Talk:Castle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

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)

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)

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)

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)

Removed external link to my website Can I appeal the removal?

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)

edited ( and now signed Forthside (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) )

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Then I looked again and found the vandalism. Amandajm (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

3RR

Is anybody getting sick of the guy reverting the article and putting in his pictures of Portugese castles that don't contribute to the context of the article subheadings? Somebody please report him for the 3RR. There is a long history of people putting redundant or irrelevant images on this article, justifying with "This picture represents ..... so its important."CJ DUB (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. William Avery (talk) 07:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. For one thing, there is hardly any mention of portuguese castles and other European countries that have made significant contributions to castle building and design. I believe that you should understand the motives behind these actions before you decide to condemn him/her. I think that your reasons stem from long-held beliefs that only castles worthy of historical significance should be those from France, Enlgand, Spain, and Germany. Keep in mind that Europe does not entail ONLY those aforementioned nations. There are far more countries in Europe than those, you know. This is an American way of discriminatory thinking, and it's wrong.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 05:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

you shouldn't assume anything about the nationality/citizenship of other editors. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Seb, I can understand why you say that. But understand that the ones responsible for most of the preconceived assumptions about people are americans. Americans are responsible for assuming things about Spaniards and other southern europeans that we all know is false. This is the very reason why I'm voicing my opinion on this discussion page. Therefore, based on my experiences with americans, I have no choice but to assume that the ones replying to me in a discriminatory way are americans.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know Seb is the only editor in this discussion who is American. In my experience, the majority of English language sources on castles are related to English castles; while castles in other countries are mentioned, usually France, Germany, and the Holy Land, there is a natural bias because most of the information scholars will be working from (for example original records and site reports from excavations) will be in the native language so it's simpler for English scholars to focus on English castles. That's not to say that the English have claimed castle building as their own, only that they usually focus on the subject without much context. American bias has nothing to do with this.

Because of the problems (as I see them anyway, perhaps I just haven't read enough) with the sources, the article on castles might seem narrow. The only way to change this is to suggest new sources. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, I must heavily disagree with you about Seb being the only american editor here. By the way the other editors are describing themselves and trying to defend something that isn't true, I have to bend toward the belief that most if not all the editors here are american. And american bias has alot to do with this otherwise we wouldn't be discussing the unfairness behind it. American writers have a habit of ignoring other contributions and thinking ethnocentrically that their way is the only way of viewing things.

As for new sources, I have already provided 2 that are reliable and justified. I really don't understand the need for new sources. Again, this is an american bias that comes from fear of other cultures (other than the american culture) that may have contributed to the world. And it sees this as some threat. But, if that's what it takes, I'll provide more, no problem.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 04:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Ingrid4hubby, nice diatribe. There are plenty of pages on specific portuguese castles. On this article there is plenty of information on international castles including europe and even beyond. we cannot give examples for every country and put a pic from every country. Know why that is? THIS PAGE IS NOT ABOUT CASTLES ALL OVER THE WORLD; it is about the general history and development. There are MANY links at the bottom of the page to other topics. You want a page on portuguese castles, go make one. cya CJ DUB (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey CJ DUB, nice attempt at nothing. You say that this article isn't about castles all over the world. But, why are there referneces of castles about japan? DUHHH! And typing in bold face WILL NOT INTIMIDATE ME OR ANYONE. And the portuguese have contributed to the development of castle building for hundres of years. If you don't know this, then look it up. It looks like we got another american hater, folks!

You don't like this article? Then go someplace else.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination is essential in this matter - the need to discriminate between images that illustrate the article text and those which do not. William Avery (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

William Avery, discrimination and racism IS NOT tolerated in wikipedia, nor do we support racists or haters. Refer to the terms of service on wiki pages.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's try and keep this discussion civilised rather than attacking each other or throwing about words like "racist". It does no one any credit and isn't constructive. You have misunderstood what William Avery meant by "discriminate". Images are not being removed because they are of Portuguese castles, but because the images add nothing to the article or are not of a high enough quality. Nev1 (talk) 20:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

My original intention was to keep this discussion civilized. I'm not attacking anyone with racist labels. If William Avery meant to say that the images didn't represent the article, then I understand, no problem. Then I read him wrong.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Therefore, based on my experiences with americans, I have no choice but to assume that the ones replying to me in a discriminatory way are americans. 66.108.40.200"

^^^Can someone please ban this person. Its embarassing to have someone like this on wikipedia, and doubtless embarassing to other "southern europeans" What's with the chip on the shoulder? The damn article has Spanish, Italian and even a Mexican castle. The point of the page is not to inform about every single castle. I'm sorry if you missed that. By the way your comments on the White Americans article are truly priceless: african americans= anglos saxons, YES OF COURSE!!CJ DUB (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, can you please block CJ DUB for breaking wiki rules about picking fights with others? It's embarrassing to have this troublemaker start personal attacks for no reason, especially when he has trouble spelling. The point to this page is to involve all who have contributed to castle-building. And it looks like he's got some sick obsession for me - he follows all my edits everywhere. He obviously is not as smart as the rest of us so he shouldn't be allowed to comment at all. Deb, we strongly urge you to block this "man". Thank you.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

lol. You're the one starting fights with everybody. This page had some very thoughful additions and comments before you arrived with your "Americans are this...", "Americans are that" "YOU MUST BE AMERICAN" ignorant comments. They have no place in wikipedia or any other polite discourse. Please find me a wiki rule I've broken? You've broken many on this page, and I'm simply telling you. Follow your edits everywhere? That's a good one. I just wanted to see how many accounts you have. CJ DUB (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, the user, CJ DUB, has made direct and personal attacks upon me, thus breaking wiki rules. As you suggested days ago, this user must be blocked from making any further comments. He called me ignorant and has insulted the wiki editors for no reason whatsoever. He's also mocked the wiki editors.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish Castles

Hi, I'd like to add updated info about Spanish castles that in the past you had deleted, which didn't make any sense. For example, a particular castle in Spain is called, 'King Charles V's Castle'. On your article, you continue to have the old and unused name of the castle called, 'Alcázar of Segovia'. Everyone in Spain has called and knows this castle by, 'King Charles V's Castle', for 500 years, not 'Alcazar of Segovia'. I'd appreciate the name change. Spaniards identify this castle by 'King Charles V Castle'. I should know because I'm half Spaniard. Be a bit more understanding so all can enjoy our contributions to the article and it doesn't become one-sided. There's no need for being discriminatory. Ingrid4hubby (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What independent reliable source can we verify the name of the castle with? —C.Fred (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I have 2 references that refer to the castle as the Royal Place or Castle of Charles V. They are:

http://www.spain.info/TourSpain/Arte+y+Cultura/Monumentos/T/IW/0/Castillo+de+Carlos+V+(Hondarribia)?Language=en and http://www.castles.org/castles/Europe/Western_Europe/Spain/Madrid%20Royal%20Palace/index.htm 66.108.40.200 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest you bring it up at the talkpage for Alcázar of Segovia. That article's name should be changed first (if everyone agrees), then we can have it here, for uniformity. Also consider that it does not matter what the common name in Spanish is; since this is the English wikipedia, it matters what the English-speaking world considers the most "common" name/designation. English google: Alcázar of Segovia, 439,000 hits. King Charles V's castle: 0 hits. Seb az86556 (talk) 05:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should the Alcázar of Segovia article's name be changed first? That article doesn't pertain to you or this page whatsoever. Don't worry about other articles, just worry about this one. Who are you? And IT DOES matter what the common name is because it's what people in Spain refer to the castle as. You're not a Spaniard, you're american. So what matters is what Spaniards define their world. Don't define it for them. You're in no position to.

And, why would you say that what matters is what the English-speaking world believes? What about other people? Don't other people have a voice too? The english-speaking world doesn't control the world nor is it the only voice in the world. Seriously, you sound very biased. And by suggesting that the only voice that matters - regardless of other people's opinion - is the english-speaking world tells us that you're discriminatory. Everyone sees that. I strongly think you should stop thinking for other people and respect other peoples and their beliefs. I believe this is why there's so much one-sidedness and discrimination in the world. It comes from the belief that just because you're in a powerful position today that you have the authority to pre-define other people's beliefs. America isn't going to last forever, you know. I don't mean to come off like this, I'm just offering an example so that you and others don't fall into the trap of discriminating without knowing the facts. If you can understand this, then that's a good thing.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If we're so out of touch, it is a bit strange that Spanish wikipedia also calls it Alcázar de Segovia, isn't it? Deb (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It may be strange to you since you're american and you're not a Spaniard. If you were a Spaniard living in Spain, you would understand the Spaniard world. But obviously you're not and you don't. You're an american looking at the world through american eyes. The castle has 2 names: Alcázar de Segovia and Castle of Charles V or Royal Palace. The former name was in effect when the muslims were in Spain. But after the Christians conquered Spain, the Spaniards has since referred to the caste by the latter names. There's more to the world than how you're looking at it. Wikipedia is about describing the world on people's terms, not on american's terms. Wikipedia is made up of different peoples and cultures. It's not and should not be defined by an elite group of americans. It's a global market place now and america has a voice, but small voice now in relation to the other voices in the world. You sound like the guy above. And I'm saying this with all due respect, no offensive given. I suggest that you open your eyes and not be biased. I'm reacting to this type of thinking because it has caused much trouble in the world and should be prevented so that others can work in unison.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You're making as much sense as saying the article "Spain" should be renamed "España" and "Germany" should be "Deutschland". Please go to the Spanish wikipedia and argue that the article "Estados Unidos" must be changed to "United States." (...and by the way, just from a quick check, it seems to me that Deb is more British-Welsh, but I might be wrong... and she doesn't insist on "Cymru," either...) Seb az86556 (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And you make as much sense as a kindergartener. What are you talking about? I don't know what you're talking about from your erroneous analogies. You come across as a hater or vandalizer. Your tone is insulting. And what or who is cymru? Again, you don't know what you're talking about and you come of as a hater.

You got issues of hate against Spaniards for some reason. If you don't like the people and culture of Spain, then don't comment on the article. You got hate issues that need to be addressed. We can't help you since we're not a psych clinic that helps those who have been rejected by female Spaniards.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

And, having looked at the reference quoted above, I think we may be talking about two differnt castles, one in Segovia and one in Fuenterrabia. Deb (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm talkaing about the castle that Spaniards have referred to for the last 500 years as the Royal Palace or Castle of Charles V. The castle's old name, Alcázar de Segovia, is seriously outdated. Therefore, the article must update this info.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the references you cite above refer to the castle we are talking about. Deb (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, it looks like you're not seeing what we're seeing. Go back to the links or google it. I'll provide you with more links later.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure she did just that, and I am also fairly certain she is literate. Please refrain from

a) accusing people of racsim

b) labeling people as illiterate

c) accusing people of vandalism

d) calling people "kindergartener"

f) referring to people as being mentally ill or retarded

You should instead

a) read WP:CIVIL

b) read WP:NPA

c) be aware that not everyone's patience concerning a breach of said policies is endless. Take that as your first informal warning.

d) and learn what Cymru means

Thank you. Seb az86556 (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think Deb checked, otherwise she would have admitted it. And I've never questioned her literacy. You're bringing that up out of nowhere which tells me that you're possibly starting some kind of altercation. If this is your motive, then refain from doing so. And when you tell me to refrain from calling people certain things, tell the man who disrespected me FIRST to do the same. Fair is fair.

Tell that man who disrespected me FIRST to read the wiki policies. And at the same time, tell me to read the wiki policies also. This way, everyone is on a level playing field. As far as I see it, Seb, the person whom you suggest I "disrespected", insutled me first. Go back and read the discussion between us so you can get a better handle of what went on. I had no choice but to defend myself and call him a 'kindergartener'. What I've been brought up to understand is when someone insults you first, you got every right to defend yourself.

If you can tell me what cymru means, I'll understand it. Otherwise, it's not important. You're welcome.

66.108.40.200 (talk) 21:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Cymru is the Welsh name for Wales. The point is that on the English wikipedia, where mos people speak English and English names are prevalent, the article is called Wales rather than Cymru.

And I would just like to reiterate to everyone on this page to make no further personal attacks or they risk being blocked. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Nev1, it's a good idea to warn everyone about personal attacks. Please let everyone know not to make personal attacks upon me or others, direct or subtle, even when I'm trying to work together with everyone. And to add to this, I want to further repeat that if anyone here gets blocked, it's because of your own doing. So, let's work together and not fight.

69.86.162.170 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No-one discriminated against you. You were the one who started this senseless rant, lashing out at people for no reason whatsoever, making presumptuous accusations that have no basis in reality. As an echo, you cannot expect anyone to pay much attention to you, at least not before you refrain from breaching WP:CIVIL even one more time. If you have some personal agenda and need to blow off steam, look for an appropriate forum (see WP:FORUM). Your behavior is completely unacceptable by any means and standards. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Nev1, it looks like Seb has ignored your warning about personal attacks. What's wrong with you, Seb? Didn't you read Nev1's warning? Why would you call what you think I started a "senseless rant" when it's not a rant, and by you saying senseless, you're calling me ignorant? We're warning you... stop initiating a fight in this discussion or you will be blocked. Stop instigating that I'm lashing out at people when we know it's not true. You're a real troublemaker with some sick mental issues. Your behavior on this forum is not acceptable and won't be tolerated. If you don't like the discussion, then go to another forum and spill your bias there. STOP BOTHERING US FOR THE LAST TIME. Leave US alone or you will be blocked!!!

69.86.162.170 (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The anonymous user above has used at least three different IP addresses and two different registered usernames in recent days. If this continues, I fear that banning is inevitable. Deb (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, that would be me. But I now have signed in with my username. I didn't know before that I was not logging in. But you shouldn't threaten people with banning them if they didn't know about signing in. That's not reasonable. First, tell them about their errors. If they continue, then I understand that threatening to ban them is justified. You just got to be reasonable with people - that's the best way of avoiding problems with people and at the same time, you're helping them too. Hope this helps.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see you now understand. But I did place a warning about this on your talk page before your last few contributions. Please try not to let it happen again, as other users will not always be ready to assume good faith in such cases. Deb (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Deb, you're quite welcome. Also, I noticed that we have a troublemaker making personal attacks, thus breaking wiki rules about insulting others. CJ DUB is the person making rude comments. Please refer to the above where he posted something in bold face - the timestamp of his offensive post is: 23:33, 17 August 2009. I greatly urge that you block him. We don't need offensive people like that insulting intelligent people here. Thank you!

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection

The current edit war over images and names of individual castles is unacceptable. I have fully protected the article for three days to facilitate discussion on this page. Keep it civil and do not make peronal attacks or the person responsible will be blocked. If you bring sources with you, and reason your arguments maybe this page can be improved. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

CJ DUB Continues To Insult Wiki Editors & Users

The user, CJ DUB, has made direct and personal attacks upon all of us, thus breaking wiki rules. He seems like a troll. He called me ignorant and has mocked the wiki editors. I have never talked to him before and I don't know who he is. He's a troublemaker and hater who wants to start fights. He's broken wiki rules. As you suggested days ago, this user must be blocked from making any further comments on this page. I think it's about time. Ingrid4hubby (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ingridhubby ?

I'm not sure if any of the other editors are taking seriously, but I thought i might defend myself against these outrageous claims.

The user, CJ DUB, has made direct and personal attacks upon all of us,
:Whom have I attacked?

...thus breaking wiki rules. He seems like a troll. He called me ignorant and has mocked the wiki editors.
:You are in fact ignorant and have made several defamatory and unprovoked racist comments about americans (and No I am not one). I don't believe I've directed any of my comments at other wiki editors. Actually only YOU have.

I have never talked to him before and I don't know who he is. He's a troublemaker and hater who wants to start fights.
:I'm a wiki editor with 4-5 years in good standing. You have alienated every american who has read this article with your racist claims, right from your first comment (and under your other IP).

(In fact, user alienated every user, regardless of nationality/citizenship Seb az86556 (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

He's broken wiki rules.
:Again, please someone tell me if I've broken wiki rules, as it seems they don't apply to IngridHubby.

Please read the wiki rules as the other editor has mentioned.

CJ DUB (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You haven't broken any wiki-rules, we all know that again, let's just leave it and keep your statement for the record. Seb az86556 (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, I don't suppose I can convince anybody to ban Ingrid4hubby can I? Nah? Oh well CJ DUB (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose we can convince CJ DUB to like girls, can we? Nahhh!

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 05:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

CJ DUB Keeps Calling Users Ignorant - Violation of Wiki Rules

Hi, Deb. The user, CJ DUB continues to break Wiki rules by disrespecting others by insulting me. He stated the following, yet again: You are in fact ignorant. He also claims to be an editor "with experience". A serious wiki editor with experience does not speak so ignorantly and disrespectfully about others. A wiki editor examines facts without judging others, as is the case in discriminatory environments. Therefore, he is not a wiki editor and is most likely a poser. He seems to be a sensitive american "man" who feels everyone is against him or his american way of thinking. He must understand that not everyone will like him or his background. I have also noticed that another user named, Seb, may be the same person. He's probably using dual usernames in wiki. As a result of the above valid points, I urge blocking him for a long while so he learns to respect others on this forum. Again, he's broken wiki rules on respect for others 3 times. Thank you. Ingrid4hubby (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

lol I already told you I'm not american, and I don't have an "american way of thinking" -whatever that means. Go and order a sockpuppet investigation of Seb and myself. Oh and you forget the part about me being wiki editor in "good standing". Love, CJ DUB (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: didn't you get banned this week already under the IP: User:69.86.162.170? Tootles!, CJ DUB (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that user, CJ DUB, the european-hating american with psych issues, got blocked for a short period of time. However, can we extend the block?

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone please ban User:Ingrid4hubby and sock puppets User:66.108.40.200, User:69.86.162.170

For a list of issues with this user please see the 2009 Archive of this page that was just created. [9]

Short list:
1 accusing people of racism
2 labeling people as illiterate
3 accusing people of vandalism
4 calling people "kindergartener"
5 referring to people as being mentally ill or retarded
6 anti american comments to all anglophone editors.
7 anti anglophone comments
8 misandrous comments
9 Previous ban of sock puppet User:69.86.162.170
10 generally unconstuctive comments
11 homophobic comments

My personl fave: "Therefore, based on my experiences with americans, I have no choice but to assume that the ones replying to me in a discriminatory way are americans"

Nuff said. CJ DUB (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like CJ DUB is still obsessed with me. Look at him... he writes a LONG list of things he THINKS I stated. He's been blocked twice and still hasn't learned his lesson.

Now watch this everyone. He's going to report me to the FBI on grounds that I insulted him.

I feel sorry for him.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ingrud4hubby, CJ DUB has never been blocked, just take a look at the block log. You on the other hand have been blocked for making personal attacks (check your block log). If you continue to be abusive, you will be blocked for longer than 24 hours. Consider this your final warning on the matter. Nev1 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, why can't you and CJ DUB just leave us alone. If you keep harassing us, you will be blocked like CJ DUB was. And I don't have to check your phoney block log since I come here everyday and am able to edit wiki pages with no problem. But I did see a page that stated that CJ DUB was blocked. And what I don't understand from you is that you threaten us with being blocked, yet, CJ DUB launched personal attacks upon me but you don't say anything to him. Does that sound right to you? Why can't you tell ALL parties involved to cease from making attacks to be fair to everyone? This is the one-sidedness that I speak of in the next paragraph. Just because people come from europe or other places or because they dislike your culture or your politics, it doesn't mean you should hate them. You can't control people or their feelings towards you.

Wiki is a place where people contribute their time and energy to enlighten the world, not to enlighten one nation or culture only. Wiki should not be read solely from an american point of view. I come here to contribute to and correct articles because many articles state inaccuracies that must be corrected. This is done because many of them are written from a point of view that is one-sided, typically, from an american experience. Not all articles are one-sided, though. But the ones that are, often time do not represent the whole truth. Therefore, other voices from elsewhere are encouraged to contribute and correct them to eliminate this one-sided factor. We welcome these other voices. And if you feel that you are being treated unfairly by the editors because they say your contributions are not up to par with their american standards, or they unfairly take someone's side over yours, then, speak up about it and complain! Never forget: Wiki is for all voices, not for one voice. Let's unite to get rid of this hate and bais. Threre's enough hate in the world already.

I'm off on a long vacation, so hopefully when I return, you people will have cooled off.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 11:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

That's not a reliable source, please read WP:RS. And in any case Castel Sant'Angelo is a little bit older than Gormaz Castle. Nev1 (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, it is a reliable source and I can give tons of others plus the ones I am provideing below. Again, this smacks of the cultural bias factor.

Here are additional links:

http://www.spaintravelguide.com/6-coolest-castles-in-spain.html

http://www.whatspain.com/spain-castles.html

Now watch this folks. After Nev1 looks at my reliable links, he'll come up with the excuse that the links don't count because I provided them on a friday. Or, he'll say that the webpage to the links is the wrong color. Nev1 is one funny american! Lol.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Sant Angelo in Rome is ALOT older, probably 300 years older than Gormaz, and its not even in Northern Europe. Its in Italy, again. CJ DUB (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Not true! Read the facts. And italians haven't been good builders in castles. Heard of the tower of pisa? Lol. Again, here are more links:

http://www.spaintravelguide.com/6-coolest-castles-in-spain.html http://www.whatspain.com/spain-castles.html Ingrid4hubby (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the Tower of Pisa (incredibly for someone as biased and US-centric as myself, I have heard of it) isn't a castle. Funnily enough, it's a bell tower. And where's your source that the Italians weren't good castle builders? Do you want to bring up any other irrelevant structures? How about the Great Pyramid of Giza? Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI, If the italians were good castle builders, they wouldn't have been conquered and sacked by so many invaders, like the arabs. If you want to bring up the Great Pyramid of Giza, go right ahead. But I doubt you'll go far since Egyptian pyramids are not castles. This tells me how mush you know about castles. You lost all credibility.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting turn around, I could have sworn that earlier you said "And italians haven't been good builders in castles". My credibility is intact as I was highlighting that the Tower of Pisa has no relevance in this discussion so I have no idea why you brought it up. Nev1 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how to respond to your comment. My comment about italians not being good castle builders stands. I don't know why you're repeating this. And I have no idea why you brought up the pyramid at giza. But at any rate, it really doens't matter.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that Ingrid4hubby would click on the link and see for herself as she thinks there's discrimination going on here, but yeah :-) Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping that Nev1 would click on the links I provided and see for himself that his thinking seems biased. Again, this comes from the I-love-america-and-if-don't-like-it-then-leave-it superiority. Well, I'm happy that rome is falling slowly but surely.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links fall spectacularly short of WP:RS, which I strongly suggest you read. Allexperts.com is written by volunteers and, despite its name, "Allexperts has not undertaken to verify the credentials or abilities of any of our volunteers". The other two websites are travel guides, and I doubt their authors are experts on castles, Spanish or otherwise. Nev1 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Those links are fully supported and will be used as reference for the article. But, I will provide more links just for you, Nev1, since you're american biasness is creeping up again and not believing that contributions outside the american experience have been made.

And Nev1, why don't you just stop hating? Why can't you accept other people's contributions to the world? Is it because you were brought up thinking that only americans can build anything? There's life outside of america, you know. I think you need to love yourself and others more. Discrimination is on the way out, so stop hating and embrace other people's contributions.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do provide those sources (and make sure they're reliable), otherwise you accusations of bias and victimisation on my part would appear rather unfounded. Nev1 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Nev1, here's are links straight from the horse's mouth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gormaz_Castle

http://www.bookwormsearch.com/topics/Castle

http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ar/arab_gormaz_castle.htm

Now, this should definitely put any of your biasness or discrimination to rest. Maybe one day you can learn to like people and stop hating them. Also, your hate and bias does bring others to hate americans. Anyway, this link with others will support the fact that the gormaz castle is the oldest castle in europe.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The whole diatribe a week ago was over "northern western euro-centrism" in the article when there are excellent examples from Spain, Italy, Mexico and Poland in the article, with pix. lol. 03:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction, the diatribe was about american-centricism, not northern european-centricism.

In this discussion page, there are users who couldn't contribute more examples of castles because the discriminatory/bias american powers that be prevent these contributions from being published. That's the american way.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 08:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well if you find it so objectionable here, and being as how you seem to have an issue with every single editor, why don't you go someplace else and promote Spanish castles and your own version of history? You might find that more productive. Love, CJ DUB (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like southern europeans, being that probably some southern european chick rejected you, why don't you go someplace else like stormfront to promote your hate or your explanantions as to why these girls don't want you? You might even make some friends there, finally. Also, you're not an editor. Ciao.

Ingrid4hubby (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Fortress palaces were found all over the ancient world long before they became identified with the word castle. You can find them in all ancient civilizations and it is from these ancient roots that castles originate. The Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians and many other cultures were building fortress palaces and temple complexes that featured towers, crenelations and moats long before the Middle Ages. A good example of this is the Ishtar Gate from Babylon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishtar_Gate. The early Muslims drew their inspirations from these older monuments, as well as influence from Rome to create numerous palace fortresses across Syria in the 8th century. Some examples of such a palace fotress are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qasr_al-Heer_al-Sharqi and http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f7/Qasr_Alheer_Alsharqi%2C_Syria.jpg/750px-Qasr_Alheer_Alsharqi%2C_Syria.jpg And it is from this tradition that the early Islamic Castles in Europe derive from. Note that all of these structures are labeled as Qasr, meaning fortress. And from these early castles in Europe originate the European tradition of Castle building. Another good example of this tradition is Ctesiphon in Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ctesiphon Big-dynamo (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Big-dynamo, you are right! I believe you should put that info in the article. It's your right to make that point clear that there are many other contributions that have been made to castle-building. And don't be afraid of the editors on here. They really don't own wiki - even though they are not impartial many times, which is unfair and contrary to wiki rules and the wiki spirit. Just remember that wiki is a place for everyone, including you. You are your own voice. Don't allow any one-sided editor make you think differently. And if you need help with getting references, just let me know and I'll help. Best of luck to you.

Tngaf (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are some perfectly reasonable suggestions made by Big-dynamo (they could perhaps be integrated into the antecedents section), but before they are added to the article they need to be backed up by references. This article is about castles rather than fortresses, and castles were belonged to the elite rather than town walls which surrounded everyone. Nev1 (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Big-dynamo, if you could get solid references about these castle structures, that would work towards the beneift of the article. Also, I know for a fact that there have been numerous structures built by the Babylonians, Persians, Egyptians, etc. that are categorized as castles by historians. There's no doubt about that.

And the definition of a castle does not involve 'elite ownership'. There have been numerous castles built for thousands of years that did not involve any reference as to who owned it that people used to judge such structures as castles. Why 'ownership' comes into play does not make sense. A castle is a castle, plain and simple. It does not matter if a king, vassal, or middle class person owned it.

Tngaf (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Big-dynamo didn't say they were castles, but palaces, fortresses, and walled towns which had influenced castles. Tngaf, would you please provide the definition of "castle" that you're working from with a reference that it's academically accepted? I think there may be some confusion here as castles were certainly owned by the social elite and that ownership was an important facet of being a castle. Nev1 (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Big-dynamo meant that the structures in the ancient world were castles but was not identified as such back when they were built. Nonetheless, they are still castles. Nev1, could you please provide us what your definition of castle is that you think everyone accepts? I think you're a bit confused since a castle is not defined by who owned it. People don't go around and say, "hey, that big place must be a castle since king william owned it". Or, "hey, that thing looks like a castle, but since a rich person never owned it, it must just be a house". People don't do that, neither do historians.

Tngaf (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it was an important facet, but by no means the only one. What's the definition you're working from? I can provide a few sources no problem, can you? Nev1 (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know why you're challenging me on such an insignificant point as to the definition of a castle. If you really want a definition, go look it up.

Tngaf (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious because you don't seem to know. I guess your evasion of my question proves that. Plus it's also pretty important to define what a castle is considering the subject of the article don't you think? Nev1 (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to know what the definition of a castle is, like I said before, look it up. Here, I'll help you: www.dictionary.reference.com

By you asking me what a castle is, this tells me that you don't know what it is. Before you edit the castle article, first, brush up on the definition of a castle. If you don't know what the definition of a castle is, then you shouldn't be editing the article.

Tngaf (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Again avoiding the question, proving my point. I'll ask you again in case you missed it: what definition are you using? I work from Friar's definition, but yours seems to be hopelessly pathetic. reference.com isn't a reliable source, I suggest that instead of dictionaries you read something serious on the subject. You might learn something if you open your mind. Nev1 (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is avoiding the question, but you're avoiding logic. You're stating something that isn't consistent. You originally stated that castles are defined by ownership. That's the same thing as saying that Ferraris are defined by who owns them. By your logic, a Ferrari is a Ferrari because a rich man can own one. So, if a middle class person owns one, it's can't be a Ferrari... it must be a Ford or a Chevy.

69.86.162.170 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the defining characteristics of a castles was that it was "a private fortified residence". Not only that, but owned by a feudal lord. If you disagree with this, take it up with the likes of Charles Coulson and R Allen Brown, historians and castle experts who have written just that. It's even written in the article. Please read it and make sure you understand what it says before you come here proudly displaying your ignorance. Nev1 (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

69.86.162.170 and T2M, please get lost. we all know you are sockpuppets of blocked user Ingrid4hubby aka Tngaf, Tngah and like 40 other aliases, ALL BLOCKED Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tngah/Archive. Stop wasting other user's time with your endless accounts and ingorant, bigoted prattle. Love, CJ DUB (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tngaf (talk · contribs) sockpuppet of banned user Ingrid4hubby (talk · contribs)

So who wants to request the investigation? Its pretty obvious our friend has found another IP. Didn't he/she have another sockpuppet banned too? CJ DUB (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Done -- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tngaf

This user has been busy with other investigations too into their disruptive edits and abusive comments. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tngah/Archive CJ DUB (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved to here. Thsi user has a sockfarm...lol funny term. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tngah Cheers, CJ DUB (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Historical context continued

The definition of the word castle in many dictionaries signifies a fortress, fortified town or fortified dwelling. It is impossible to claim that such originated in Europe at the dawn of the Middle Ages. Fortresses, palaces, fortified cities and dwellings have been found all over the ancient world for thousands of years. There isn't anything new about it and it is from this history that the modern European form of castle derives.

Another example of an early Medieval Islamic fortress/palace or castle:

Mshatta Umayyad Palace from the 8th century

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/Pergamonmuseum_Muschatta_01.jpg/450px-Pergamonmuseum_Muschatta_01.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/Mschatta-Fassade_%28Pergamonmuseum%29.jpg

Note the complex florals and mythical beasts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mshatta_facade

The following page lists the various encyclopedia definitions of castle and they all primarily mean fortress.

http://www.answers.com/topic/castle

Simply put trying to pretend that fortresses, palaces or any combination of both as a symbol of power and military strength originates in Europe is purely non historical fiction.

Another example of Islamic influence on the development of castles in Europe. http://www.castlesofspain.co.uk/Castles_of_Spain/Almansa_Detailed.html Big-dynamo (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but the article doesn't claim that, just take a look at the antecedents section. Dictionaries only give general definitions, and an academic definition of what a castle is has been added to the article, see defining features. Do you have a particular complaint? Nev1 (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you miss my point. The word castle may be associated with structures in Europe from the middle ages, but the form, purpose and style of those structures is derived from traditions thousands of years old. The word itself isn't the point, it is the purpose of that which it describes that I am getting at. Architecturally the form of the modern Castle in Europe is derived from older Cultures of the East, including Syria, Babylon, Persia and Egypt as these cultures had structures of this type upwards of thousands of years ago. The Islamic cultures of Spain, North Africa introduced the polylobed arch that features so prominently in many gothic structures, including castles. Therefore, while the article is about a European historical term and structure, the point should be made of the historical precedence of such structures from elsewhere from which the European tradition was inspired.

Moats, crenellations, defensive towers, draw bridges, arches, and curtain walls are thousands of years old by the time such features became common in European architecture. The Normans are known to have adopted many traditions from the Muslims of Sicily prior to moving into Northern Europe. Big-dynamo (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The antecedents section is only a start as more needs to be added, so if you've got reliable sources detailing the influence of eastern architecture, then go ahead and add them to the article. Certainly I think more needs to be added about the effect of the crusades on architecture on later castles, but I think you may be overstating the case of eastern influence in the early period. Nev1 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually my thought is to simply link to other wiki articles on fortresses, palaces, crenellations and some of the other early Islamic Spain and elsewhere that have been identified as castles. No need to beat a dead horse. Castle is a European phenomena in many ways but the roots are older and lay outside Europe.Big-dynamo (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Great. Why don't you go and start a page on castles that are not called castles in any european definitions? It would save a lot of time and arguments. The word "castle", its origin and the meaning are ALL EUROPEAN, including all the diminuitve forms in other european langauages. Those 'castles' you speak of in other countries are not called castles in English. If they were then it would be an imporer use of the language. Wait, what is this article written in again? Oh yeah wiki english. CJ DUB (talk) 17:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/castle CJ DUB (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-webster definition of castle(from link above:

1 a : a large fortified building or set of buildings b : a massive or imposing house 2 : a retreat safe against intrusion or invasion

The word may be European but the concept isn't.Big-dynamo (talk) 11:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Way to take the dictionary out of context. Forget what language the dictionary is in? The word and SENSE are european. There is no such thing as a "castle" in the other cultures you speak of, although they may have words which have the same meaning. CJ DUB (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The only sense in which castle is a European concept is the usage of certain architectural elements associated with fortresses that have been used in various manor houses, estates and royal residences that are purely cosmetic as opposed to functional. Hence a castle in that sense is strictly a residential building or manor for royalty or the landed gentry with various architectural elements in stone like towers, crenelations, gateways that have absolutely no military purpose other than cosmetic. The problem here is that most of the castles listed as castles are indeed true fortresses and therefore not simply royal residences. Fortress architecture did not originate in Europe and this includes all the features associated with them: crenelations, towers(square,round,octagonal), gateways, drawbridges, moats and so forth. Fortresses with palaces and residences for local chiefs is not something that originated in Europe either. There are plenty of localities in Spain named after the alcazabas, castillos or alcalas of local muslim chiefs. One example is Calatayud, which translates to "qala of Ayub". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calatayud Nor is the association with fortresses and places of worship. So while some European castles are truly simply royal residences with no military purpose, many are truly fortresses and those fortresses are not unique to Europe.

A good example of a fortress/palace with architectural elements echoed in later European castles from Ukhaidir in Iraq: http://www.archnet.org/library/images/thumbnails.jsp?location_id=9350, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ukhaidir_Fortress, http://wikimapia.org/1910193/al-ukhaidir-Fortress

With that said, I think the article itself does present a good description of the subject in general, with maybe a few minor issues in places that could be fixed with links to existing wiki pages. Big-dynamo (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you asserting that European castles are lordly residences which are fortified but have not actual military purpose? I feel like I'm missing something. The article states that the earliest fortifications – not castles – were developed in "the Fertile Crescent, the Indus Valley, Egypt, and China". More detail may be needed about specific features, but they need to be sourced. If you're asserting that moats, towers, gateways etc originate elsewhere you need to provide reliable sources to back it up. This article isn't about fortresses or palaces, but castles. Why don't you make some changes to the article so we can see what you mean as I honestly don't think I'm understanding. Then we can discuss them per WP:BRD. Nev1 (talk) 11:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Shiro

I can understand the logic of having so-called Japanese castles in the article titled "castle", however I'm not sure if it's appropriate. In none of the general books on castles I have at my disposal are they mentioned. So, at the risk of starting a storm in a teacup, I'm suggesting that Japanese castles are only mentioned in the see also section; this isn't a huge change from the status quo as the only information the article gives on shiro is that they "are considered castles" and "figure prominently in Japanese history, where the feudal daimyō inhabited them", and both points are unreferenced. Nev1 (talk) 12:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Further, I am sick of people hijacking this page to satisfy their defintion of castle in their own or other langauages. CJ DUB (talk) 00:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As it has been over a month since the suggestion and there has been no objection, I have removed mention of shiros. Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

I know that this is nitpicking, but from a visual/artistic point of view I don't like the combination of the pinkish "atmospheric" picture of Windsor Castle teamed with the clear crisp picture below it. While both are excellent pics, the combination does not do justice to either photo. Amandajm (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, they just didn't go together. I like what you've done, and the picture of Bodiam was a good find. Nev1 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Babylonian "fortifications"

So I added the following line, which was reverted with the following comment:

"It is in these ancient Eastern cultures, such as Babylon, that you see the earliest development of styles of fortifications that eventually would become part of castle architecture: battlements, city walls and even moats."

"no more promoting middle eastern ancient fortificationsn, they have 0 to do with)"

The comment has 0 merit as to why the comment was removed.

1) Wikipedia classifies castles as a type of fortification 2) Building fortifications do not originate in Europe 3) Babylon and cultures of the "middle east" have some of the oldest fortifications on the planet 4) This includes walls, towers, moats, crenelations, battlements and anything else associated with a fort.

So the point makes no sense. Look at the following page and see that wikipedia classifies castles as fortifications: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_fortifications Therefore, unless you can show that a castle is not a fortress your point is meaningless and is only reflective of a bias. You want to pretend that Castles in Europe are the beginning of building structures with walls, towers and moats but they aren't. People and civilizations have been building those for thousands of years and long before Europe. Kings, Queens, art, architecture, walls, towers, armies, battering rams, royal dress, royal ceremonies, art and culture do not originate in Europe. Nobody is trying to take castles from Europe, but castles are not the beginning of kings, queens, or structures with towers, walls, flags defensive structures and an association with royalty. That concept is thousands of years old. And the article itself states this. Therefore if the article states that the use of walls, towers and other elements originated in the "east" then how can you argue that this has 0 relevance? And yes, Babylon had moats and this was documented by the ancient Greeks as well as by recent excavations by archaeologists. In fact, the Ishtar gate and its associated elements (towers, crenelations,etc) were considered one of the seven wonders of the world until replaced by the Alexandria light house. And the walls of Babylon city and its defenses were famed throughout the ancient world up until their destruction by the Persians.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_first_wonder_of_the_world Herodotus on Babylon: http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/Herobab.html

You are making a big deal out of nothing. Big-dynamo (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, please go away. Castles are fortifications. They are also buildings. Why don't we mention how the building of barns in the fertile crescent 7000 years ago, are the reason WHY THERE ARE CASTLES IN EUROPE? Get it yet? Castles in europe may have babylonian influence, but the middle east in no way influenced the origin of castles in europe. CJ DUB (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You said yourself there was Babylonian influence on Europe. So why do you object to specifics of that influence? The sentence added to the article only pointed out specific forms of influence from THE EAST on Europe: towers, crenelations, etc. These things influenced Greece, Rome and then the rest of Europe. And of course, if you look up the Middle East on Wikipedia you will see that it encompasses what is called the fertile crescent. Therefore, your argument about the fertile crescent as being separate from the Middle east is simply wrong. Again, I see nothing here that justifies the removal of one sentence other than POV on your part, which has nothing to do with historical fact. Architecture for buildings used as fortresses, no matter what they are called, did not originate in Europe. It developed in the EAST: Egypt, Elam, Sumer, Assyria, Babylon and Persia. All these cultures over thousands of years practiced warfare and developed the forms of architecture necessary for warfare and defense. None of that comes from Europe, no matter what you want to call it. Some examples:

Ashurbanipal's campaign against Susa is triumphantly recorded in this relief showing the sack of Susa in 647 BC. Here, flames rise from the city as Assyrian soldiers topple it with pickaxes and crowbars and carry off the spoils.

CampaignColumn base; from Kef Kalesi, Adilcevaz, Eastern Turkey; reign of King Rusa II (685-645 BC); Urartu; The god Haldi stands on a lion, holding in his left hand a bowl and in his right hand a spearhead (or a plant); Museum of Anatolian Civilizations, Ankara, Turkey

9th cent. BC relief of an Assyrian attack on a walled town with battlements

Big-dynamo (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Wikipedia doesn't define castles (it's not a reliable source), but the sources used to provide the definition use in the article define a castle as a private fortified residence. There are of course exceptions, on ocassions castles were built by cities rather than local lords, but it's a rule of thumb that is generally accepted in castelology. They were not solely military institutions, as the Castle Studies Group tries to make clear. Fortresses and castles are two different things, although castles were a type of fortification, it cannot be stressed enough that they were not just military buildings.

Please note that the article does not claim that the concept of fortifications originated in Europe. Far from it, as it states "The earliest fortifications originate from the Fertile Crescent, the Indus Valley, Egypt, and China where settlements were protected by large walls". I completely agree that credit should be given where it is due, however I believe that CJ DUB was correct in his reversion, although his explanation is not necessarily one I would agree with. The important issue here is that of weight and whether too much emphasis is being placed on early fortifications that are not castles. I think it is enough to say that fortifications originated in the east, without needing to list every element developed there.

Big-Dynamo's addition repeated what had earlier been stated in the article, in the same paragraph no less, and while I appreciate the attempt at sourcing, the website used as a reference does not state that they influenced European casltes or that elements such as moats originated in the east. Drawing this kind of conclusion unfortunately ventures in the realm of original research. Also, it's interesting to note that it says "The moat system that envelopes the city was only part of the hydraulic systems that were developed and executed in the urban scale, so it wasn’t only for military purposes". Nev1 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually my point was about specific elements of architecture associated with defensive structures that do not originate in Europe. You have not addressed that at all. Simply put, as you said, the article mentions the origins of fortifications in the East. However, I am not just talking about fortifications, I am talking about architecture. And no, the Europeans did not "reinvent" towers, crenelation, or any such things all by themselves in the Middle Ages. If you actually read any history books you would know that "the East" was well known by all who knew anything about anything in Europe. Babylon was made famous by the Bible as well as accounts by other ancient writers. The Greeks wrote about it, the Romans wrote about it and both were influenced by it. In fact Rome in the later periods was located in the East(Turkey). Likewise kings from Europe traveled to the courts and palaces of the East like Abbasid Babylon and even wrote about it. Not to mention that the great migrations were partly made up of people from the East, like Scythians and others who also bore such traditions into Europe. Therefore, the idea that Western Europe suddenly sprang up out of nowhere with no influence from ancient civilizations in and outside Europe is ridiculous. And the people most responsible for bringing the ancient traditions defensive architecture of the East into Western Europe were the Muslims, who were led by Princes from Syria and Baghdad, which were very important centers for fusion of ancient Eastern architectural styles with more modern traditions. And they built some of the Earliest structures in Western Europe with architectural elements later found in Castles. And as part of their rule in Spain, they had provinces ruled by Amirs or Sharifs(sheriffs) who built fortified residences and palaces as symbols of their rule. The east was the origin of much "Western" architecture, including church architecture and much of it was directly influenced by ancient Persian and other Near Eastern cultures. One example is Armenia and the ancient churches there. If I really wanted to go into detail on how moats are ancient parts of defensive fortifications, I could easily provide suitable sources. Needless to say your claim of moats not being part of any sort of hydraulic system is purely your own made up definition. And it is not original research as I am not the one writing the books and excavating the sites. The point is that the word moat used to refer to a defensive structure filled with water was written about in reference to Babylon by Herodatus and confirmed by modern excavations by scholars. In many ways, the later Roman walls of Constantinople (in the East) are partly influenced directly by Babylon, including the MOAT around the city. As I said, you are splitting hairs and my point is specific to things like towers (square, circle, octogonal or otherwise) and defensive walls which do not originate in Europe no matter what you want to call the structures they are part of. This isn't an issue of labels it is an issue of architecture. No matter how you slice it, what you call it or how you try and spin it, towers, crenelations, defensive walls and other forms of defensive architecture do not originate in Europe. Please name some scholars who even try to claim this.

One sentence cannot give undue weight to an entire article if it is only providing detail on what was already said in a more general fashion. Big-dynamo (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, no one is claiming that Europe wasn’t influenced by the East, what is disputed is what has been added to the article and how it was sourced. I disagree that it's necessary to list the individual elements as you did, because I don't believe it adds anything and gives undue weight to the subject, however I could be convinced otherwise on this. The second point is more important I feel as I do not object to using an example to illustrate the point that the earliest fortifications – yes, including the different elements developed in them – originated outside Europe, however poor sourcing means that it will be removed. So far the sources you have provided have not been up to scratch.

You claimed that elements such as moats were developed in the East. Since the one source you provided doesn’t make that claim and did not mention castles or medieval Europe, to present your conclusion from it constitutes original research. The one time Europe is mentioned is in relation to artists inspired by Babylon. I am not claiming that moats etc did not originate in the East, but the article needs to be properly sourced and the burden of proof is on whoever adds the information. Also, I did not claim that moats are not part of a hydraulic system, I quoted the source you provided and meant to highlight that the moat around Babylon probably wasn’t only for military purposes, linking back to my earlier point that castles are not just about warfare.

You say you can provide many sources, well please do and make sure they are good quality and support your assertions, because while the previous source mentioned a moat around Babylon, it did not assert that such elements had been developed in the East. Please re-read what I said, as I don’t think you’ve understood it. Nev1 (talk) 14:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

....and I'm going to throw a tantrum....

....if you don't find a place for my picture....

Leeds Castle, Kent photographed by AJM, 2006

....you can just leave it here on the talk page if you like. It's surely worth talking about....Amandajm (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be a shame not to find a use for such a good picture, but because it's a panorama, it could be problematic. Perhaps we could stick it at the end of the landscape section. That quote would be worth tracking down and would make a good caption too. Nev1 (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes

As you may or may not be aware, the default thumbnail size is in the process of being changed from 180px to 220px. This will mean that the image sizes here using upright multiples will all need re-adjusting. I would strongly advise you take this opportunity to abandon the upright multiple system altogether. Like all other users with a 300px preference setting set, I see upright x 2 as 600px wide - for me the lead text is in lines of four words each, as is the text opposite the Bayeux tapestry image, and these images are larger than standard postcards - try setting your prefs for a moment to 300 & see how it looks (I'll do the lead below)! I am not the only one who feels that is a nonsense that we have two different methods of adjusting picture size that have unintended multiplicatory effects when both come together, & I'm hopeful that the upright multiple system will be abolished, or reserved for special situations, eventually; fortunately very few articles use it. I like big images - in fact if I log out the images on the default setting seem rather too small, but 600px is too much. The MoS says "On Wikipedia, most pictures should be displayed so they are between 100 and 400 pixels wide" ands "An image should generally be no more than 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so it can be comfortably displayed next to the text on the smallest displays in common use", which is being breached here for those with the 300px setting. I'd just fix them at figures up to 400px Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How it looks to me

Alcázar of Segovia in Spain

Bodiam Castle in Sussex, England, was described as "an old soldier's dream house" in 1960s although its defences are now considered more ornamental than practical.

A castle (from Latin castellum) is a defensive structure seen as one of the main symbols of the Middle Ages. The term has a history of scholarly debate surrounding its exact meaning, but it is usually regarded as being distinct from the general terms fort or fortress, in that it describes a residence of a monarch or noble and commands a specific defensive territory.

Roman forts and hill forts were the main antecedents of castles throughout Europe, which emerged in the 9th century in the Carolingian Empire. The advent of cannon and gunpowder in the mid-13th century changed the needs of warfare in Europe, limiting the effectiveness of the castle and leading to the rise of the fort.

Johnbod (talk) 16

02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for explaining the issue Johnbod. I'm not really familiar with the ratio option and it's Amandaj, who has been adding them. I think the pictures do need to be fixed at a large size (400px seems reasonable to me) as at the default size often details aren't clear. Now it's been explained, I'd have no objections if you went through and changed the sizes yourself, as long as Amandajm doesn't mind. Of course, it's not satisfactory to have images 600px, so something has to be done. Nev1 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

PS. Watch this space: this article is going to FAC soon and any and all input is welcome. Nev1 (talk) 18:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, if it's all the same I'll leave it for a few days as I've just cited the article as it is as an example in this discussion - actually I'll fix my link to the article as it is now. Frankly I think the upright multiple option has been "mis-sold". But it should be fixed before going to FAC. Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments

I think this is pretty good, but some comments based on a quickish skim:

As a social etc centre. The text rightly says "recent trends to view castles less as military institutions and more as social structures has lead to calling into question the current definition" - but there is little on this (obviously huge) subject.

In other cultures. The Japanese castles presumably have no direct connection, but are certainly a remarkable case of parallel evolution. I would add a section on them and other cases, such as the Tibetan/Bhutanese Dzong architecture (fortified monasteries, still the centre of all government offices in Bhutan), and distinguishing them from Kremlins and Chinese city walls etc, which are much larger citadels or fortified cities. The see also section could largely be cleared out. Perhaps mention briefly "fortresses" into WWI, with links - 1914 invasion of Belgium etc.

Maybe a section on some major sieges, successful & unsuccessful, which define the rise & fall of the castle.

An OR thought. Historians are very apt to be rude about the practical utility of some late medieval fortifications. Just because eg an English castle could not expect to survive a siege by a royal army with cannon & other machinery does not mean it might not provide great comfort in the face of a persistent low-key threat from rag-tag bands of retainers of some local magnate, or revolting peasants, minor rebellions, roving bands of Scots or Welsh raiders etc etc. See the Paston Letters. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and for just a quick skim they're pretty pertinent. I disagree that there's not much on castles as social centres rather than military institutions: the landscapes section is pretty much about how castles affected the area around them in a non-military sense. I also thought that the information about licenses made it clear that castles were important as status symbols. This is one example of how the social side is integrated into the article rather than hidden away in a separate section (landscapes is a different section because it doesn't necessarily fit into the chronological nature of the history section, but is a very important subject). Another is the use of brick, or the great cost of castle building in stone (although this is more implied). More may need to be woven into the article though as, for example, Cathcart King (one of the sources I have relied heavily on) is writing before the change of views of the 1990s. Thinking about it (completely OR in this instance) Coulson is one of the new breed of historians emphasising the non-military side of the castle, and yet he didn't mention its role as a status symbol when recounting the castle's origins, so there is still a lot of inherent bias for castle historians to counter.

Shiro may be castle like, but I have yet to come across a source that calls them proper castles. And while I have naturally tended towards sources in English, so with a bias towards England, the journal Chateau Gaillard is an international publication with articles in several languages and a leading castellology periodical. From a skim of the contents page of about a dozen of their journals (there aren't very many as it's biannual and has only been going since the early 60s), Japanese "castles" are not mentioned. This isn't exhaustive, but if it were a part of castle studies, I would have expected at least one article to show up as there are dozens on Denmark, which isn't especially know for its castles. Equally, I have not found a source that explicitly states that shiro are not castles, although I suspect that this is because it's easier to define what is a castle than list everything that is not. Any source seriously discussing Japanese "castles" would have to start with an explanation of why they should be considered castles and that would have to be explained in this article, however I wonder if it can be found. An offhand description somewhere of shiro as castles is not enough, because it could be lazy writing and the explanation is perhaps the most important part. Until someone can provide a good source about it (and I have looked myself with little success), I don't think they can be included in the article despite their apparent similarities. That's what the see also section is for. That said, I'd love to get rid of the see also section (I think it should at least be trimmed with a heavy hand) as I don't think it's terribly helpful and is prone to sprawl.

While I can understand mentioning WWI (some castles such as Pevensey were refortified with pill boxes) I think it's important to refer back to the definition of a castle: "a private fortified residence". Although Pevensey was refortified, it was more due to the importance of its location than anything else, and it was a state initiative rather than that of a feudal lord. Refortification might deserve brief mention in the revival section (which would have to be given a broader title to include modern usage).

Despite the obvious use of castles in warfare (some wars were essentially just a series of sieges), after reading about a dozen sources I don't feel that a section on defining sieges would work, mainly because you don't get many defining sieges. One of the most important sieges in medieval warfare was the siege of Constantinople in the 1450s where the power of the cannon was demonstrated to all of Christendom. But that wasn't a castle siege, it was a city. The innovations in castle technology weren’t the result of a single siege, and as is evident from the innovation and scientific design section, change was often slow to happen in any case.

Regarding your final point, you're right (I recall seeing something very similar written elsewhere, I should have made a note of it) and it had occurred to me that I have neglected Scottish and Irish tower houses and bastles which were built along the as late as the 17th century to give protection against raids but aren't considered true castles because they're not "seriously" fortified, but that should be fairly easily fixed with an extra sentence or two. Nev1 (talk) 18:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you've covered landscaping & castles as status symbols, but nothing on castles as centres of administration, justice, and social and cultural life. Courtly love, and the much-hyped role of the chatelaine running the castle while her husband was away crusading or whatever. Nor anything on the touring lifestyle of medieval monarchs and magnates. There also is only a few words on the (very diffuse) topic of how well garrisoned castles were kept - contrary to the popular image many seem to have had next to no effective military personnel in place most of the time; other were kept well-garrisoned. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the history section is more focussed on changes in the structure rather than what happened within its walls. I'm not sure if the section should be expanded and the information integrated or if it should be given a separate section. The current layout of the history section makes sense in my opinion, and the administrative role might not fit into a chronological timeframe, but I'm concerned that by separating the information into another section it may seem peripheral. What approach do you think would be better? Nev1 (talk) 22:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a section before or after the landscape one would work well. Court (royal) is pretty poor, but should be linked. I think we are generally pretty poor in this sort of area. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How's this for the defensive practicality of some later castle like structures? Also, I have some more information on garrisons ready to add to the article (I just need to copy and paste from Word) and I was going to add it to the warfare section, but it feels too hidden away. It's a popular misconception that castles had large garrisons all the time, and I'm tempted to move the section higher, but I'm wary of giving it more weight that the aspects of symbolism and administration. As an alternative, would it be enough to mention the garrison in the warfare section, leaving it where it is, but make a note in the lead?

As for the social and administrative role of the castle, part of the problem is that castellology is dominated by archaeologists. Stuff related to the workings of the court doesn't leave much of an impression on the archaeological record, at least not when compared to the military and symbolic side (especially landscapes). Therefore, research in this area is a bit sparse, as demonstrated by leafing through John Kenyon's bibliographies. The most promising source look like J & F Gies' Life in a Medieval Castle (1975) and Johnson's Behind the Castle Gate, although I've been able to make a start with some of the books I already have. Nev1 (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC) 

And how's this for the social side of castles and lordship? Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've provisionally made this edit regarding the garrison. Nev1 (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• The new section is certainly an improvement, but some rather expected, if still worth saying. There is a lot on this from the literary angle, especially from the French - the chatelaine left in charge as princesse lointaine and so on. I've been meaning to sit down with Georges Duby ed.,A History of Private Life, Vol 2 Revelations of the Medieval World, 1988 (English translation), Belknap Press, Harvard U, pp. 397-423 "Civilizing the Fortress, C11-C13" & 470-475 on the Palais des Papes, surely the grandest castle residence to survive largely intact (it was actually besieged for several months). Both look good on the interaction of design & social rather than military requirements. Johnbod (talk) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added some stuff on the chatelaine (although I've not used that name as it can also refer to the keys to the household and I don't want to overcomplicate things by having to explain the significance of that). You're right about that more is needed on the influence of the household on architecture, such as the great hall. I think I should be able to find something on that. The library I'm using only has volumes 1 and 4 of A History of Private Life, so any assistance in that respect would be very welcome. That said, Palais des Papes is a papal palace, if the source describes it as a castle then fair enough, it would make a great example, but otherwise I’d be wary of including it. In fairness, even buildings called castles aren't necessarily castles, so being called a palace doesn't preclude Palais des Papes being a castle. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a point they make, saying it's a fortified palace, like the medieval Louvre, the Château de Vincennes (which still looks like a castle) & others. I'll try to add a bit; of course they are mostly using French examples. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

French examples would be great. I think a statement on how expansive the architecture could get (backed up with an example or two) in the social centre section would perhaps round it off well not that I've added some more without getting off topic. Nev1 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

More pre-FAC comments...

Concerns -

• I"ve thrown up cite needed tags where I felt they could be done.
• You need to account for English royal castles, which are classified as castles but were not owned by a "feudal lord". Also applies in Normandy, where they are "ducal castles". Although English castles were often built by local magnates, they were held to be the king's and the kings went to great lengths to ensure they could control the castles, thus making them outside the "definition" being used here. Almost all the Welsh castles of Edward I were royal constructions, not by local lords, so are they no longer "castles"?

Well according to the confected definition being insisted upon here, those structures in Wales are actually "fortresses" whose names include the word ".... Castle".122.106.255.204 (talk) 04:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought this too - also most Crusader Kingdom castles belonged to the orders or the monarch, even if a lord was sometimes appointed to run them. I suspect the same may be true of other places, especially for those built to control strategic points. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Origins
  • Ooooh... Problem. There is now a school of historical thought that isn't sure that "feudal" society developed in the 9th-10th century. It's not so simple as it was once thought. (see Susan Reynolds)
  • "Previously, warfare in western Europe was mostly infantry based, however mounted fighting developed." Developed when? Why? Context is missing and this sentence doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
  • "not introduced to the British Isles until the 11th century by the Normans, shortly before their invasion of England in 1066" hm... a bit too simplistic here. Better to say "introduced into England shortly before the Norman Conquest in 1066" and leave out the other bits, as some feel that it was the English lords that introduced them, or the English king who introduced the Normans who introduced the castles. Stick with simple here.
  • "The motte and bailey – a motte with an outer enclosure – remained the dominant form of castle in England, Wales, and Ireland well into the 12th century, although after 1154 it was very rare for a motte castle to be built in England." Makes no sense. Either it was rare after 1154 or it wasn't, and if it wasn't. While I understand what you're trying to say here... it needs a better way of wording it.
  • Isn't the White Tower in London a donjon???
  • "Although England suffered internal strife such as the civil war during the reign of King Stephen (1135–1154), states such as England, Castile, and parts of Scandinavia were generally free of this localised warfare between lords due to strong monarchies." Again, confusing, because you first mention civil war in England then negate that by saying it was generally free of civil war. Better to do something like "Generally states such as England, Castile and the Scandinavian countries were free of localized warfare between lords due to their strong monarchies, England did suffer a small period of warfare during the reign of King Stephen." When, incidentally, a number of local castles were built by lords. Also, Scandinavia and strong monarchies in this time frame? Really?
• Sourcing... this ties into the above. The R. Allen Brown book is really just a reprint of the revised 1977-76 edition and you need to be careful in using it for information as some of it has been superceded or at least challenged to some degree. And do not use Tuchman, she's a popular historian and will not pass must at FAC in regards to the "high quality" sources given how much else is available. I strongly suggest obtaining a few more of the "further reading" books and using them to some degree.

I disagree that Tuchman, Barbara (1979), A distant mirror : the calamitous 14th century, Macmillan, ISBN 0333197526 is unacceptable as such at FAC. At least Wilkinson, Philip (1997), Castles, DK Children, ISBN 978-0789420473 no longer seems to be used, & could be removed! Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with Tuchman, but there are some others who probably will (it might not get raised, but it should be easy to source to other more scholarly sources). Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tuchman had notoriously sloppy research in A distant mirror, she was not a medieval scholar. That said, it doesn't mean she is automatically wrong, but if one were to use her as a source, there should be a secondary source to back it up, in which case why use Tuchman at all... Green Cardamom (talk) 07:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sourcing cont. - Suggest trolling through the Royal Historical Society Bibliography on Castles for additonal sources.

These are just some off the cuff comments, I really dont' have time to do an indepth reading so concentrated on the areas I'm most familiar with. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the comments Ealdgyth, I'll get to work on them. While it is correct that Allen Brown has been challenged, it is often more in regard to his interpretation of castles as primarily military structures and his opinion that the 13th century Edwardian castles were the pinnacle of castle building, after which it declined. Despite this, his seminal book is still relevant, and there's a spirited defence at the start of the 2004 reprint. When using Allen Brown as a source I did so with caution that his ideas could be outdated. For instance, the definition of castles he framed is still widely used today, although often with caveats and clauses that make it much less memorable. As a general rule, it works most of the time. Perhaps one instance in which I failed to exercise enough discretion regarding Allen Brown as a source is the link with feudalism. (Also, Allen Brown includes kings in feudalism, thereby getting round the problem of royal castles. Royal castles most certainly are castles, and it is my poor explanation of feudalism that has generated a problem, but hopefully it should be easily fixed. It's lucky you pointed that out as I knew what I meant, but reading it again it needs some work.)

I'm happy to get rid of the Tuchman reference as it adds nothing to the article and I was left wondering what made her a reliable source and was toying with the idea of removing her as a reference anyway. There's already the example of how many people it took to build Beaumaris Castle so another is not necessary. Thanks for the link to the RHS bibliography; I had looked through John Kenyon's three-volume bibliography (which I really should have added to the further reading section), but while a fourth is planned it isn't out yet and the current lot runs out at about 1989. While the article has a 19-strong bibliography, I'm assuming you're concerned that the article relies on eight or nine books in particular. As I've already mentioned, Allen Brown is a good introduction and still relevant although should be treated with caution. Cathcart King is given a lot of weight but, I feel, with good reason. He fills in a few gaps that many English authors have overlooked, especially beyond Britain. In the course of building this article I've found that many English language sources focus on England, with little context, however Cathcart King is much more broad. (This is presumably because he's a polyglot and has a wider range of sources to work from than most authors. When he quotes a German or French source he doesn't bother to translate so seems to take it for granted that it's legible. It's annoying, but my only real objection to his work.) Although he was writing in the 1980s, he is still very relevant and I believe that is backed up by Coulson 2003, Castles in Medieval Society, who seems to agree with much of what Cathcart King says, although Coulson puts stronger emphasis on the role of symbolism in castle architecture so I'll go back to his book to bring a little more of the social side of castle development to the article. That said, Johnbod has raised some points above that will probably lead to the addition of further sources to the article.

While a wide range of source is of course desirable, I could use four different sources to back up the same sentence which seems superfluous when one would suffice. Friar is used a lot because in most books on castles terms such as curtain wall, donjon, machicolations etc are taken for granted, but the Friar book gives a brief description of the features of a castle (along with a lot of other stuff) and is a very useful reference. Friar is the perfect book with which it establish what is essentially the vocabulary of castle studies (essentially the common features section and the explanation of concentric fortification) without being either too brief or too detailed, and in the process of doing so he gives some examples of a type of site or something that is used as a supplement elsewhere in the article. While I have chosen to defend a few of the sources used in the article here, it is because I was aware that I was using them a lot as I was building the article and thinking “is this justifiable”. I think the answer is yes because these books are generally not outdated and are still referred to in castle studies, while something like Friar provides a central point to refer back to for the basics. The sources have been used discriminatingly, for example while Cathcart King's books are in my opinion fine sources, they do not focus on stuff like how the castle affected its landscape. That is a more modern development (1990s onwards), and authors such Robert Liddiard and Oliver Creighton are at the forefront of such subject areas so I think it's acceptable to use them as the main sources in such sections.

Finally, I'm not sure what you mean about the White Tower. It is a donjon, and it's only mentioned once in the article when it's described as a keep, but the two terms are essentially synonymous. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The section on Origins I was reading implied that the donjon type didn't start up in England until later.... the "The elaboration of the main tower in this period is also demonstrable in England, with the construction of sites such as Castle Rising in 1138." gives the impression that this must be the first donjon type in England, since you mention it instead of an earlier one. As for the sourcing, be prepared to be grilled on why you didn't use a particular source when you get to FAC. (For an example see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mandell Creighton/archive1) It's becoming a trend... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Crikey, I'd not seen that! However destructively put, I think his question is a very valid one about what seems to be the only major modern book on a small topic, like most on FAC (increasingly so). If one of your medieval guys had recently received a quasi-full-length biography, I'm sure you wouldn't FAC him without using it. But this is a big, big topic, and I don't myself believe that any single book can be considered indispensible in this way. Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a very big difference I think, in that the topic of that book is the Creighton's marriage, not Mandell Creighton per se. However, I digress. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The "quasi-" above was for that. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Right, I see. It would be easiest to get rid of Castle Rising as an example and just explain in the image caption that Castle Rising was one such donjon in the more elaborate style. Would that make it clearer? The section doesn't imply that donjons were a new development does it? It's not meant to as they were more an evolution of existing keeps. I'm prepared to justify my choice of sources; it is something I've thought about while writing the article as there are so many books on the subject. Nev1 (talk) 22:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it implies that donjon's were a new development or not, I've read quite a lot since then. (For my sins, not only do I have MC above, but I have Catholic Church on my watchlist too... and am involved in trying to stay abreast of things there.) I was just wanting to point out to you the possible pitfalls before you hit FAC (grins). HOpefully, I'll have time to hit the article with a good readthrough in the next couple of days. But the whole feudal treatment is a bit too simplistic and I really suggest at least attempting to read a couple of very recent overview works on military/social history before going to FAC. Morillo's Warfare under the Anglo-Norman Kings treats castles and warfare in their whole context, as does Prestwich's Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages: the English Experience, which might give a bit more background. And Johnbod's going to be excellent on the art/architecture background here, I'd listen carefully to what he has to say (He's who I pester about those subjects before I go to FAC). Kaufman & Kaufman's The Medieval Fortress is also excellent and has a wider range than just England, as well as discussing forts and cities in combination with castles. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I got hold of Reynold's book, but it's probably not the best place to start as it doesn't seem to deal with the origins of castles. In her own words, the purpose of the book "is most emphatically not to prove feudal-vassalic relations or institutions were less important than is generally thought, nor to trace their rise or say when and where they appeared... These seem to me meaningless subjects. My object is to explore modern concepts of the fief and of vassalage on the one hand and the evidence of property law and of social and political relations that I find in medieval source on the other" (p. 14). The part in italics (my own emphasis) makes me think that while she may have heralded a change towards the subject of feudalism, what I am looking for is elsewhere, and as such I have not properly read the book. I'll keep looking. Nev1 (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't personally agree with the statement that "Generally states such as England, Castile, and the Scandinavian countries were free of localized warfare between lords due to their strong monarchies, England did suffer a small period of warfare during the reign of King Stephen", but that is essentially what Martin Aurell says. I don't know much about Scandinavia or Castile, but England suffered a few rebellions by barons so the assertion doesn't quite ring true for me. But it's a multi-author volume and part of a series with a main editor so presumably Aurell isn't on his own in that opinion. I'd be happy to remove the statement, although I think the preceding sentence (ie: "Historians have interpreted the widespread presence of castles across Europe in the 11th and 12th centuries as evidence that warfare was common, and usually between local lords") needs an alternative view to balance it. I'm sure Charles Coulson will have something to say on the matter. Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to sort out the explanation of feudalism, but hopefully this edit makes things a little clearer. I don't want to go into too much detail because although import, it could get a little off topic. I'm letting Charles Coulson take the lead in this instance as he's pretty recent (2003) so should be on top of the arguments about the origins of feudalism etc. He is slightly reluctant to use the term, and sometimes it's almost conspicuous in its absense, but I think this reflects how the argument about the origins of feudalism impacts on castle studies. Nev1 (talk) 00:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Progress?

How far have Ealdgyth's and Johnbod's concerns been addressed? If I can get the thumbs up from both, I'd like to take the article to FAC (I've started copy editing to iron out the prose). Nev1 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to add more, from Duby & maybe another book, but they will not be huge additions & things seem slow at FAC these days, so don't wait for me. Johnbod (talk) 05:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You've addressed most of my concerns. One thing you might point out is that castles aren't just built by laymen, but by churchmen also. Bishops and abbots held castles in England, and built them. (In fact, Rochester Castle was built by a bishop and there are several other bishops who were known as architects of castles). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Chapultepec Castle - inclusion dispute/discuss

In Mexico, the 18th-century Chapultepec Castle was built in the Gothic Revival style, and utilized a central tower, turrets, merlons, < ref >"File:DSC00621.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". En.wikipedia.org. 2006-11-19. Retrieved 2009-11-12.< /ref > and a mock curtain wall of rock.< ref >http://www.luxuriousmexico.com/wwwluxuriousmexico/Luxurious%20Mexico/Circuits/Deluxe%20fascinating%20Mexico/The%20Chapultepec%20Castle%20in%20Mexico%20City%20Photo%20by%20visitmexico.jpg< /ref >< ref >http://alpha.furman.edu/~rfriis/chapultepec-castle.jpg< /ref >< ref >Antecedentes históricos (in Spanish), Museo nacional de historia, retrieved 2009-11-05< /ref >

This was killed as wp:OR. While I can't agree with that argument, I do support the removal. The castle has its own article, and we already have a list of castles. That seems adequate coverage. I don't see how its addition here helps this article, which is large... and there are many, many *MANY* castles, many of which have wonderful stories... and they can't all be listed here. I oppose its addition unless there is more reason to include than meets the eye.- Sinneed 04:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - it's certainly not Gothic Revival (except the gatehouse), but castle-like. It gets points for being perhaps the only castle bombarded by the US army (Spanish link), but ultimately I have to agree with Sinneed. I couldn't get link 2 to work. Johnbod (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it has an article of its own means nothing, and there is no search for "coverage". Every other structure listed also has an article of it's own and is listed as well. The fact that it is in North America, however, is to its benefit - Is the aim of this article only to cover those structures in Europe? There's no reason for that. C.Kent87 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed Chapultepec Castle as original research because the sources did not specifically state that it was part of castle revivalism. This may seem overly pedantic as the sources do state it's Gothic, but revival castles were only one part of the Gothic Revival. The sources for the current examples explicitly link them to the revival movement and were influenced by castle architecture. Pictures were produced as sources, but that is precisely what original research is: drawing your own conclusions from the evidence. Sure, Chapultepec has turrets and crenelations, but who are we to say that the architect wasn't inspired by the walls of Constantinople or a Roman fort, or hadn't been to the east and seen the fortifications there? It isn't enough that Chapultepec is called a castle as Maiden Castle is just one examples of many structures that are called castles but are most definitely not. The vast majority of people who use Wikipedia (both readers and writers) are not experts, and that's why Wikipedia has its no original research policy.

Even sourced properly, the inclusion of Chapultepec had started to turn the later use and revival castles section into a glorified list, and I also agree with its removal for that reason. Nev1 (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking the same, the only difference being that the "glorified list" was of British castles. Assuredly, it is not exclusive to that area of the world. There is also no weight in your equation of it to a mound in the countryside. And there are sources on architects who worked on Chapultepec and other revival castles. Those architects specialized in Medieval and Gothic revivalism. In other words: Castle architecture. Also interesting is that Chapultepec Castle was built by Maximilian I of Mexico - of the House of Habsburg whose Wittelsbach cousin built Neuschwanstein Castle - twenty years after. Also as a source states "...Gothic was especially suited to this aim. Scores of houses with battlements and turrets in the style of a castle were built in England during the last years of the 18th century."[10] How is Chapultepec any different? As I've stated before, a reason for its inclusion would be the fact that its in North America - to explore the Castles infuence on other parts of the world. C.Kent87 (talk) 04:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an argument for inclusion there.- Sinneed 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

There are many connections between other revival castles and Chapultepec - "...Carl Gangolf Kayser, an Austrian architect who worked for the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico was member of the sculpture class at the Academy of Fine Arts of Vienna and Munich. Later he specialized in Mediaeval and Gothic revival architecture. [11] He worked on castles such as Kreuzenstein, Hardegg, and Liechtenstein Castle and was one of the architects that planned Chapultepec Castle.

It is also a fact that Chapultepec Castle and Neuschwanstein Castle (the very castle pictured in the article), along with Herrenchiemsee Castle, were planned by a common architect, Julius Hofmann [12], others being Ramon Rodriguez Arangoity, Manuel Agustín Mascaró, and Eleuterio Méndez. Chapultepec has even been used as a model of castle architecture to design other buildings such as the 13th Regiment Armosry (Sumner Armory), Bed Stuy, Brooklyn [13] - An 1894 article [14] calls it "fortress-like" which, naturally, is because it had been a fortress in the past - That was the medieval origins of a castle, no? As for the "storming" of the Castle of Chapultepec - It was "carried out by the United States troops, who, after severe hand-to-hand fighting, penetrated to the fortress and made their way to the turret, to haul down the banner upon which the colours of Mexico, and the eagle, serpent and cactus were displayed." [15]. Chapultepec is absolutely "part of castle revivalism" as User:Nev1 puts it, and as to expand the knowledge of the reader about Castle revivalism - and its influence on other countries - should be included.. C.Kent87 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is all very interesting, and seems to be a great justification for, and possibly content for the article on the structure itself. But it already has an article. I read your post on my talk page (I encourage you to make them here, you don't need to convince me, you need to convince the community), and I think I understand your points, and see them as interesting, but I don't see them as swaying me to agree with your case that this structure needs to be listed here.- Sinneed 07:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Why does any structure need to be listed? (And that is not sarcasm) They are included in this article so that the reader can understand the scope of castle revivalism and to learn it's influence. The inclusion of Chapultepec Castle in Mexico would illustrate the "later use" as the title implies - it was a North American Castle used to house sovereignty - and the only one with that designation. It would illustrate to the reader that Castle-influenced architecture had a life outside of Britain and other European countries. The inclusion of the British castles is great. Inclusion of those in other areas would make it even better. Chapultepec Castle is the best candidate for that. C.Kent87 (talk) 07:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide a source explicitly stating that Chapultepec is part of castle revivalism? I have already explained in this thread why those links you just provided constitue original research. Nev1 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to look at the refs again, but it seems pointless to deny that the building is indeed a revival castle-ish palace. But as to whether it should be mentioned here, it's best claim is surely that it was attacked, defended, & actually stormed by the US army, which the architect surely never anticipated or planned for. A couple of lines on the irony of this would make an amusing point. Johnbod (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Some text was re-added, with one bad source and one that just doesn't seem to help. I killed the photography site... pretty pictures but it isn't an authority on castles that I can see. The other is a mention of the museum that is in the castle today. I am not killing this, but I don't support its being added.- Sinneed 08:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'photography site' listed biographical information about Carl Gandolf Kayser (and a hundred others) - "Born February 12, 1837 in Vienna, died September 2, 1895. He was an Austrian architect and worked for the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, a member of the sculpture class at the Academy of Fine Arts of Vienna and Munich. Specialized in Medieval and Gothic revival architecture, announced as court architect for Mexican Emperor, planned the remodelling of the Palacio Nacional in Mexico City and Chapultepec Castle. After the Mexican Empire collapsed in 1867 he returned to Austria and worked on several medieval buildings for example the castle of Kreuzenstein, Hardegg or Liechtenstein Castle." - And not meant as an "authority on castles". I've added another source cementing it as a castle. C.Kent87 (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)"one of the few revival castles" is cited to [16]. Please provide a quote, as I don't see that.- Sinneed 17:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this makes much of this debate obsolete - Can you let us all know where exactly we might find "revival Castle" in a dictionary or encyclopedia? Is it an actual term? For instance, we find a glossary such as this one about castle architecture [17], but one can't find the term. Or perhaps looking here [18]... but one finds no mention of it either; the closest to describing a "revival castle" is this - "Even the United States claims hundreds of modern "castles" built by wealthy businessmen". And Chapultepec Castle doesn't fit into that definition, as it has an ancient and historical past (roughly ranging from the (corresponding) medieval period to the 18th and 19th centuries, even before Neuschwanstein Castle was planned).

Let's take the following sentence, "------ is a 19th century Gothic Revival castle"... the terms "gothic revival" are found to mean anything from these 7 definitions [19]. However, the latter two words used together get no clarification - Does the term exist? If it doesn't, how do we obtain a source that explicitly states it for any or all hypothetical "revival castles".

Using Merriam-Webster [20], we enter 'revival castle' where it says "Enter Word or Phrase" - Nothing comes up. Again, using Encyclopedia Britannica[21], we get nothing. Is it a loose term, does it exist officially at all? How about the term User:Nev1 uses - "castle revivalism"? Maybe you can enlighten us? If it does not exist, technically, we have no obligation to use the term or a source that states it. C.Kent87 (talk) 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)While I support the version rolled back to, (and think it is better) I can't agree with calling it "consensus".- Sinneed 19:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but Kent removing properly referenced material without a rationale is not the way forward. I have conceded that the palace can be included in the article without creating too much cletter, do we really need more changes? Nev1 (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for that. The changes that Nev1 took for clutter, actually made things simpler - it took an extra castle out, the word "particular" ('common' already explains it), and made it clearer that "other countries" also have these buildings. "Elswhere" gives the impression that revival castles are first and foremost "British", and that they "may also be found elswhere". Having four British castles, and a comment on the "last of its kind" in that country(as before), is what should be considered "clutter".

As it is, we have 2 sentences (one is practically a run-on) devoted to that country, yet only one sentence trying to explain two others? The clutter certainly isn't the last sentence. As for "consensus", where?

I propose, at the very least: "Revival or mock castles, most of which were country houses, can be found in many countries. Examples include Edwin Lutyens' Castle Drogo in Great Britain, Chapultepec Castle in Mexico, and Neuschwanstein Castle in Germany." The countries should all get the same mention. Any other ideas? C.Kent87 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, so you're worried there's too much emphasis on Britain. Thank you for explaining your concerns. How about this. I've removed reference to Eastnor Castle and Castell Coch, although I've retained mention of Castle Drogo as it rounds the previous bit off, but have merged it with the previous sentence. Now there is only one example from Britain. I've also removed "particularly" as it was unnecessary. I was unaware that "elsewhere" indicated exclusion and that it was suggesting there are only mock castles in Britain, I merely thought it meant somewhere else as opposed to an implied location beyond the norm; anyway, I've removed "elsewhere". Chapultapec and Neuchwanstein are referred to without the suffix "castle" to avoid repetition (the word would be used about four times in one sentence otherwise), do you find this acceptable? Also, would you object to me mentioning that in Britain the "castle style" had an emphasis on the picturesque with a link to how the structure appeared in the landscape which has been described as "a peculiarly English mode" (Thompson 1987, 162)? Nev1 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Better, I know Britain offers many great examples and a list of great buildings is never long enough. But, yes, this gives it a more rounded feeling. I think leaving out "castle" on the Mexican/German ones is ok for now (as the sentence is). Can you provide an example for your idea about the "English mode"?

Even with this better arrangment, the entire section is a bit muddled. How do you feel about the paragraph changes I've made here? All of the information is the same - just tweaked a bit. The artificial ruins and follies should be mentioned after the castles (which they stand near). I've also fixed links and added one to artifical ruins. Please let me know if this flows better... C.Kent87 (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I think the bit about the "English style" is unnecessary in this article and would be a bit biased. The section looks a little odd with three short paragraphs (I'm tempted to merge them all) but otherwise it looks good to me. Nev1 (talk) 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Expansion?

I don't think so. Can I suggest renaming to something like Castles of the Western European tradition. I am considering renaming the article Cathedral architecture of Western Europe or whatever it's called. Maybe they could match? Amandajm (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. "Castle" is obviously preferable for all sorts of reasons.... but there you are. Amandajm (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a reasonable suggestion, but I don't think it's worth it to chase the bronze star. Moving the article to a new name would create a big dent in the 60,000 or so views the article gets each month. The subject's important and I think it needs to be located here. Nev1 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. a hatnote would be another approach, but i don't really think its necessary. A more clearly defined scope in the lead, with a link there to Japanese castle might be better. Cathedrals are defined by function rather than architectural form, in a way not true of castle, but true of "fort" or even "walled city". Johnbod (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This might go some way to easing things. Nev1 (talk) 22:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope. To my non-expert eye, the Forts in India, several of which I have visited, actually look & functioned far more like castles than the Japanese ones, but of course they are never called castles, so have escaped the notice of FAC reviewers except Fowler (except see the ref at the Indian article, but this is clearly non-standard). Some link or mention for them should be added. The article conentrates more on the palace side than the fortified. Of course they are mostly enormous by European standards, & typically later in their current form. Johnbod (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Cryptic C62

Resolved issues.

"Over the extended period of time that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features, some of which, such as the curtain wall and arrowslits, were commonplace." It isn't clear if this is saying that curtain walls and arrowslits were common among various styles of castles or common among various structures including non-castles. I suspect it is the former. Suggested rewrite: "Over the extended period of time that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features. Some features, such as the curtain wall and arrowslits, were commonly found in castles from different time periods and regions." or some such. I'm sure you can come up with a better wording than mine. "A European innovation, castles originated in the 9th and 10th centuries when the fall of the Carolingian Empire led to the division of the empire's territory among individual lords and princes and an emphasis on personal defence." It isn't clear how "an emphasis on personal defence" fits into this sentence. If it is a crucial idea, I suggest splitting off into its own sentence and expanding it. "Castles controlled their immediate areas" As a native English speaker, I have never heard the term "immediate areas". Perhaps "immediately surrounding areas"? "they provided a base from which raids could be launched as well as protection from an enemy" Inconsistent pluralization. Suggestion: "they provided a base from which raids could be launched as well as protection from enemies" "Although their military origins are often emphasised" Emphasised where? Perhaps "in modern writing"? "but had their defences replaced later by stone equivalents." If stone offers better protection than timber, how can there be such a thing as a "stone equivalent"? "and rural castles were often situated near elements such as a mill, integral to life in the community." I find "element" to be an odd word choice here. Suggested rewrite: "and rural castles were often situated other structures, such as a mill" Also, which is integral to life in the community? The castle or the mill? "Urban castles were used to control the local populace and important travel routes, and rural castles were often situated near features in the landscape that were integral to life in the community, such as mills." Much better, but I think "features in the landscape" may imply only natural features. Assuming that natural features are important here, I suggest swapping this phrase out for "architectural and natural features" and then adding an example of a natural feature after "mills". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, it now reads "situated near architectural and natural features... such as mills and fertile land." Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The third paragraph is somewhat confusing because it explains the "new" defense systems before the "old" defense systems, not to mention the boundaries between the two are somewhat unclear. I suggest rearranging to give a clearer timeline. I have made these changes. In some cases, it was simpler just to cut out a bit as it may have been mentioned earlier. As for the third paragraph, it describes changes in around the 13th, broadly chronologically after the previous paragraph with castle origins and the final paragraph with the end of castles. The paragraph is linear, but does mention influences for the changes, which might be causing the confusion. Nev1 (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) I really think the third paragraph should explain the old castle features (natural defences, curvilinearity) before explaining the new ones. As this is currently written, it isn't clear whether concentric defenses were part of the old system or the new. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Ok, how about this? It's now a bit more straightforward, but may require further tweaking. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "Castles do not show adaptation to resist bombardment by cannons until the 15th century, when artillery became powerful enough to break down walls." The phrasing "do not show adaptation" seems a bit unnatural. Suggest replacing with "were not adapted". Also, does the phrase "break down walls" include stone walls? If so, I suggest inserting "stone". If not, I suggest inserting "timber". Good point, I've replaced "did not show adaptation" to "were not adapted" and clarified that the walls concered were "stone", wood wasn't such a worry by then. Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "Although castles were built across Europe well into the 16th century, new techniques to deal with improved cannon eventually led to them becoming uncomfortable and undesirable places to live, and so true castles went into decline, replaced by artillery forts with no role in civil administration, and country houses that were indefensible." This is a very long sentence. I suggest splitting it into two sentences, perhaps after "went into decline." The sentence now reads "Although castles were built across Europe well into the 16th century, new techniques to deal with improved cannon-fire eventually led to them becoming uncomfortable and undesirable places to live. True castles went into decline and were replaced by artillery forts with no role in civil administration, and country houses that were indefensible." Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "new techniques to deal with improved cannon" Eh? You mean "improved cannon fire"? Or something? Yep, I've added in "fire". Nev1 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC) "Frankish armies encountered walled settlements and forts that they indiscriminately called castles" The use of "called" implies that the Frankish armies were speaking English, which I doubt is true. I think "referred to as" would be a better choice, but perhaps there are other ways to reduce this ambiguity. Agreed, I've changed it to your suggested phrasing. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "Castles were established by Norman invaders of England as both defensive and offensive tools to pacify the inhabitants" The inhabitants of what? I understand that it refers to the inhabitants of England, but some may misinterpret this as meaning the inhabitants of the castle. It now read's "...to pacify the country's inhabitants". Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "During the Middle Ages, castles tended to lose their military significance and became more important as residences and statements of power" I feel like this sentence is missing a piece of information. Why did they tend to lose their military significance? Or at what point in a castle's lifetime would it lose its military significance? I've expanded it slightly so that it now reads "Towards the end of the Middle Ages, castles tended to lose their military significance due to the advent of powerful cannon and permanent artillery fortifications;[10] as a result, castles became more important as residences and statements of power". Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "Sometimes misapplied, the term "castle" has also been erroneously used to refer to structures such as Iron Age fortifications such as Maiden Castle, Dorset" I'm not a fan of the double "such as" construction. How about employing "e.g." or something else? Fair point, although I've chosen "for example" rather than "ie:" as I'm sure there's a particular way in MOS of formatting that but I can't find it. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) "A castle was not only a bastion and prison" The "not only" construction implies that the reader should already be familiar with the bastion and prison. I have no idea what a bastion is, nor has this article previously mentioned that castles served as prisons. It now reads "A castle could act as a stronghold and prison but was also a place where..." (I'm not sure whether "but" should be used instead of "and", but I think military uses contrast with social uses; it's not a big issue and I'd be happy to swap the word though). Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) ""a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature"." Where is this quote taken from? Turnbull 2003, p. 5, the reference is immediately after the quote. Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC) That seems so obvious now. I'm not sure how I managed to overlook that :P However, if the source itself is notable enough that it should be quoted directly, then the article should explicitly mention who said it: "which had, according to Dr. Janzoons McQuade Turnbull, "a completely..."." If the source isn't notable, then I suggest simply paraphrasing instead. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I did something similar the other day when I was sure that someone had written "soared" instead of "soured", completely changing the meaning of the sentence. It happens to the best of us ;-) I've clarified that it was Turnbull who said that. Nev1 (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC) "A motte was a mound with a flat top. It was often artificial" I think it should be made clear within the first sentence that these are mounds of dirt. Some readers might think "artificial" refers to synthetic materials. Good point, changed. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "The motte was accessed by a flying bridge" Always? Also, what is a flying bridge? Flying bridge isn't a relevant article. I've clarified that the flying bridge was used commonly as the source states. Regarding what it actually is I've added an explanation, although it's a bit clunky. There's a picture of Chateau Dinan further down the page so anyone unsure can look at it and understand (this is one of those times I wish I could just write "see fig 1" on Wikipedia, but I don't think it's really done). Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "while the bailey was the home of the rest of the lord's household and gave them protection. The barracks for the garrison, stables, workshops, and storage facilities were often found in the bailey." The use of the singular "bailey" in these sentences implies that each castle only had one bailey, whereas other sentences in this paragraph explicitly state that there were often multiple baileys per castle. I see what you mean, but I don't think it's an issue. There's going to be some number disagreement somewhere as castles could have one or several baileys, but using the singular is more general than the plural. I think it's made sufficiently clear that there can be more than one bailey without confusing the reader. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "The terms "bailey" and "enceinte" are linked," I find it a tad confusing to mention the linkage between these two terms before "enceinte" is properly introduced. Some vague discussion is given, but it isn't entirely clear what exactly an enceinte is. I've switched round the parts of the sentence (ie: it now explains what an enceinte is before mentioning the term is linked with "bailey"), but the explanation will probably have to stay that way. That it's the main defensive enclosure is about as accurate and concise as you can get. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) "A keep was a great tower and usually the strongest point of a castle" Strong how? Made with the best building materials? The most well-defended? It now reads "A keep was a great tower and usually the most strongly defended point of a castle". Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC) ""Keep" was not a term used in the medieval period ... and "donjon" was used to refer to great towers" The use of "and" here is a bit confusing. Consider rewriting to include the word "instead". Perhaps it would be easier if the sentence were split and the dashes removed. Using "instead" works in my opinion so that's what I've gone for. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

• ""Motte" and "moat" derive from the same Old French word" What word would that be?

• I'll have to track down a source for what the word was as although Friar makes the connection I don't think he states what the word is (I read somewhere that it's mota or motta but infuriatingly can't remember where). Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The OED "Moat" says it comes from OF "motte", with a "transfer of meaning" from embankment to ditch perhaps occuring in Norman French. Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• " for many structures, choosing the appropriate term can be difficult, and the highest residential storeys have large windows" I don't understand how these two facts are related.

• Changed, I think two sentences got merged slightly there. Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't understand how large windows are related to the difficulty in choosing an appropriate term. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Because castles are supposed to have small windows, & houses big ones. Does that help? Johnbod (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Helpful for me, yes. That isn't made clear in the article though. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not just the windows, but the merging of the functions generally, from which the windows follow on. Do others find this unclear? Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

• "to rain missiles on enemies below" A somewhat unencyclopedic phrasing, and its meaning may not be clear to those unfamiliar with English idioms. Suggest rewriting to "to fire missiles upon enemies below". Also, couldn't the battlements also be used as a vantage point from which to spot far-away enemies?
• "and battlements gave them further protection" Gave who further protection? The defenders or the walkways? If the former, it doesn't really make sense to use "further" since the battlements are the first form of protection mentioned.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been a while since I've seen any activity in this section, so I'm going to unwatch this page and work on some other stuff. If at any point you'd like to continue this review, feel free to leave a note on my talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I got sidetracked once I returned the books to the library. I'll keep working through the list, but it will be slow as I have other commitments. Any comments at all are well, and I will make efforts to address them. Nev1 (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Awadewit's comments on prose

Resolved issues.

Over the extended period of time that castles were built they took on a great many forms with many different features, some of which, such as the curtain wall and arrowslits, were commonplace. - It would be best to include the period of time over which castles were built, especially since this is the first paragraph of the lead. It's only an estimate (900 years), but I've added it to the lead. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) I added the word "approximately". Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Urban castles were used to control the local populace and important travel routes, and rural castles were often situated near elements such as a mill, integral to life in the community. -"Elements" doesn't seem like quite the right word. "features", "assets"? Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Sentence now reads "Urban castles were used to control the local populace and important travel routes, and rural castles were often situated near features in the landscape that were integral to life in the community, such as mills", although it may change in response to Cryptic's comments above. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The origin of these changes in defence has been attributed to a mixture of influence from the Crusades – where castle technology was advanced such as the new type of concentric fortification – and drawing on earlier defences such as Roman forts for inspiration - Awkward syntax for the last clause "drawing on..." Also the Crusades are not a place. The origin of these changes has been attributed to a mixture of influences from the advanced castle technology developed in the Crusades, such as the new type of concentric fortification, as well as earlier defences such as Roman forts Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) There was a progression for lords to build more comfortable accommodation for themselves within the bailey, which resulted in the creation of another bailey that separated the high status buildings – such as the lord's chambers and the chapel – from the everyday structures such as the workshops and barracks. - I don't think "progression" is quite the right word here - would "tendency" work better? Also, this sentence is a little long. How's this? The problem with phrasing here is because the lords accomodation was not in the bailey from the start, but in the keep. The sentence has also been split. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) The term "donjon" is used several times in the article before it is defined. Since this is an uncommon word, I suggest defining it upon its first usage. As donjon and keep are essentially interchangable terms, and the first occurences are in the section on common features (which essentially explains the jargon) I've replaced them with keep. This will require Johnbod's input though, as the additions were his and it's possible the sources may have been using a more nuanced term than keep, but usually they are interchangable. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC) No, Bathelemy emphasizes the difficulty of fixed terms, & gives up on nuance, so regard them as interchangeable. He is of course translated from the French so uses "donjon", or often "aula" for houses. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Initially this was only the usual pattern in England, when after the Norman Conquest of 1066 the "conquerors lived for a long time in a constant state of alert";[25] elsewhere the lord's wife presided over a separate residence (domus, aula or mansio in Latin) close to the keep, and the donjon was a barracks and headquarters. - The first phrase in this sentence is awkward and confusing. one of mine. I can't really see the problem. Is This was initially only the usual pattern in England.. better? Johnbod (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Seems to make it worse. The problem is the "initially ...only ... usual". I'd suggest simply dropping the "usual" from the piece Awadewit quotes: "Initially, this was the usual pattern in England ...". --Malleus Fatuorum 02:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC) That's dropping the "only", which is the main point of the phrase. How about:At first this was only the usual pattern in England.... or At first this was only usual in England...., or "typical of". Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) ... then it looks like what you mean is "At first, this was the usual pattern only in England". --Malleus Fatuorum 11:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) yes - elegance apart, I don't see how any other meaning could be extracted, but I now think "pattern" is distracting. Done anyway. Johnbod (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Holy Roman Emperor Charles the Bald prohibited the construction of castles without his permission and ordered them destroyed; this could be the earliest reference to castles being built without permission, breaking the feudal agreement between lord and vassal, however there are very few castles dated with certainty from the mid-9th century. - Not sure what "this" is referring to. Change "this could be" to "perhaps". A new sentence at "However" too, maybe. Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Done Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC) This is evidenced by the continual maintenance of timber castles over long periods, sometimes several centuries; at the start of the 15th century Owain Glyndŵr’s castle at Sycharth, founded in the late 11th century, was a timber structure. - I think the second half of this sentence can be better written. Perhaps it can more clearly reflect the idea of maintenance over time? Changed so that it's less awkward and emphasises the aspect of maintainence. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) I've tweaked further. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The castle builders of western Europe were aware of and influenced by Roman design as demonstrated by the reuse of Saxon shore forts in England, a late Roman innovation despite their name, and in Spain the wall around the city of Ávila imitated Roman architecture when it was built in 1091. - A bit convoluted I've split the sentence which hopefully makes it less long winded. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) It's Saxon Shore, because the buggers kept landing there! Tweaked a bit - in fact the SS defences were on both sides of the Channel & went from Brittany through Belgium nearly to the Dutch border - no doubt some Continental ones were also reused. Johnbod (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Their design was very similar to a Roman fort or Byzantine tetrapyrgia: a square curtain wall with towers in each corner, also usually square and not projecting much beyond the curtain wall. - Awkward syntax, "also usually square..." Simplified. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Handguns were not recorded until the 1380s; they were unpredictable and inaccurate weapons. - Feels stilted Changed to "Handguns, which were initially unpredicatable and inaccuarte weapons, were not recorded until the 1380s". Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) This form is very common in castles adapted for guns, found in Egypt, Italy, Scotland, and Spain, and elsewhere in between. - Since this sentence begins a new paragraph, it is unclear what "this" refers back to. It might seem like a bit of a non-sequitor because those two paragraphs were originally one, but it was split to allow space for the image. Now it's on the right, I've reconnected the paragraphs. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) These could be built from earthier earth or stone and were used to mount weapons. - What is "earthier earth"? Looks like I got distracted halfway through writing that sentence and an extra word slipped in. Gone now. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Around 1500, the innovation of the angled bastion over curved was developed in Italy - Awkward syntax I've removed "over curved" as that was the bit causing problems. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Developments such as these led to Italy pioneering the way in permanent artillery fortifications, which took over from the defensive role of castles - Wordy ("pioneering the way in...") Simplified. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) However, some true castles were built in the Americas by the Spanish, English, and French colonies. - It is unclear to me why the paragraph that begins with this sentence starts with "however". Good point, I've removed "however". Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) The term "slighting"/"slighted" is never defined in the article. Since this is a specialized term, I would suggest defining it when it is first used. Done. Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Although their cost varied according to factors such as their complexity and transport costs for material - Slightly awkward Changed to "The cost of building a castle varied according to factors such as their complexity and transport costs for material. It is certain that stone castles...". Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Medieval machines and inventions, such as the treadwheel crane, became indispensable during construction, and techniques of building wooden scaffolding were improved upon from Antiquity - It is probably best to specify what "Antiquity" means. I've added a wikilink to Classical antiquity, will this suffice? Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Yes. Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Finding stone for shell keeps and castle walls was the first concern of medieval builders, and a major preoccupation was to have quarries close at hand. - "major preoccupation" doesn't seem like quite the right phrase Changed to "a prominent concern". Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) In England, brick production proliferated along the south-east coast due to an influx of Flemish weavers and a reduction in the amount of available, leading to a demand for an alternative building material. - Awkward syntax, "a reduction in the amount available" The word "stone" was missing after available. Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) The capitalization of "East" and "West" seems inconsistent - I'm not sure why it is being capitalized in some places but not others. This has now been made consistent. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) There is a traditional view that feudalism was a tool of social disintegration that contributed to the downfall of the Carolingian Empire, however modern academic opinion is that it was a successor to previous government rather than a rival - Awkward syntax Changed to: "There is a traditional view that feudalism led to the break-down of society that contributed to the downfall of the Carolingian Empire. However, modern academic opinion is that feudalism was a successor to previous government rather than a rival". Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) The emphasis in the design of donjons changed from utilitarian to decorative in order to impose upon the landscape as a symbol of lordly power. - Awkward syntax, "in order to impose..." How about: The design emphasis of donjons changed to reflect a shift from functional to decorative requirements, imposing a symbol of lordly power upon the landscape." Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC) That's much etter than anything I was coming up with, so I've used you suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) This was not universal as in some countries the monarch had little control over lords, or required the construction of new castles to aid in securing the land – as was the case in England after 1066 and the Holy Land during the Crusades – so was unconcerned about granting permission. - The hyphenated phrase interrupts the sentence too much. I've moved the parenthetical bit to the end of the sentence to avoid the interruption. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Where artillery was not as developed as on the battle-fields of Europe, some of Montreal's outlying forts were built like the fortified manor houses of France. - Structure is not logically consistent - the first phrase refers to the Montreal area and the second phrase describes forts - they both need to have the same subject. Changed to "In Montreal the artillery was not as developed as on the battle-fields of Europe, some of the region's outlying forts were built like the fortified manor houses of France". Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Castles such as Exeter and Gloucester were often given figures of between £20 and £50 annually in the late 12th century for constant repairs. - Wordy Changed to "For example, it is documented that in the late 12th century castles such as Exeter and Gloucester were given figures of between £20 and £50 annually for constant repairs". Nev1 (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Still wordy - why "were given figures"? Why not just "cost between", for example? And why "constant repairs" and not just "repairs"? Awadewit (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Fair enough, done. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC) He relied on the support of those below him, as without the support of his more powerful tenants, a lord could expect his power to be undermined - As this article is using "undermined" to mean something specific in relation to castles, I would suggest a different word here. Good point, I've changed it to weakened. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Not just a utilitarian structure, as social centres castles were also important places for display. - Awkward syntax in the first half of the sentence Simplified to "As social centres castles were important places for display" as there was no need for the first bit. Nev1 (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC) It was sometimes in private and was expressed through chivalric events such as tournaments. - Confusing Changed to "Though sometimes expressed through chivalric events such as tournaments, where knights would fight wearing a token from their lady, it could also be private and conducted in secret." Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Even elements of castle architecture that have usually been interpreted as military can be highly symbolic. The water features of Kenilworth Castle in England – comprising a moat and several satellite ponds – forced anyone approaching the castle entrance to take a very indirect route, walking around the defences before the final approach towards the gateway. - The second sentence doesn't actually explain the symbolism. "Symbolic" was probably the wrong word to use, and I've replaced it with "could be used for display". It was a symbol of power, as anyone approaching was forced to take a roundabout route and had to spend a long time looking at the very impressive castle, but "symbolic" was over simplifying it. Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Projectile weapons had been used since antiquity and the mangonel and petraria – from Roman and Oriental origins respectively – were the main two that were used into the Middle Ages. - I thought we didn't use the word "Oriental" any more. Good point, changed to "Eastern" (Oriental was the word the source used and slipped through). Nev1 (talk) 22:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Towers proliferated, with an emphasis on flanking fire, and many new castles were polygonal, while previously they had exploited natural defences and were curvilinear, or relied on concentric defence – several stages of defence within each other that could all function at the same time, thereby maximising the castle's firepower. - Wordy - I would suggest breaking this up. It now says "In the late 12th and early 13th centuries, a scientific approach to castle defence emerged. This led to the proliferation of towers, with an emphasis on flanking fire; many new castles were polygonal or relied on concentric defence –several stages of defence within each other that could all function at the same time to maximise the castle's firepower", although the second sentence may still be too wordy. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) I just added another full stop. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) Moats were often crossed by a drawbridge, although these were often replaced by stone bridges. - "often" twice in one sentence Replaced the first with "usually". Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Contained within the building was a series of defences to make a direct assault more difficult than battering down a simple gate. - Awkward syntax "making"? Johnbod (talk) 08:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC) That would be better, yes, but I think that the biggest problem is the delay in getting to the "meat" of the sentence.Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) It now reads "The gate house contained a series of defences to make a direct assault more difficult than battering down a simple gate". Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) They differed from their eastern counterparts through the use of earthworks rather than stone as a building material. -Slightly awkward syntax, with "the use of earthworks..." Is "They differed from their Eastern counterparts in that they used earthworks" ok? Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Yes. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) In a time of social unrest, a lord would wish to protect his home or hall, and the greatest threat was that of fire as they were usually wooden - A bit covoluted Changed to "The greatest threat to a lord's home or hall was that of fire as they were usually wooden structures".Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Tweaked a bit for grammar. Awadewit (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC) The elite who were responsible for castle construction were forced to choose between the new type which could withstand cannon-fire but as a result was ugly and uncomfortable to live in, or to stick with an earlier more elaborate style which had more aesthetic appeal and was more of a status symbol. - A bit convoluted How's this: "The elite responsible for castle construction were forced to choose between the new type which could withstand cannon-fire but as a result was ugly and uncomfortable to live in, or to stick with an earlier more elaborate style; the later had more aesthetic appeal and was more of a status symbol"?Nev1 (talk) 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Perhaps two sentences? Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC) How about "The elite responsible for castle construction were forced to choose between the new type which could withstand cannon-fire or to stick with an earlier more elaborate style. The first was ugly and uncomfortable to live in, and the later had more aesthetic appeal and was more of a status symbol but was less secure"? Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC) My suggestion: "The elite responsible for castle contruction had to choose between the new type that could withstand cannon-fire and the earlier, more elaborate style. The first was ugly and uncomfortable, but the latter was less secure, despite its greater aesthetic appeal and its value as a status symbol." --MalleusFatuorum 20:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC) I like Malleus' version. Awadewit (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC) That's what I've gone for. Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) The benefits of castle building on settlements was not confined to Europe; when Safad Castle was founded in Galilee, in the Holy Land, during the 13th century, the nearby town benefited from its presence as people could now move freely in the area and the 260 villages locally became profitable. - Wordy How about "The benefits of castle building on settlements was not confined to Europe. When the 13th-century Safad Castle was founded in Galilee in the Holy Land, the 260 villages benefitted from the inhabitants newfound ability to move freely"?Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Symbolism in relation to castles and their setting was very important, as demonstrated by the proximity of high status features such as fish ponds. - Awkward syntax It now reads "The location of castles in relation to high status features, such as fish ponds, was a statement of power and control of resources".Nev1 (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Also often found near a castle, sometimes within its defences, was the parish church.[140] This has been interpreted as a relationship between the church and feudal lords, where the lords patronised the church, which was one of the most important institutions of medieval society. - Wordy It now reads "Also often found near a castle, sometimes within its defences, was the parish church.[142] This signified a close relationship between and feudal lords the Church, one of the most important institutions of medieval society". Nev1(talk) 21:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

As I promised at the FAC, I am going to list some of the problematic sentences in the article here.

• The front of the gateway was a blind spot, so to allow the defenders to see the gate without exposing themselves projecting towers were added on each side of the gate, in a style similar to that developed by the Romans. - Awkward syntax, with the "so to allow..."

• Simplified. Nev1 (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• Two "this's" in a row - I'll take a stab at this later. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

• What about something like this: "The front of the gateway was a blind spot. In a style similar to the Romans, projecting towers were built on each side of the gate as compensation." Awadewit (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Converted into a donjon around 950, Châteaux Doué-la-Fontaine in France is the oldest standing castle in Europe. - This sentence just seems tacked on to the end of the first paragraph of "Origins and early castles".

Seems ok to me, but after the last point we could have "However there are very few castles dated with certainty from the mid-9th century; Châteaux Doué-la-Fontaine in France is the oldest standing castle in Europe, and was converted into a donjon around 950." by semi-coloning into the previous sentence. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess I'm confused by the dates - the first part of the sentence is talking about 9th century and the second is talking about the 10th. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Not my text, but I presume the difference is "standing" - older ones are ruined or rotted away, or rebuilt over. Johnbod (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Builders took the opportunity to draw on symbolism to evoke a sense of chivalry that was aspired to in the Middle Ages amongst the elite. - What kind of symbolism?

• More should be forthcoming from the Coulson article, but at the moment I only have two pages of it so this is the best I can do until tomorrow. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• A bit more is still needed. No rush, though. Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The purpose of marriage between the medieval elites was to secure land, not for love; girls were married in their teens, but boys did not marry until they came of age. - It would probably be best to say when boys came of age, as not all readers will know that.

Done! Awadewit (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Article Flow

Maybe its me, but the positioning of the sections Common Features and History seem to be in the wrong order (switch them). In most articles isn't the history section before most others? After the first section on Definition, maybe we can rearrange and put the History - as it has information on its antecedents, etc, then on to Common features (after that its construction). C.Kent87 (talk) 00:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to have the "Common features" section first, since that section is helping readers to understand what castles are, just like the "Definition" section. Once readers understand the basics, they can read the history of those basic concepts. Awadewit (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, the common features section is like a detailed glossary. It needs to be very early in the article to explain terms which the average reader might not otherwise understand. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Why did my Jacobite sentence get deleted?

I added a sentence that some castles also saw usage during the jacobite rebellions (1689-1745) which is 100 % true. Why was this taken out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.235.24.2 (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who removed your additions and there are a couple of reasons, first of all it was unsourced and secondly how important is it? According to Friar, the English Civil War was the last significant use of castles in Britain in a military campaign, so although they may have been used in the Jacobite Uprising, the implication is that it wasn't important. Also, there is the issue of British bias: the English Civil War was given as an example of later conflicts where castles were reused. More than one example could give the impressiont that the page is preoccupied with Britain, which isn't the case. The importance of citing sources is that a reader can then trace the information back to where it came from and check that it's correct (Wikipedia isn't usually reliable, but published peer-reviewed sources are) and can find more information if they want. If you have a source that states that casltes were used in the Jacobite rebellions it would be worthwhile adding that information to castles in Britain where it is most relevant. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It might be more relevant to cite another period of "re-use" in a different country. Walled towns were important in the French Wars of Religion, but I don't know about castles. When was the last real siege of a castle proper in Europe, I wonder? Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a home?

Might this statement be misleading: "This is distinct from a fortress, which was not a home...", but correctable by "intended to be", "constructed as", "conspicuously" or the like, considering that fortresses were indeed their homes to many people residing therein, unless I'm quite mistaken, no matter how unintentionally so? Can it be that fortresses are strongholds, redoubts, of various sizes and intentions, and residences, and refuges in times of trouble, but different from other things built to be the residences of prominent occupants? Consider those fortresses wherein people do, and "did" reside; are they to lose the otherwise rightful name of "fortress"? Cannot any edifice, defended by fortification, be regarded as "fortress", even in addition to, in conjunction with, other words pertinent to them, their appearance, function, their originally intended reason for being, etc.? Was it not even true that prominent residents were kept, or took refuge, in fortresses, whereas they housed numerous "lesser" inhabitants, as well? Unfree (talk) 07:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)