Talk:Battle of Val-ès-Dunes

Date of the Battle of Val-ès-Dunes

The date of this battle, August 10th 1047, appears to be common knowledge everywhere except English Wikipedia. (Including French Wikipedia and a monument on the battlefield itself, as shown:

If you simply Google "date of the battle of val es dunes" you get August 10, 1047. There are many sources across the Internet giving this date, going all the way back to the 1860s.

I have corrected the date and had my edit undone because a source in the bibliography (Douglas) preferred an unspecified earlier date. However, in my opinion Douglas is pulling his date out of thin air, and doesn’t even claim it's “early summer” of 1047. His book is online and his reasoning is at https://archive.org/details/williamconqueror0000unse/page/383/mode/1up. He declares the battle had to have been fought before March 25th (note: “early summer”?), possibly as early as the preceding December, based on nothing more than “The flooded waters of the Orne which played so large a part in the victory would be consistent with a date in winter or in very early spring.”

None of the primary sources I have read (Poitiers, Wace, Jumièges) about the battle claim that the Orne was flooded. Indeed, the rebel army forded it that very morning on the way to the battle. After the battle many drowned during their panicked escape because they tried to crowd across the ford all at once while under attack. This is not "recent scholarship," this is an historian speculating with no basis.

I have undone the undo of my edit. If an editor thinks we should stick with Douglas when entire rest of the world says otherwise, so be it. Don Hollway (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable source. And we don't base our articles on the primary sources - see WP:PST. We base our edits on secondary sources - such as academic historians like Douglas or David Bates. Neither Bates nor Douglas give a date for the battle. The sources that were linked on my talk page with this edit are not reliable sources at all, if that's what is meant by "google the dat of the battle of val es dunes" then those sources won't pass muster at all. Yes, we SHOULD stick with Douglas over random websites on the internet and another wikipedia and an unsourced monument from 1841. Ealdgyth (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Those sources I cited on your talk page were just the tip of the Internet iceberg claiming Aug 10 as the battle date, which the vast majority of sources worldwide clearly do and have done since the dawn of time. After nearly a thousand years it is tradition, common knowledge. I have cited sources to you going back over 160 years. If your research has come up with differing sources or new knowledge proving why everyone else must be wrong, please cite.

David Bates doesn’t appear on the article page. If he has somewhere presented an argument that Aug 10th is incorrect, please cite. I’d love to read it. If there is anyone else arguing against Aug 10th, please cite.

In this instance Douglas is not a reliable source. Did you read the passage in his book? He makes a flimsy case as to why the battle can’t be on August 10th, based on his guess that the Orne must have flooded. None of the primary sources say it was flooded. He’s speculating, not proving.

I would even be satisfied with a passage or footnote stating something to the effect of “Though the battle is traditionally dated to August 10th, historian David C. Douglas made a case that it must have occurred prior to March 25th, possibly as early as December 1046.” Link to the passage and let the reader decide. But to simply use Douglas’s vague speculation as gospel on Wikipedia is insufficient.

I have corrected the date on the article page. If you wish to change it yet again, please make a persuasive case why it must be incorrect. Using Douglas as your source is not enough. If the article had originally stated August 10, like the French page, and you tried to change it using Douglas as your source, your edit would be undone. Don Hollway (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

• "I have corrected the date on the article page."

Without consensus, which is edit warring.

Your attack on Douglas does not strengthen your argument, when you have brought nothing to support your opinion, except "the internet". Wikipedia is written using primarily secondary sources.

• "David Bates doesn’t appear on the article page. If he has somewhere presented an argument that Aug 10th is incorrect, please cite. I’d love to read it. If there is anyone else arguing against Aug 10th, please cite."

• "Bates and Bauduin, ‘Autour de l’année 1047’, 49–51. The traditional date of the battle is 10 August. Douglas, William, 384, proposed to re-date it to the early months of 1047 because the sources indicate that the Orne was in flood. That the Orne is tidal at the likely point of crossing is, however, a sufficient explanation for the fate which befell the retreating rebels. See, in general, De Boüard, Guillaume, 126–7. There is in fact no decisive evidence for the 10 August date, but it is almost certain that the battle took place in the summer." -- William the Conqueror, David Bates, Yale University Press, page 85.

AND,

• https://books.google.com/books?id=YAxBAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA354&lpg=PA354#v=onepage&q&f=false

As far as I can tell this is citing a primary source.

• https://www.normandythenandnow.com/rebellion-and-the-epic-gallop-of-william-duke-of-normandy-in-1046/

Appears to be a blog and therefore not WP:RS

• https://www.totallytimelines.com/william-i-the-conqueror-1027-1087/

You consider this a reliable source? Some person with a possible degree in history that simply says what you want to hear? Gives no citation where she has found this information, has placed this information on the internet with no editorial board, and you consider this WP:RS??

• https://www.wikiwand.com/en/1047

Can not be used since it copies from Wikipedia. "This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by contributors (read/edit)."

• https://www.understandingwars.com/801ad-1500ad/11th-century/val-es-dunes-battle-of-1047/

Unauthored(as far as I can tell), unpublished, no editorial board. Unreliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I sent those sources to Ealdgyth right off the top of a Google search as evidence of the overwhelming number of sources citing August 10th. (She wanted to take this chat off her talk page, then promptly brought it all over here, lol.) The Google Book is an 1860s quote citing an even older tradition at the site of the battle. If we don’t trust primary sources, but we don’t trust secondary sources working from the primary sources, who do we trust? Evidently, historians who speculate.

The point is, the rest of the world is all using the traditional date. We aren’t, because one historian dead 40 years speculated otherwise, he’s the only one quoted as a source on the page, and nobody wants to undo it.

Thanks for bringing in the Bates quote. I hope Ealdgyth reads it. “The traditional date of the battle is 10 August. (Point A) Douglas, William, 384, proposed (Proposed, not proved it correct; Point B) to re-date it to the early months of 1047 because the sources indicate that the Orne was in flood. (He trusted the primary sources, but we’re trusting him? Point C) That the Orne is tidal at the likely point of crossing is, however, (refutation; Point D) a sufficient explanation for the fate which befell the retreating rebels.”

That not only restates the traditional date, but refutes moving the date to early months because the Orne is tidal. That’s not a seasonal condition. It’s not necessary to move the date just because the river was in flood –– according to Bates it would “flood” every day at high tide. This is Bates telling us to ignore the date change. Are we trusting him, or Douglas?

We’re dating this event on the “proposal” of one historian, whom even your source Bates refutes. All I’m saying is, wouldn’t it make more sense to cite the traditional date, but add Bates as a source, and include his quote in the body text or as a footnote? As it stands, this page is incorrect. Don Hollway (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Bates THEN says "There is in fact no decisive evidence for the 10 August date, but it is almost certain that the battle took place in the summer." Note that we cannot report just the traditonal date when other sources disagree. When secondary sources disagree, we put the choices in. Neither Bates nor Douglas give the "traditional date" ... but we can certainly state that Douglas gives a date in early 1047, while Bates argues for a summer of 1047 date. With appropriate footnotes. We don't do original research into what basis the historians (who are the secondary sources that we rely on) made their choices - we just report those choices. That's how things work. I reverted the original because it was changing the infobox without changing the body of the article nor the sourcing. I have no problems with changing to something like I said above about Douglas and Bates disagreeing ... but not one of the secondary sources we should be using agrees with the traditional date, so it definitely should NOT be in any way put forward as the correct date (which listing it in the inbox would imply). Ealdgyth (talk) 01:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I did have a response, but I completely agree with Ealdgyth. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

All right, I give. Yet the traditional date is out there and should be addressed, even if just to say we (meaning you, lol) insist it’s wrong.

So if I add a section, to wit…

”The traditional date of the battle is often stated as August 10th. However, historian David Douglas believed it to be no later than March 25 and possibly as early as the end of 1046, based on the winter/spring flooding of the River Orne in which many of the rebels are said to have drowned. Historian David Bates, on the other hand, points out that the Orne is tidal to the crossing point, and that a winter or spring date is not necessary. He argues for a summer 1047 date.”

…is everybody happy? Don Hollway (talk) 01:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I suggest adding Bates as a source and an amended version as following: "The battle is traditionally said to have taken place on 10 August, but there is no decisive evidence for this date. The historian David Douglas argues for a date early in 1047 on the ground that the drowning of the fleeing army indicates that the Orne was flooded, which points to the winter or spring. However, David Bates dismisses this argument as the tidal nature of the Orne would account for the drownings. In his view, the battle almost certainly took place in the summer.

BTW I will delete Clark as not a reliable source if no one objects. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Dudley Miles.--Kansas Bear (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no issues with it. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fine by me. Thanks, all. Don Hollway (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)