Kay

I've altered the references that appeared to endorse as fact the assumption that Clan Kay / Quhele were Camerons. This is hypothesis, worth mentioning but NOT certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.10.228 (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Clan who? Says who?

It is an assumption that Clan Kay were participants. It's worrying that it is simply stated in the article as if certain, when there have been many different views, several plausible but none certain. (One view is that it wasn't two enemy clans as much as two factions within the Chattan confederation competing for pre-eminence.)

There is one known contemporary source that mentions the competitiors -- Andrew Wyntoun, who was, as it happens, prior of an abbey in Perth, within walking distance of the venue. His is the only contemporary account of events, as far as is known. Wyntoun does not say "Clan Kay" or indeed "Clan Chattan". Both of these are opinions about which clans Andrew Wynton meant. What he says is "Qwhele" (ie Quhele) and "Ha"; which could as easily be "Hay" as "Kay". (Below the level of titled aristocracy, the humbler Hays, Rosses, Munros, Forbeses, Frasers, etc, were by now distant from their titular Norman paternal origins, and as likely to try to claim captaincy of a clan confederation as anyone else. The Rosses had succeeded in doing so. As far back as written history goes, the notion of "clan" is a familial gloss on an almost wholly feudal entity. Frequently brutally feudal, as far as the tenants ("clansmen") were concerned. Hay is as good a guess as any.

Titles in Scotland could be inherited in right of one's mother. There was some tension between the older law codes of Scotland and the (Roman) "canon" law being that Scots clerics were being educated in at Paris and Rome, and the Norman & Anglo-saxon assumptions more familiar to Scotland's bi-national and tri-national elite. Squabbles between fraternal-line and mother's-line claimants were common, as were squabbles between local custom and Roman law, as to who was or was not a legitimate heir.

Something that few people seem to have bothered to try is working out what the sound of "Quhele" is. In conventional Scots orthography of the time - where a name was often spelled two or three different ways in one document - quhyt(e) = white or even quit. In Scotland tday, the "wh" sound is a breathy "hw", distinct from "w". In accents that have changed less in modern times, it can sound like more like the soft "ch" of loch. ie "white" sounds like "chwite".

If it were not being read as a surnamename, then phonetically "quhele" suggests "wheel" "wheely" "hewel", "howel" or "chweely". It could as easily be the surname Yule, which used to be spelled "Youill" and "Jouill".

Then again, it's Scots orthography for what are most likely Gaelic names. Another layer of uncertainty altogether.

Another tack to take is to actually go through what contemporary documentation there is - whch is easier than it has ever been - and find out who was jockeying for power with whom, where, and why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.146.195 (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Page move

The user who moved the article here from Battle of the Clans stated that Battle of the North Inch is its more common name; however, I've only heard of the former. Should the article have been moved? - Dudesleeper / Talk 11:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflation of contemporary and much later derivative and fictional sources

There are three contemporary sources, none of which have been looked at by the writer of this article. Most of what this article has to say about this conflict is Walter Scott's version written centuries later as a romance. The names of the two groups involved have come down to us as one guess elaborated upon another upon another, filtered through three or four versions that each speculate upon the speculations of a previous version. The names, even the sounds of the names of the two groups as recounted here are unrecognisable from the contemporary source. If this article were serious instead of folkloric, the writer would have made some attempt to look at Medieval Scottish sources for names.

As with much of Scottish "history" in wikipedia, no attempt has been made to look for or to assess the reliability of evidence: perhaps because of the difficulty of forming a Medieval gaelic pronunciation from Medieval English spelling.

Three contemporary sources exist. Anyone serious about making this article history raher than folklore will find them. 1. A laconic reference in a simple memory-jogger year-chronicle written for Glasgow Cathedral. has 1396 as "Battle of 30 men at St Johnstone" (ie Perth). so we know it happened. 2. Wynton's rhyme. A certain amount of license was expected in those days, to make elegant menmonics but Wynton was (a) a senior cleric, well educated (b) he was based at the priory close by (c) he could be expected to have been present; and if not, he would have known hundreds of people who were. So (d) his version will not have strayed too outrageously far from fact. Every account since has elaborated upon this single source, usually at several removes. as this article does, without being aware of it. 3. A brief entry in the government accounts of the day, for the expenses involved in staging the affair. This was discovered (recognised for what it is) relatively recently. This detail may be what Walet scott based his entire spurious Hal o' the Wynd charcter upon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.176.41 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Seath Mor?

Was the legendary warrior Seath Mor a participant of this clan battle? He was attributed to the battle in a video about his grave online, but there's nothing about him in the article on this page. Moreso, did he become a hero of the battle for killing a majority of the opposing men? 2601:603:197E:4C0:D4C8:1456:E586:6D81 (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Who ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)