Talk:Battle of Hastings/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Reasons for Outcome:

These are suitably speculative but deserve further comment:

1) The notion that because the battle lasted all day, the English army couldn't have been exhausted by its earlier travails is simplistic. All accounts agree that Stamford Bridge was an exceptionally brutal affair, and there can be little doubt that any army would have been degraded by such an experience; the extensive marching would only have served to wear it out further. In reality, the duration of the battle infers that it probably contained long periods of relative inactivity; doubtless because both sides were wary of conceding any advantage to their opponents. Many studies have demonstrated that armoured men can only sustain close combat for several minutes at a stretch before becoming exhausted; Hastings wouldn't have been any different.

2) The claim that William was a more experienced commander than Harold is probably true, but is nonetheless overstated. In reality, Harold had extensive experience of campaigning, and not a little military success to his record. He would certainly have been considered an "experienced commander". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.236.87 (talk) 12:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Without sources to back this up, this is pure original research. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Flags ...

File:Vexillum Willelmi Ducis.svg has no source - both links are deadlinks. Looking at my copy of Lucien Musert's Bayeux Tapestry (p 131), the image of the banner there looks nothing like this image and it's given for a time before William invaded. And then there is a different banner on page 215, that also looks nothing like this image. A third banner is on p. 217, which is different yet again. And more different banners on p. 223, p. 226, p. 230, p. 234, p. 236, p. 237, File:Flag of Wessex.svg is a derivative File:Flag of Wessex.png of says right in its description: "Flag of Wessex. Used in modern times to identify the area. The Golden Wyvern of Wessex on a red background". Thus the "anachronisitic". I will note that the Bayeux Tapestry (p. 261) for Harold shows a banner that doesn't begin to resemble this - it looks like it might be a dragon shaped standard of some sort, but it's difficult to judge except that it is NOT a rectangle/square shape at all. So... yes, anachronistic and incorrect applies to these imagined banners. We aren't sure which of the many banners shown near or carried by William's forces might be William's. And the image page itself for the Wessex flag says it's used in the modern day (and the Bayeux Tapestry's only "banner" near Harold shows something that is clearly not a square/rectangle shape at all.) Ealdgyth - Talk 22:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Further - M. K. Lawson in The Battle of Hastings 1066 (p. 41) says that William of Poitiers says that the banner that Harold carried ended up with the papacy and describes it as "banner of the Fighting Man". Also - William of Poitiers says that William the Conqueror carried a papal banner at Hastings. Orderic Vitalis describes the banner as "the standard of St Peter the Apostle", but other historians do not agree that William had a papal banner at the battle. Wace (noted in Lawson's Battle of Hastings p. 113) says William had a "gonfanon (standard)" from the pope. It's pretty clear that we cannot say with any certainty if there were banners carried, much less what they looked like. Our sources seem to disagree - with the Tapestry giving multiple designs for banners for the Normans and showing something different than what is described in the written sources for Harold. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Pinging Dragovit, the editor who added it. From the link given in the image, the flag resembles the one visible here, in the Bayeux Tapestry, but that would need sourcing to be used here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Finally, I'm trying to use the banners with your comments. Thank you for your views.Dragovit - Talk 9:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-adding the images with my posts as an explanation does not make them correct or sourced. None of the works on the battle speculate on what the possible banners looked like so the images you are trying to add are WP:OR without secondary sources that not only discuss the issue of the banners, but describe what they looked like. None of the sources I gave above discuss a description, and we cannot just pick one of the possible images from the many in the Tapestry without some secondary source discussing such a decision. There are no scholarly discussions of what, if any, banners at Hastings might have looked at. So we cannot speculate ourselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 08:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree with that. My point is that it was not necessary to use an absolutely historic banner or emblem, it could possible to use a flag of hypothetical look, because I saw similar flags in the British documentary film about the battle at Hastings, also historical books sometimes using hypotetical pictures as an illustration, and from my point of view using hypotetical picture is maybe better solution than nothing. It depends on how much we want it to be accurate. Dragovit - Talk 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"It depends on how much we want to be accurate"????? We want to be scrupulously accurate. That's why we have a policy called WP:OR. It explicitly disallows this sort of "hypotheticals" unless they are hypotheticals put forth by secondary sources. This is not the case (and documentary films are notorious for not getting the details right... I've seen documentaries on the Roman empire where there are cavalry with stirrups, so that's not a reliable source either. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Recent historians have suggested figures of [...] and most modern historians argue for a figure of [...]"

What is "recent", what is "modern"?----217.248.11.88 (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The footnotes at the end of the phrases are to the information - in this case - 2002, 1992 and 2004. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So 2002 is recent, and 1992 and 2004 is modern? That makes sense how?----217.248.11.88 (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

It's called "synonyms" .. its a way to vary the writing so we don't use the same words all the time. These numbers are in contrast to the wild numbers thrown out by Victorian or earlier historians, thus "recent" or "modern". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

In this case, it's misleading. Modern history starts a couple of hundred years ago. The term should not be used in this context in this vague way.----217.248.11.88 (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn't have a problem with it myself - the term is frequently used in this way. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not you have a problem - don't you see that the sentence could be confusing?----217.248.11.88 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Legacy

Great article, but shouldn't there be some mention of this battle's lasting legacy? It's usually considered (especially by British historians) one of the most decisive and epochal battles in world history, and although I know most of this would be covered at Norman Conquest, the battle itself was a turning point. I note that this issue was raised 10 years ago but never really addressed. Brutannica (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite truthfully, the information really does belong in the article on the conquest. It's better able to be contxtualized there, as the conquest didn't really end until at least 1075, if not 1100. The legacy of the battle is the conquest. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Citekill

I'm not going to remove the citekill template that's just been added, but I disagree with it. If there's ever a time when a sentence needs multiple citations, it's when it says "most" about coverage of a topic, as this sentence does. It's hidden in a footnote so it's not annoying to the reader. Eliminating some citations would only make it less verifiable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that CITEKILL is just an essay.. obviously I disagree also..Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

As per Mike. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Mike Christie: @Hchc2009: @Ealdgyth: The citekill template is not meant to suggest editors to delete references. You can merge them. Would that work? I'm happy to show you guys how it works (i.e. work on it at a sandbox or something).

I don't have access to the sources like you guys probably do, but is the "most" claim actually proven? Or is the clogging of sources an attempt to assert this? What I'm trying to say is, is the word "most" used in these sources? I'm thinking that "multiple" might technically be the right word for this. Though an essay, citekill brings up good points: "as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit." I want this article to avoid this. Let me know, thanks. MX (✉ • ✎) 14:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

it's a case of you get wild theories occasionally that say William landed on a different date or at a different time, but they are so out there that the academic/military historians usually don't even deign to acknowledge them. In this case, yes, we ARE going for overkill because if we don't, we'll have people saying it's just one historian and hey look, this self published mathematician thinks William landed at London instead, so since it's just one source against another....

And before anyone says that doesn't happen, I'll note that we had some editor add in a createspace published source by a mathematician just yesterday, and no one reverted it overnight until I actually woke up and checked it out. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Jet packs, or perhaps they ride around in taxis

"only about half of the invading force was infantry, the rest split equally between cavalry and archers. "

The way this is written makes it sound like archers, infantry and cavalry are all mutually exclusive. This is twaddle. Cavalry fight on horses, infantry fight on foot. Archers can be either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.74.132 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2018

let me edit i am an established solicitor from purple bricks i am not one to pull stupid little tricks i want to edit grammar and false changes made to articles Lelow dude15 (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not done: It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected article. You can do one of the following:

• You will be able to edit this article without restriction four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other articles.
• You can request the article be unprotected at this page. To do this, you need to provide a valid rationale that refutes the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the article in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing the article will determine if the requested edit is appropriate.

Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The template you added is intended for use by someone who does not have permission to edit the article; the editor would suggest some specific change to the article. If someone with permission to edit the article found the suggested change prudent, the editor with permission would make the change.

Most articles can be edited by anyone. But Battle of Hastings has been semi-protected so that editors without accounts, and editors with new accounts, can't edit it. It has been semi-protected because the article has been frequently vandalized.

If you want to edit the article yourself, go edit some unprotected articles that need improvement. When you have made enough such edits, you will become autoconfirmed and will be able to edit semi-protected articles. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2018

Please change x:

"==Background== In 911, the Carolingian ruler Charles the Simple allowed a group of Vikings to settle in Normandy under their leader Rollo. Their settlement proved successful, and they quickly adapted to the indigenous culture, renouncing paganism, converting to Christianity, and intermarrying with the local population. Over time, the frontiers of the duchy expanded to the west. In 1002, King Æthelred II married Emma, the sister of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. Their son Edward the Confessor spent many years in exile in Normandy, and succeeded to the English throne in 1042. This led to the establishment of a powerful Norman interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts for support, bringing in Norman courtiers, soldiers, and clerics and appointing them to positions of power, particularly in the Church. Edward was childless and embroiled in conflict with the formidable Godwin, Earl of Wessex, and his sons, and he may also have encouraged Duke William of Normandy's ambitions for the English throne."

to y:

"==Background== In the 840s, viking Norsemen were entering the Frankish territories as raiders and, gradually, becoming settlers. The conception of nationhood was unfounded; there was no unified duchy. Rather there was northwest Neustria, or Annals of St Bertain, which was commonly referred to as March of Brittany, the region between Seine and Loire, and no man's land. With viking bands of settlers, composed of non-aristocratic lineages, formed a community, there came a new political ethos; they became known as "Northmen," from which "Normandy" and "Normans" are derived.

Vikings were adapting indigenous culture, renouncing paganism, converting to Christianity, and intermarrying with the local population. By 911, there was a traité en forme at St Clair-sur-Epte, which that marked the beginning of Normandy. There would be a convergence between Franks and Normans with a few generations. But for now, the treaty involved a marriage between Gisla and Hrólfr (also known Rollo to the Franks). And later, Charles the Simple created an alliance and a grant of rights to those Vikings seeking to settle in 918.

While Vikings did adapt, adopt, and assimilate to Christianity, they did not necessarily adopt indigious administration: "The creation of Norman power between first settlement and the mid-eleventh century is not primarily of assimilation to Carolingian forms, as those appear in the capitualaries. Rather, the Vikings "adhered longer than the Franks around them--to older forms of social organization," that the Franks were abandoning. They came close to being absorbed into a lower social strata in Frankish society had not a wave of invading Vikings occurred in the 960s. "By the mid-eleventh century the descendeants of the settlers formed the most disciplined, cooperative warrior society in Europe, capable of a communal effort--the conquest and subjugation of England--that was not, and could not have been, mounted by any other European political entity."

Over time, the frontiers of the duchy, based in kinship, expanded to the west. It is not until Richard II that a duchy with legitamacy is produced. In 1002, King Æthelred II married Emma, the sister of Richard II, Duke of Normandy. Their son Edward the Confessor spent many years in exile in Normandy, and succeeded to the English throne in 1042. This led to the establishment of a powerful Norman interest in English politics, as Edward drew heavily on his former hosts for support, bringing in Norman courtiers, soldiers, and clerics and appointing them to positions of power, particularly in the Church. Edward was childless and embroiled in conflict with the formidable Godwin, Earl of Wessex, and his sons, and he may also have encouraged Duke William of Normandy's ambitions for the English throne."

because the section is vague in explaining the origin of Viking settlement, which eventually forms Normandy. There is a lot of strife over land at this time, and William eventually offers a solution and gains support.

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Once you have consensus, feel free to reopen this edit request DannyS712 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

And as an aside - I do not support this because it's not supported by the sources being cited - and it is way too much detail for an article on a battle in 1066 that took place in England. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Arrow in Harold’s eye?

Maybe it’s worth putting something about this, and the other conspiracies surrounding the battle. Thanks CodingCatSpeedySlothSimpsonsFan (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

You mean like in the section Battle of Hastings#Death of Harold? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2019

It actually was one of the greatest battle of all time because it changed english history forever.If Edward the Confesser had an heir to the throne this would never happen 159.86.182.142 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

No change to article requested. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2020

Capital "F" for William fitzOsbern in section "Dispositions of forces and tactics" Rtorichard (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Lowercase is also an acceptable method - there is not a set way to do this in the scholarly literature. --Ealdgyth (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Latin Translation Error

In the text below the Bayeux Tapestry description it says:

"Harold Rex Interfectus Est: "King Harold was killed". Scene from the Bayeux Tapestry depicting the Battle of Hastings and the death of Harold."

I believe the correct translation, if adhering to the Latin, is, "King Harold is Killed" rather then "King Harold was Killed". In this circumstance, the word in question is "est" which is present tense "to be" meaning 'he/she/it is'. If it was "was killed" as suggested it would have read "Harold Rex Interfectus Eram". Overall, I believe the correct translation is "King Harold is killed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioActive66 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia must go by sources, not editor opinions. In this case, I find sources that translate it either as "is" or "was", so neither is incorrect. Most of the text of the tapestry uses the past tense, which makes sense since it's telling a story. I see no improvement in changing from "was" to "is". --A D Monroe III^(talk) 03:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Death of Harold

A wikipedia page is not static, and editors are encouraged to be bold in their edits. With this in mind, why have my edits been consistently undone by users who seek only to remove my work and not contribute anything to the discussion? Some explanation would be appreciated. Djp.mortimer (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

you’re changing information that is sourced to books when it’s clear the sources don’t necessarily support the new texts. You’re using unreliable sources. You’re adding unsourced speculation. You’re adding too much detail about a small bit of the battle. All of this has been explained in edit summaries by several editors. At this point, you’re getting into WP:CIR territory. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Would you mind backing up any of those claims with some evidence or is that just your personal opinion? I know how to source so don't need lectures on competence thanks. Djp.mortimer (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Did you consult the various sources? I doubt that Gravett gives the Latin, although I am on the road and cannot consult the books that are used to source the article. Nor does anyone describe William of Poitiers as “the historically accepted account”. And you’ve changed the meaning here from “William of Poitiers only mentions his death, without giving any details on how it occurred.” to “A story popularised after Hastings tells that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye, although such incident is not related in any contemporary accounts of the battle. The historically accepted account of William of Poitiers mentions only his death, without going into further detail.”. And then you’ve changed “ It is not clear which figure is meant to be Harold, or if both are meant.” to “It is not clear which figure is meant to represent Harold.” Which changes Lawson’s meaning entirely, because Lawson is saying that the text may refer to BOTH figures also, not just one or the other. This is just a sample...changes like this are all the rough your proposed changes. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Djp.mortimer, I've reverted your changes again. Yes, articles are not static, but WP:BRD says discuss after reversion. You are at WP:3RR and are likely to be blocked temporarily if you revert again. Please discuss your changes and your sourcing on this page, and respond to Ealdgyth's points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

And now with this edit we now have William of Poiters as the source for “Harold was killed in the battle, and appears to have died late in the fighting. A story popularised after Hastings tells that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye, although such incident is not related in any contemporary accounts of the battle. The historically accepted account of William of Poitiers (c.1070s) mentions only his death, without going into further detail.” Which is impossible since William can’t be opining about contemporary accounts and whether or not the arrow to the eye story was related by contemporary accounts ..nor any thing about a popularized story that appeared after Hastings. This leaves aside the issue that we shouldn’t be using pro accounts as sources or the minor one of this article has a consistent citation style that has just been totally ignored. Or that none of the s citations give a page number...Ealdgyth (talk) 14:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Djp.mortimer has been blocked for 24 hours from editing this article. I've restored the page to before their edits. Djp.mortimer, when your block expires, please justify your changes here and try to gain consensus for them. If you simply start editing your preferred version in again you are likely to be blocked again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Hastings contemporary sources

There are six leading sources for the Battle of Hastings according to Historic England: These are regarded as contemporary and, in all but two cases, independent:
1. William of Poitiers: the Gesta Willelmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum
2. Baudri, Abbot of Bourgueil: To Countess Adela, a poem addressed to William's daughter Adela
3. Guy, Bishop of Amiens (attributed): Carmen de Hastingae Proelio, a poem on the battle
4. The Anglo Saxon Chronicle
5. William of Jumièges: Gesta Normannorum Ducum
6. The Bayeux Tapestry

And your point is? We don’t use primary sources as the basis for Wikipedia articles. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

We do use primary sources on wiki, particularly for historical articles Djp.mortimer (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Death of Harold - Possible historical revisionism

Let's have a positive discussion.

I am posting this summary of what I plan to do here so that the proposed changes can be discussed, though I can see that the previous version of the paragraph did not have to be approved by committee.

I believe this section of the article requires significant improvement, most notably by greater emphasis on contemporary sources. Whilst group confirmation is not needed for such statements as "Harold was killed in the battle, and may have died late in the fighting"; here are my following suggestions.

Original text:
Harold appears to have died late in the battle, although accounts in the various sources are contradictory. William of Poitiers only mentions his death, without giving any details on how it occurred. The Tapestry is not helpful, as it shows a figure holding an arrow sticking out of his eye next to a falling fighter being hit with a sword. Over both figures is a statement "Here King Harold has been killed".[103] It is not clear which figure is meant to be Harold, or if both are meant.[107][s] The earliest written mention of the traditional account of Harold dying from an arrow to the eye dates to the 1080s from a history of the Normans written by an Italian monk, Amatus of Montecassino.[108][t] William of Malmesbury stated that Harold died from an arrow to the eye that went into the brain, and that a knight wounded Harold at the same time. Wace repeats the arrow-to-the-eye account. The Carmen states that Duke William killed Harold, but this is unlikely, as such a feat would have been recorded elsewhere.[103] The account of William of Jumièges is even more unlikely, as it has Harold dying in the morning, during the first fighting. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey states that no one knew who killed Harold, as it happened in the press of battle.[110] A modern biographer of Harold, Ian Walker, states that Harold probably died from an arrow in the eye, although he also says it is possible that Harold was struck down by a Norman knight while mortally wounded in the eye.[111] Another biographer of Harold, Peter Rex, after discussing the various accounts, concludes that it is not possible to declare how Harold died.[109]

For each account of the battle, it might be helpful to put the estimated time period it was written, eg. William of Poitiers, writing in the 1070s etc.

1. sentence 1: There are SIX CONTEMPORARY ACCOUNTS of the battle (listed above on the talk page). They do not contradict substantially: taken together they provide a collective, consistent story that can be interpreted logically. As such, this statement is false, or at least misleading, and at the very least requires attribution.

2. sentence 2: We need to add a source for William of Poitiers as a matter of priority, as it is not even listed among the references. Here is the source: * Davis, R. H. C. & Chibnall, M. (1998). The Gesta Guillelmi of William of Poitiers. Oxford: Clarendon Press.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). I don't know what the page number is.

Here is the source for William of Jumieges:

• Van Houts, Elisabeth M. C. (1995). The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, edited and translated by Elisabeth M. C. Van Houts. Oxford: Clarendon Press 1995.
  

3. sentence 3: The tapestry is helpful - it is one the main six contemporary sources of the Battle of Hastings as listed above and as such is enormously helpful, as a prime contemporary source.

4. sentence 4: Harold is killed - The original latin should be recited here - along with a faithful translation - as the Bayeux tapestry is originally in latin. To state both Latin and English would be more useful and avoid misleading the reader.

5. sentence 4: It is unlikely both figures represent Harold, as nowhere else in the tapestry does it show the same figure side by side. Unless anyone has any evidence of such?

We may add this sentence: The issue is further confused by the fact that there is evidence that the 19th-century restoration of the Tapestry changed the scene by inserting or changing the placement of the arrow through the eye.}}.
That such a restoration occurred is a fact worthy of inclusion. It would also be helpful here to talk about the various sketches that were made before the restoration, such as the sketch by Benoit in 1729.

6. The earliest account for the arrow story is Amatus of Montecassino, an Italian monk - so only distantly connected to the events of Hastings, and at least 15 years after the battle. Therefore, why should so much emphasis be placed on this account? This account is unreliable, and as such is a candidate for historical revisionism. Thus it is fair to say: A story popularised after Hastings tells that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye, although such incident is not related in any contemporary accounts of the battle. Is that not fair?

7. sentence 11: Too much emphasis placed on the views of a non-historian. It would be fair to take out the part stating "probably died from an arrow to the eye"

Here is my proposed change, constructive comments are welcome.

Harold was killed in the battle, and may have died late in the fighting. A story popularised after Hastings tells that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye, although such incident is not related in any contemporary accounts of the battle. The historically accepted account of William of Poitiers (c.1070s) mentions only his death, without going into further detail. William of Jumieges (c.1070) states that Harold died 'pierced with mortal wounds'. The Tapestry shows a figure holding an arrow in his eye next to a falling fighter being hit with a sword. Over both figures is a statement "hic harold rex interfectus est": "Here King Harold has been killed". It is not clear which figure is meant to represent Harold. The earliest written mention of the traditional account of Harold dying from an arrow to the eye dates to the 1080s from a history of the Normans written by an Italian monk, Amatus of Montecassino. William of Malmesbury stated that Harold died from an arrow to the eye that went into the brain, and that a knight wounded Harold at the same time. Wace repeats the arrow-to-the-eye account. The Carmen states that Duke William killed Harold, but this is unlikely, as such a feat would have been recorded elsewhere. The account of William of Jumièges is even more unlikely, as it has Harold dying in the morning, during the first fighting. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey states that no one knew who killed Harold, as it happened in the press of battle. A modern biographer of Harold, Ian Walker, states that Harold probably died from an arrow in the eye, although he also says it is possible that Harold was struck down by a Norman knight while mortally wounded in the eye. Another biographer of Harold, Peter Rex, after discussing the various accounts, concludes that it is not possible to declare how Harold died.

Djp.mortimer (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

References

−

You’re still attributing information to William of Poitiers that he cannot possibly support. I’m not bothering to even address the rest because if you can’t address that problem ...it’s not helpful to force me to repeat myself over and over when you are not addressing the points. See the above reply where I point out that William of Poitiers writing in the 1070s cannot possibly support this information:”A story popularised after Hastings tells that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye, although such incident is not related in any contemporary accounts of the battle. The historically accepted account of William of Poitiers ...”. Just as an example, William cannot support the fact that his account is “historically accepted”. And we do not base articles on primary sources. See WP:PRIMARY, where it is made clear that interpretation of primary sources is not what we do. Most of your post is interpreting primary sources. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You’re deliberately misunderstanding the above point, “A story popularised after Hastings tells that Harold was killed by an arrow in the eye, although such incident is not related in any contemporary accounts of the battle.”

William of Poitiers is not used as a source of this sentence. This sentence doesn’t have a citation! So please explain. If it’s such a big deal we can take out the words historically accepted, despite it being repeated elsewhere on wiki. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Poitiers Djp.mortimer (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

No, I’m not. You assured us you understood how to source on Wikipedia...so you should know that consecutive sentences are sourced to the first encountered citation. So the first three sentences in your verision are indeed sourced to William of Poitiers. But even in your concept of citing, William is directly attached to the sentence “The historically accepted account of William of Poitiers (c.1070s) mentions only his death, without going into further detail.”...as I said, William cannot source the fact that he himself is “historically accepted”. That’s an interpretation...wiphich cnat be done and sourced to primary sources. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

(I’m totally not even getting to the lack of clarity in the sentence “The historically accepted account of William of Poitiers (c.1070s) mentions only his death, without going into further detail.” where the concept of “historically accepted” is unclear what is meant and that the “his death” is also unclear what is meant since the last “he” referred to is William of Poitiers...)Ealdgyth (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Djp.mortimer, Ealdgyth is correct. The article's version has the first sentences of the passage sourced to Gravett's Hastings 1066, and I assume that's where all of that is found; your version has all that sourced to a primary source, starting with "a story popularized". You simply cannot attribute any of that to William. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, we’ll take out “historically accepted”. “His death” is not even my edit, that’s the wording of the original article, which I changed as little as possible. Djp.mortimer (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Djp.mortimer, your version of sentence 1 is still cited to a primary source. That's just not going to work. You should be ignoring primary sources for purposes of this discussion; anything you cannot source to a secondary source is not going to go into the article. And your comments indicate you don't understand this -- you say there are six contemporary accounts and say they collectively mean this sentence is misleading. You need to point to secondary sources to assert that, and sources of at least the quality used to support the current version of the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

As it stands, the article says the sources conflict. How come no citation is required for that statement, and yet a citation is needed to say the sources conflict? You are in danger of contradicting yourself. Djp.mortimer (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Why do you say there is no citation for that statement? It is cited to Gravett. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Is that because Gravett is the first source in the paragraph? Djp.mortimer (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Djp.mortimer: You are an autoconfirmed editor, so you do not need to place an edit request to make edits to the page. When there is consensus for the changes you are proposing, you can go ahead and make the changes yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Djp.mortimer: yes; Ealdgyth explained this above. Each citation or group of citations applies to everything before it and after the previous citation. And RudolfRed is right, there's no need to use the {{edit semi protected}} template -- simply discuss here until we reach consensus, after which it doesn't matter who makes the edit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Date of the battle

Is it worth pointing out somewhere that this (most famous) date is a Julian date? To convert to Gregorian dates, the rule for the eleventh century is to add six days. Thus the proleptic Gregorian calendar date (i.e. the modern date) would be October 20. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_between_Julian_and_Gregorian_calendars The six days are relevant to historians when thinking about daylight hours, tide times etc. - also something to consider when marking anniversaries!

We follow the sources - the Julian/Gregorian difference is not usually discussed in the sources so we don't. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 5 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Celineeo0.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Leon

On the Gary 2A02:C7E:278:5A00:9C4:73E1:D3D6:969E (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

please 92.239.153.215 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Terminology

@Nikkimaria the previous information wasn't sufficient at all. its inaccurate and reductive to suggest its a 'Norman' army, as this article itself points out 192.76.8.79 (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The article indicates that the force included combatants from multiple other areas of France, beyond those listed in the proposed edit. However, that side of the conflict is consistently referred to as Norman or Norman-French. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Also - "alongside Brittany, Anjou, Poitou, and Maine" makes it sound like it was those counties that were involved, when it was really individuals from those locations. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

But they're 'consistently referred to' incorrectly! It's a misconception that the armies was exclusively composed of Normans. Wikipedia should be better than that! Modern battle on Wikipedia frequently include individual units in this section of the page for a battle - it seems a vast oversimplification to exclude them here. Although I support the comment by @Ealdgyth that it's badly phrases - perhaps 'alongside soldiers from Brittany, Anjou, Poitou, and Maine'?

And 'Anglo-Saxon' for the English side is also a slightly meaningless oversimplification - it was the 'English' army. What does 'Anglo-Saxon' mean? Is it 'ethnic' - the army had strong Anglo-Scandinavian components. Faust.TSFL (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, the coordinates are entirely TOO exact - and unsourced. The exact location of the battle is not securely known... it's probably somewhere near these coordinates, but the exact precision is misleading to readers. I'd remove the coordinates completely if I thought we could make that stick, but at the least, could those restoring them to the title come up with some sort of sourcing for them, rather than edit warring over them please? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Also "convention is that it is needed in the article" - it already IS in the article - in the infobox. Why is it needed twice? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes refers. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that page only refers to coordinates in this sentence "Infoboxes using geographical coordinates should use |coordinates= as the parameter name, with the {{coord}} template in the parameter's value." ... which has nothing to do with whether or not the coordinates should be in the title area of the article, nor does it actually discuss any other of the concerns I brought up above. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

THis is more relevant, from Template:Coord#Usage:

Note: the title attribute indicates that the coordinates apply to the entire article, and not just one of (perhaps many) places mentioned in it—so it should only be omitted in the latter case. Additionally the title option will mark the coordinates as the primary coordinates for the page (and topic of the page) in the geosearch API.

Murgatroyd49 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

And... that's still not relevant to anything. Why would anyone not think that the coordinates given in the infobox do not also mean that they are for entire article ... and the coordinates are STILL unsourced and way too precise. Why shouldn't I just eliminate the coordinates altogether? Ealdgyth (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Well it appears to mean something to the people who wrote the template documentation. I should take it up with them if you don't agree. The accuracy or otherwise of the coordinates is a different argument. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria removed them, and you restored them saying there was no consensus to remove them. I've undone your revert -- four people have now removed them from the title, so there's clearly consensus for that. Two people have now removed them from the infobox, and Ealdgyth says above she agrees with that -- the coords are not precisely enough known for us to provide without misleading the reader. We should not provide inaccurate information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume you are including yourself in the totals, which, as you hade made no comment on the subject before is rather high-handed. Please note I don't actually care whether the coordinates given are right or wrong, I am merely trying to apply the MOS. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was including myself; I didn't mean to imply there was consensus for removing them completely before I made the edit. However, the coords had been removed from the title by three different editors, and you reverted each of them; I think you might have considered that to imply consensus for removing them from the title. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

History of events is as thus: Original removal of coords from title was by an editor who was carrying out a block removal of coords from title for a vast number of pages, despite several editors asking him to stop. He had no interest in this article in particular which is why I reverted it. Secondly Ealdgyth reverted my edit without discussion so I restored it. Nikkimaria reverted it claiming it as a concensus when there wasn't one. Then you added yourself in without prior discussion. If there is a genuine concensus that the coords should be removed both from infobox and title then fair enough but that hadn't been demonstrated at my last edit. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think consensus has now been demonstrated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I gotta say "don't actually care whether the coordinates given are right or wrong, I am merely trying to apply the MOS" is ... not a great way to approach editing. I would hope that all editors care first and foremost about correct information and only secondarily about the MOS. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)