Jump to content

Talk:Castle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ingrid4hubby (talk | contribs) at 15:55, 27 August 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk:Castle/Archive Box

Castel del Monte

The article currently claims

"Frederick II's Castel del Monte in Puglia has no keep at all: built on high ground, it is an octagonal structure with eight polygonal corner towers."

in the middle of a discussion about the decreasing importance of the keep v. the curtain walls. Problem is... if there is no interior structure and the outer walls are not enclosing a large space (like a small village), there are no curtain walls and you're just talking about the keep (or a fort, if there's no living space appended to the walls.) Either way, I don't think the castle functions the way they wish it did. Curious if I (and the Castel del Monte article) are just missing something about the innovation going on in its design, though. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encei... Curtain Walls

Is there a reason we're using an obscure French term for this section? The linked pages (which are separate and indicate they are not synonyms) say that enceintes are for city walls and ecclesiastical structures and more properly describe the empty space, while curtain walls are for castles and describe... y'know... walls. Presumably this article is about the latter. -LlywelynII (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary also has the English meaning of enceinte only embracing "pregnant." The French use is "enclosure," but not the fence or wall itself. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enceinte is not an obscure term at all. Its a technical word widely used in the english castle literature. It means enclosure, but most commentators have for decades used "enceinte". It can be used to distiguish certain kinds of castles: castles of enceinte, means castles with an enclosing wall, rather than a peel tower or something. In short, the linked pages are wrong. CJ DUB (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Yeah, so I had some 'external links' to my website, British Castle, http://www.britishcastle.co.uk, removed from your wiki castle pages. I hoped to add more as I have been pleased with the traffic generated by some other links I've had on wiki castle pages. However, the links were recently removed. Someone did alert me to argue my case at the time but I didn't know how to. So here I am now.

I understand my sites does show ads but then so do quite a few of the external links on other wiki pages. And the decision to remove is also confusing since I have on other external links on wiki pages which have happily served your visitors for maybe a year now; http://www.craigmillarcastle.com, http://www.holyroodhouse.com and http://www.pendenniscastle.com. Over the course of time, I developed the British Castle website and to avoid duplicating content I've since redirected individual castle sites to the (for want of a better word) meta site. Have these links been kept because of the pertinent domain names? I wonder? But then britishcastle.co.uk should have been okay. IMO, there is some quite good and useful content on the site, eg., official website of each castle, easy to use google maps, great stock photos, a useful search facility, eg., what king/castle association can be found and, of course, I must mention some great content from a number of authors from around the world (which I did pay at least UK minimum wage).

Finally, in support of my case, I like to think I apply a good ethical standard to my websites. An example of this, I have always included a link back to Wiki whenever I've been unable to source content commercially, eg., at http://www.britishcastle.co.uk/index.php?pageId=CraigmillarCastle_Surrender (from the photo) or a better example at http://britishcastle.co.uk/index.php?&pageId=GuildfordCastle_theCastle. Indeed, there are some 20 pages and 40 individual links to wikipedia.org pages from the British Castle website.

I'd be pleased to hear your considerations.

Regards, Mike Flynn forthside.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forthside (talk • contribs) 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

edited ( and now signed Forthside (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) )[reply]
No one replied yet so I thought it'd be okay to add a link here for British Castles but probably not for each individual castle (though I'd still like to). - (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by a stupid nasty prejudiced nationalistic pro-Spanish, anti-Italian ....editor

It has taken me an hour and 15 minutes to check out every one of this person's edits to see if they needed deletion, or had already been spotted and deleted. My advice is, check every single edit by any nameless editor and be suspicious of it. Not every edit by this person was actually vandalistic. But with total egocentricity, he/she failed to comprehend the paragraphs into which he/she stuffed detailed material on specific Spanish castles, as if there wasn't enough mention of Spanish castles in the article already. Changing the location of the pics in Italy to Spain, and deleting a list of famous Florentine Renaissance architects really got up my nose. I don't want to have to add this article to the long list that I watch already. Could someone please be diligent about watching this problem? Amandajm (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a lot of edits to this article recently by 68.173.91.50. I've noticed that the editor has removed information in the article relating to Italy [1], [2], [3], [4] [5], for no apparent reason (the editor never uses an edit summary). Strangely, the editor also altered the captions for the images File:Castel del monte3.jpg ([6] [7]), and File:Fortezza di Sarzana.jpg ([8]) claiming they are in Spain and not Italy. BarretBonden (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the captions back to their original wording but I have left the other edits as they are. BarretBonden (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know "assume good faith" and everything, but I think all their edits should be reverted. The file info said the castles are in Italy, the person who uploaded the images is also the one who took them and I trust them to know where they were. If those IP edits were wrong, I wouldn't hold out much hope that the other edits are factually accurate. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked out all the edits of this person. It is someone pushing a particular barrow. They are deleting references to other places and shoving in refernces to Spain, rightly or wrongly. The same problem has occurred with an un-named editor on the Gothis architecture page and elsewher. I also recommend that ALL their edits be examined and probably deleted. Unfortunately it's too late to do a roll-back, because there have been too many edits since.
Re sizing of pics. I have just reduced some of them. If one is not cautious with oversizing, then an editor who knows the rules backwards will come along and reduce the whole lot to thumbnails. (sigh!)
This article is really good. it needs some more references, and then it needs to be promoted. Obviously the current B assessment doesn't do it justice. - Amandajm (talk) 08:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I looked again and found the vandalism. Amandajm (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Nev1 and BarretBonden

OK, you guys discussed it, on the 12th of April, but you didn't do it. You two, and whoever else watches this page (I'm not one of them) saw the inserted errors, saw the numerous deletions, permitted a list of important architects to be simply deleted by someone that you BB, then messaged over the lack of edit summaries. What you got back was a smug message that said "Thanks for allowing me to make changes, my buddy!"

The bottom line is that you discussed this and did nothing about it. There were subsequent edits, including your caption reversals BB, and these pushed the vandalism into obscurity, until a knowledgeable editor queried the statement that castles in Europe were based on those of the Goths (with the word (Gothic) in parenthesis).

No change as important to the meaning of the article as changing Romans to Goths can possible be made without discussion unless it is made by a major contributor to the article that you really trust. (and certainly not without an edit summary). But you editors permitted this to happen.

I am disgusted at the parasitical and loathsome behaviour of a person who takes pleasure in undermining and destroying what others have done. But I also feel pretty cross with you who saw what was happening and didn't take the appropriate steps at a point when the changes could be reversed easily. If I hadn't decided, out of the blue, to check the castles article, then every reference to Italy would still be missing, and the bit of sheer stupidity would still be in the introduction for every kid to put in their homework. - Amandajm (talk) 00:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have other things to do, I have an FAC and an FLC to look after at the moment, and as they're both higher quality articles they take precedent. So sometimes, things slip through the net. In fact, one of the things I was doing in the meantime was looking for books to help improve this article after you highlighted that it's not in such a bad state. Before then I'd only really glanced at it, but it's got potential and the structure seems sensible. Are you interested in helping to add references? Nev1 (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To comment on what you have written here: the article needed rollback or reverting long before I looked at it!
About higher quality article taking precedence, my priority is generic artcles. The way I see it, an encylcopedia, to be effective, needs a good article on "Castle" more than it needs a good article on "Dover Castle". The latter is the cream on the cake. However, they are very much easier to do. I like tidying up the articles on specific cathedrals.
The reason that I am here is that I rewrote the article on Gothic architecture. As an editor has recently pointed out, it is severely lacking in details about any building form except major churches. However, as the article is very long, there is no room to deal with all the building types and a series of main articles need to be linked to it, preferably with a short paragraph about each major type of building, eg Castles, Town Halls etc.
So I lifted some pertinenet material from this article and editted it and attempted to put it into Gothic architecture. At this point my blanky server dropped me out and lost the lot, which happens frequently. It often takes me three or four tries to save something, which is frustrating and time consuming.
I came and checked this article out and it looked basically good, and then I saw the Goth bit in the intro and started looking further. .... I can't help wondering how many articles that individual has undermined.
Castles is not my particular subject so I'm glad that you are working on this one. I'll proceed by looking to see what has been done and trying to fill the gaps in other aspects relating to the Gothic.
This article, as it must, talks about form and function, not style. The latter is an aspect of much less importannce where a castle is concerned. However, style is reflected in castles to a degree, and some mention of the change from round Norman/Romanesque arches to the more functinal and decorative pointed ones might be possible. If interiors are discussed, then features like ribbed vaulting and clustered columns of the Gothic period become significant.
One thing this article lacks is dates. There are many instances where a broad time-frame needs to be given. One sentence containing important info starts "Early on...." What does this mean? 800 AD or 1000 AD or earlier. etc. Dates within the picture captions are a big help to give the reader the general concept of the development.
See ya round! - Amandajm (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any help would be gratefully received. If you keep losing what you're writing because of your server, it might be worth either using firefox (which retains what I write even if I navigate away from the page I'm working on) or making changed in something like Word and the copying across the changes. The second option is more arduous, but is worthwhile for long edits.
I agree it's more important to get this article to GA (for example) than it was to get Warwick Castle to FA, but it's a matter of time, resources, and motivation. This discussion about core topics at WT:FAC is worth a read. I've also found that working on satellite articles gives a greater understanding of the overall subject, and I think it's a good primer for tackling the "big one". However, the problem is that the majority of sources I have are Anglo-centric, or at least concentrate heavily on Britain. To avoid making the article unbalanced, I'll be editing slowly and will have to look for more sources down the local library. This will probably take several months to sort out properly. Nev1 (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Update) The IP edit has returned and is again inserting POV. Part of the problem before is that the article was almost entirely unreferenced so it was difficult to know what was correct. This time, referenced material was removed. I have warned the user, and if they persist they will be blocked. The IP address has changed slightly so if the editor continues to jump between IPs it may become necessary to protect the article to prevent further vandalism. Hopefully it won't come to that. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Historical context

This article is lacking a proper historical context. For starters, fortified palaces and residences for monarchs is as old as civilization itself.If you look at Egypt, Babylon, Persia and elsewhere you will find the origin of this concept. Architecturally, the form of the modern castle also is based on far more ancient origins in ancient cultures. Crenelations, towers, walls, flags and all the trappings of a modern castle can be found in ancient Persia, Babylon, Egypt and elsewhere from 2,000 years prior to the first castle in Europe.

And, the introduction of this style of architecture and the idea of a fortified royal residence can be traced back to Islamic Spain. The oldest fortress in Europe is Gormaz Castle, which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gormaz_Castle. And this style of architecture was used throughout Islamic Spain for fortresses and royal residences from the 8th century onwards. But this tradition itself is based on older roots in the waning Sassanid Persian dynasties which collapsed in the 8th century. They have left many castles and fortresses that presage those of Muslim Spain all over Eastern Europe into Central Asia. Some examples are Castle Aflak in Persia as well as Djerbent in Russia. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derbent. Castle Aflak: http://www.pbase.com/k_amj/falak

This is not to mention the ancient fortresses and fortified palaces of places like Egypt, which were ritually, symbolically and politically important and elevated within the art and culture of ancient Egypt. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buhen Big-dynamo (talk) 10:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And don't forget the ancient castles of Israel also. They too must be mentioned in the article, unless some americans in here raise objections about it.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case none of you guys noticed the title of this article is CASTLE not FORTRESS. The definition is clearly outlined at the top, supported by references. The definition does not include ancient fortresses. Fortunately however there are many wiki articles on these topics. By the way Gormaz Castle is not the oldest castle in Europe. Thanks for the comments. CJ DUB (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Just to remind someone in here, the title of this article is CASTLES. So, to correct that individual, the oldest caslte in europe is the Gormaz Castle. And here's the proof: http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ar/arab_gormaz_castle.htm

Though I'm not accusing anyone of covering up the truth, this talks volumes about long established bias in history. This bias stems from the notion that only certain northern european/american histories are allowed validation over others. As I've talked about this before, this is highly unfair. Americans must accept the fact that there are contributions made by other countries that must be acknowledged. Americans possess the propensity of not accepting the truth because they think that if it didn't come from them that it must not have been made possible. Again, this is highly discriminatory, biased, and apparently leads people down a path of ignorance of the facts. Ingrid4hubby (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Castle&oldid=310381911"