Talk:Edinburgh Castle

Land deemed Nova Scotia

As a little footnote to Edinburgh Castle I added an article on the the piece of land deemed Nova Scotia If I find moer I will add --Pat 01:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to replace bottom photo

The bottom photo on this article, Image:Edincast.JPG, was added by User:Isis without attribution. Isis, who has left the project, seems to have scanned many things from books, and wikipedia's increasing willingness to stick by its rules in this regard makes me think we should remove this image and nominate it for deletion. Instead, I suggest we replace it with Image:Edinburgh-castle.jpg, which I think is better for the following reasons:

• it's legal, and its GFDL
• it's much larger, so it works well with the new thumbnail code
• I think it's a better, more representative picture of the castle
• it's sufficiently similar to the other picture on the page, Image:Edinpain.JPG, and so the contrast between the two shows the development in the surrounding area (yes, they're from opposite angles, but even so).

Note that I don't propose to remove Image:Edinpain.JPG, as I believe it's out of copyright and so quite legal. I don't intend to do this immediately; I'll wait at least a week before acting, so if anyone disagrees, please speak up. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me... it's not a great or particularly representative photo anyway. --Taras 00:54, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Expand please

This article should be more like the Windsor Castle article. Chicheley 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is in pretty shoddy shape in every sense. I'll try to do something with it (starting with the removal of inaccuracies) help from more experienced Wikipedians appreciated. Antisthenes 01:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Update the One O'Clock Gun section

The 25-pound howitzer was replaced several years ago by the 105mm Light Gun. [1] Also a mention (or even a seperate article) of the late Thomas McKay (better known as Tam the Gun) should be added in this section. I find it surprising that there's no mention of how they know it's 13:00 exactly. Personally I'd be inclined to include the real method plus a story from the 1950's: 'As for this reputation for reliability, one story about a journalist visiting Edinburgh in the 1950s shows just how ingrained it became. While at Edinburgh Castle, the reporter asked the man who fired the one o'clock gun how he knew the exact time. "Easy," replied the man. "I check my watch every morning by the clock in the Hamilton & Inches window." The reporter then went down to H&I and asked how they checked the clock in their window. The reply? "By the one o'clock gun."'[2] Ninja-lewis 17:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Correct?

Here it says that David's tower was built in 1386 by David II, but in wikipedia's article it says that david I died in 1371. So I think that something is wrong.

Yes, David II commissioned the tower but he did not live to see it completed, dying in the castle in 1371. -Bill Reid | Talk 18:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for restructuring

The layout of this page seems a bit of a guddle. Here are some suggestions on imporving the structure, comments welcome:

1. "Present management" - this section should probably go after history, and be expanded to "Present use", taking in the Castle's military role as well as tourism.
2. "History" - OK, but needs expanding, see no.3
3. "Current structure", an awkward title, "Description" usually works better, or perhaps "The castle today". Some of the subsections are actually history, and should be moved into that section, notably "David's Tower and the Lang Siege" and "A Garrison Fortress"
4. "Tradition" - Could be merged into a new "Present use" section (see no.1), so that all the castle's current functions are discussed together. Mons Meg could be part of the description, as its not really a "tradition". The "Link with Nova Scotia" is historic and could be put into "History".

If there's no objections, I'll make a start next week. Once structure is OK, I want to start adding some references and hopefully get this High-importance article improved a couple of notches. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring sounds a good idea. I've added a mention of the castle's representation on various banknotes (it's a appeared a few times in the past) with refs. I think it's interesting and relevant and should get a passing mention somewhere. There wasn't a suitable heading for this paragraph so I put it in its own section, but maybe you'll work out a better place to put this information - either in its own section or maybe in a section dealing with notable paintings and representations? Cnbrb (talk) 10:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No objections here. I'd love to help. My strengths are more on the Wikignome side of things... If you do the heavy lifting of moving the pieces around, I'll be happy to dart in and do come copyediting and such. [ roux ] [x] 10:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both, any help appreciated of course. Cnbrb, there may be scope for developing such a section, Edinburgh Castle is symbolic of Scotland and the city, though there's a risk it might turn into trivia. But the banknotes are worth mentioning I agree. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I agree that trivia sections are unwanted, but think it's worth a mention. If it's worked well into the article structure, the development of an unwanted trivia section might be avoided... I hope! Cnbrb (talk) 14:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Split?

Well a few additions here and there is turning into a major project, and the page is now heading north of 60kb. I think a split could be needed, and I would suggest removing the sections on "Prehistory" and "Early Middle Ages". These don't really relate to the castle as such, but could be dealt with under an article at Castle Rock, Edinburgh (currently a redirect). Any thoughts? Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

One O'clock Gun

added the name of current district gunner Stupidstudent (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Added referencing Stupidstudent (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture

There are already some really good pictures in the article, but I thought that the sepia photo on the right might be of some use. It was taken in 1865–1885. It's a nice juxtaposition of the medieval castle and what look like new 19th century shops. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

most popular visitor attraction

i have a source from BBC News that indicates a rise in the number of people paying to visit Edinburgh Castle and that the castle remains the most popular visitor attraction within Scotland for the year ending 2009. should this be added to the article, since this info is more up-to-date than the source which dates back to 2007? Kilnburn (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so, if we can keep the article up to date that's great. Nev1 (talk) 12:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

i'll do that then. actually found a better source from Historic Scotland. Kilnburn (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.146.175.2, 8 April 2011

}}}}}}}padlock.svg

There is within this article a brief section dealing with the Scottish National War Memorial which has, since a date which I have not been able to determine, contained a major error (namely what is clearly an intended declaration to the effect that new names are being added to the casket within the shrine). This has never been considered possible by anyone at all for a number of reasons. I myself made this point previously, and stated that it made it difficult to understand why the Trustees should have believed that it was ever the intention that the Scottish National War Memorial should be used for the commemoration of those who died after the original limiting date (the date of the signature of the Versailles Peace Treay in 1919, 29 June). I would not necessarily have repeated my perhaps rather impolite criticism of the Trustees of the SNWM if I had attempted to restore the contribution originally made by myself, but I would certainly have referred to the matter with which I now deal, namely that names are added only to the lists that have always been held within the Hall of Honour and not within the Shrine itself which contains the Casket as contributed by King George V at the time of the opening on the eighth anniversary of the 1919 Victory Parade in France. What is to be done about this? I can provide more information as to the issue at a national scale if required, in any event I suggest this is now completely misleading information which cannot for whatever reason now be edited by myself and I am therefore copying this request to the Secretary to the Trustees of the Scottish National War Memorial unless something is done to correct it within this website in what I hold myself to be a reasonable period (the normal period of twenty working days). If you fail to do anything which I can check on the site or to reply to myself at the email address as shown below then I am afraid that my already existing doubts about the character of any part of the Internet as a source of any sort of intellectually or legally valid information are likely to be rather fully confirmed. I do not think I am alone in having these doubts. Au revoir and thank you evidently technically competent ladies and gentlemen (whoever you happen to be and wherever are).

                 Peter Judge (e-mail: peter.judge@laposte.net)

PS. Please note that these matters (which I suggest are in point of fact clearly of a European scale in historical terms, relating to both East and West) continue to be dealt with (at least for the time being, for it seems that nothing here is entirely capable of protection by persons such as myself, for whatever reason, any more than it has proved possible for myself as a litigant in person in either the Administrative Court or the Court of Appeal, let alone as a citizen attempting to deal with the relevant local authorities as owners or other bodies) within the 'External Links' page in the article on this website entitled West Hartlepool War Memorial. Thank you. PJ

Please change "Upon the altar is a casket containing Rolls of Honour which list the names of those soldiers killed in the First World War. Another 50,000 names were added to the Rolls of Honour after the Second World War, and names continue to be added.[112]" to (suggested additional clarifying text shown in italics): "Upon the altar within the Shrine is a casket containing Rolls of Honour which list only the names of those soldiers killed in the First World War. Another 50,000 names were added to the Rolls of Honour within the Hall after the Second World War, and names continue to be added there.[112]"

78.146.175.2 (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Peter. As I understand it you are telling me that there are two sets of Rolls of Honour, one in the shrine and one in the hall, and that names are only added to the latter. The source for the verision you objected to was the SNWM website, here (last paragraph), where it says that the extra names were added but does not mention two sets of Rolls. Having checked this it is indeed confirmed here that there are separate lists in the Hall. I trust the edited version is now accurate. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

It is now accurate and I thank you Jonathan for this very prompt response. Regards and I hope we can possibly all move forward at a national level, by which I mean I hope that we can raise certain I believe demonstrable queries on the basis of historical facts as well as the history of war memorials as such. That remains of course, as you will have gathered, to be seen. I have never pretended myself to even begin to know the answer. I simply continue to deal with it as a personal responsibility given my own involvement with the war memorials in what were formerly the 'Hartlepools' (two separate towns, but historically related, in the north-east of England) as you may perhaps, if you have time, be able to appreciate from the article mentioned, together with your own knowledge. I withdraw my criticism of yourself once again, and I give you once again my very sincere thanks for your prompt response. Regards, Peter Judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.92.248 (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

Current Image

Suggested Replacement

Alternative

Alt3

The lead of this article begins with: Edinburgh Castle is a fortress which dominates the skyline of the city of Edinburgh, Scotland, from its position atop the volcanic Castle Rock. However the lead image that is currently there does little to support these statements and has some technical issues. Despite this it is stilll quite a nice capture but shows only a small portion of the castle in isolation. Perhaps better suited to the body of the article. I had suggested a recent image I had taken as it was hi-res, technically sound and highlighted (literally and figuratively) that the castle dominates the city skyline. It was reverted upon inclusion in the article for not what i would consider good reason. To avoid any hint of an edit war, I am submitting the two images for community consideration.

What are the community's thoughts on this change? Saffron Blaze (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I like your photo, but most readers don't click on the lead image: of some 28,000 views last month ~1,500 clicked on the image, thereby seeing it at a larger size. So we need to assume that most readers will only see the 300px thumbnail. Looking at the current lead image again, the house on the left hand side is a bit distracting so it might be worth cropping the photo, but even at 300px the part of the castle shown is still pretty clear. While the image you've shown very effectively puts the castle in context I'm not sure it's suited to be a lead picture because it's not very clear at 300px. To be honest, it's going to be like that with any image showing the castle dominating the skyline. You can't show that and have the castle's main features distinct at 300px and if it were up to me I'd choose the latter. That said, it would be a shame not to use it in the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Good points. The current image does eliminate any desire to expand but I wonder if those stats would change if the lead images were swapped and people would then be encouraged to click through? However this may detract from the purpose of a lead image. I looked in the Commons for something stellar but unfortunately it does not yet exist, which suprises me somewhat. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively, here's a plain view of the Castle in isolation (without clutter as on the present image, but no skyline in evidence. Could be shown minus caption, because 'skyline' ref. is in main text.). This view has the merit that it would be the way the Castle was normally seen before the draining of the Nor' Loch and laying of Princes Street. I realise it may not be bright enough for some. Kim Traynor 11:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Was thinking along the same lines with another suggestion. Similar perspective to the first but taken when more sunlight was on the city and with a tighter framing on the castle. Saffron Blaze (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you know from where this was taken? http://media-1.web.britannica.com/eb-media/77/91877-004-6C287169.jpg Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I would guess this has been taken from the roof of the hotel on the south side of the Grassmarket, or possibly from a window or the roof of the Central Library. Kim Traynor 16:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel that the current photo is the best option at the moment. If you really want one of the castle that 'dominates the skyline of the city of Edinburgh' I would suggest one from the West End/Castle Terrace area. NotMiserable (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, a view from the West End or Castle Terrace would not be typical or iconic of the Castle, as it would not include the Half Moon Battery which gives the main impression of its robustness as a fortress. Also, it would not involve any skyline, only sky behind the Castle. Kim Traynor 19:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Had another think and you are right, perhaps something from Inverleith Park then? Something similar to this http://v7.cache2.c.bigcache.googleapis.com/static.panoramio.com/photos/original/25281339.jpg?redirect_counter=1 but perhaps a wider angle to show more of the skyline? NotMiserable (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a really interesting pic, only it's from such an unusual angle that it doesn't really say "This is recognisably Edinburgh". Inverleith and Warriston are both places where the Castle can be seen on the skyline;perhaps also the traditional view from the Calton Hill. Kim Traynor 23:09, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I think all these images are equally good, its hard to pick a 'winner' for the lead. I personally think the current lead image is fantastic, as it does demonstrate how the Castle dominates the much smaller and lower Grassmarket buildings. Though I can see the point about them being distracting also. The "Alternative" shown is better in this regard, but somehow doesn't have the drama of the current image. I do think its very important to have an 'overview' image in the article. The "Suggested Replacement" picture is very good in this respect, and I think it deserves to be in the first part of the article, as it shows how the Castle Rock stands above its surroundings. I would support the previous replacement of the Princes St Gdns image with this one. There are currently two images from the gardens in this section (though one has a distracting pink tree in the foreground). The problem is that though the Princes St view is the most commonly seen, I dont think it tells you much about the castle because all you see is a jumbel of walls. A view from Calton Hill may be better for showing the Castle/New Town relationship. Another possibility for a lead image would be the view from the National Museum roof garden; I've tried to get a decent shot from there before but the light wasnt right. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

• It will be tough getting good light from that side of the Castle, especially this time of year, because you will have the sun in your face. A shot, potrait style, from a similar perspective as that Britanica shot linked above would be lovely mid-morning on a clear day. Saffron Blaze (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The view from the National Museum roof garden looks west to the castle, so would be OK in the morning. In fact its a similar angle to your Salisbury Crags shot (you can see the museum roof in the lower left of the shot). Here is an example; here is another (not saying either is brilliant). The Britannica shot is definitely from the Apex hotel in the Grassmarket, so not sure how accessible that would be. Incidentally, we don't seem to have a really good shot of the main approach to the castle, looking across the Esplanade to the Half Moon &c. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a photograph that shows the approach to the Castle over the Esplanade. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Edinburgh_Castle_and_the_Esplanade.JPG I wouldn't claim it's "a really good shot", but it has documentary value. Kim Traynor 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That one's not bad actually, at least there are no buses parked in the foreground. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

This is fast becoming a silly page. Here we are discussing the best image to lead into the subject, while meantime Nab82ba has posted a pic in the 2nd position, which is very good but almost a duplicate of the picture by Macographer that follows. Nab82ba's is as much a photo of the fountain as the castle; and I find the fountain distracts from the main subject. Its main virtue is that it is a closer view. I suggest someone replace the new posting with a more appropriate overview image and move Nab82ba's to the position currently occupied by the Mactographer image, which already appears on the Hills In Edinburgh page. I won't do the substitution myself as I have had a recent disagreement with Saffron Blaze about the nature of the photo that should appear here - see User talk:Saffron Blaze. As a relatively new kid on the block myself, I would defer to Jonathan's judgement, as he has had a longer experience with the page, and I think he should choose an image he deems appropriate from the WikiCommons archive. Kim Traynor 12:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• That's because Nab82ba has added several images to various "Scotland" related articles for the purposes of increasing traffic to a particular website. As an interim measure I have gone through all his images and removed the link and submited his photos for deletion as I suspect they are copyvio. I don't think there would be any issue with RV his/her contributions. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well spotted Saffron. It seems that commercial considerations are lurking behind the newly posted image. Some people have no shame. Kim Traynor 15:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we are at the point that good discussion has gone on but no consensus has been achieved other than perhaps we would all prefer something better than anything offered so far. I am content to leave whatever is there now as the alternatives are not spectacular. Hopefully Kim gets a fine day and some free time:) Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edward I's removal of the Scottish national records

I am suprised to read here that Edward I removed the Scottish national records from the castle when negotiating a successor to Alexander III. I don't know the source being cited, so I don't know on what evidence the claim is based. I do know that Edward met the Scottish nobles at Norham on the border. I was under the impression, though I can't recall where I read it, that the archive was removed after the dethronement of Balliol and Edward's occupation of Scotland. That strikes me as inherently more likely unless he had removed the records, e.g. land charters, beforehand so that his lawyers could examine the relative wealth of the Scottish nobles. If anyone has evidence in print that disagrees with the Salter reference and supports the other contention, I would suggest that the reference be changed. Kim Traynor 23:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems you are right, I checked in McIvor, Edinburgh Castle, and though he states that the paying of homage to Edward "probably took place in the castle", he also confimrs that the records, treasure &c were taken following the siege of 1296. I'll update accordingly. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Randolph's exploit

While not wishing to detract from what probably constitutes the greatest single feat of bravery in the first War of Independence, I would question the ready acceptance of the story from Barbour's Brus that suggests Randolph and his men scaled the northern face of the Castle Rock. That is a probably a dramatic fiction to heighten the achievement, rather than historical fact. William Francis was a soldier who was said to know a way to sneak in and out of the castle to visit his girfriend in the burgh. Common sense suggests that he probably knew a pathway along the side of the rock that circumvented whatever gatehouse arrangement existed at the time. It's hard to imagine him descending and ascending the northern rockface, unless the girl's charms were exceptional. The idea that Randolph and his men would start at the level of the Nor' Loch (tactically a very dangerous position to put themselves in), climb the northern face of the rock and still have enough energy to scale the walls and defeat the garrison, places them in the league of supermen of a kind only encountered in legend and comics. The taking of the castle was certainly a remarkable accomplishment, but I think the page should be careful how it describes this incident. The word 'reputedly' springs to mind. Kim Traynor 23:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Barbour's Brus states that Wm Francis lived in the castle as a youth, and sneaked out via a cleft in the north face to visit a girl, which he subsequently led Moray to. This story is accepted by MacIvor, Edinburgh Castle, GWS Barrow, Robert Bruce, and Andrew McCulloch Scottish Saga: The Kingship in Eclipse (1286 - 1328), among those I was able to check. There is such a cleft in the north face, it leads up behind the ruin of the well-house tower (you can see it on the extreme right of this aerial image. Unlike the rest of the north face, it doesn't look that challenging (though I've not tried it myself!). More importantly, no matter how fanciful Barbour's account may be, there is no firm evidence to contradict him either. I think it would be quite wrong to change the story based on the supposition that it is embroidered, particularly given its wide acceptance. I suggest the article should retain the story as related by Barbour, but could be amended to make clear its origin also. Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware of the possible 'ladder' in the rock formation behind the well-house tower, but I can't see Francis climbing all the way down to the Nor' Loch, then climbing all the way back up the slope to reach his girl in the town (unless she lived at the bottom of a close bordering the loch!). Of course Barbour's story of Randolph's feat has been accepted down the generations without being questioned, because exaggerated history feeds the popular appetite. I wasn't suggesting changing the historical record in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. I was merely suggesting a cautionary note should be sounded when relating an heroic exploit that seems far-fetched, as does so much Scottish history. Kim Traynor 17:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

"unless the girl's charms were exceptional"

• I was led to believe this was true for all Scottish girls. I guess history is written by the victors after all. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dominates

The lead sentence is not neutral, in so far that it says the castle "dominates" the Edinburgh city skyline. This is a matter of opinion, dependant on your thoughts on what constitutes "dominating", and also what constitutes Edinburgh city. Personally I can think of lots of places I consider Edinburgh where it's not even visible on the skyline, far less dominating. Saffron Blaze thinks that it dominates "By any objective measure", but I can't think of any objective measurement for "dominating", which is just the problem you get with POV descriptions such as this.

Certainly it is a prominent feature. But "dominates" is a matter of opinion that shouldn't appear in the lead of an article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a danger here of expecting language to be too precise. Every reader should be able to grasp what is meant by the term 'dominating'. Of course, there are parts of the modern city sprawl where the castle can't be seen (though it does pop up unexpectedly in the most surprising places). It must have dominated the city more in the past before the Victorian expansion of the built-up area outwards. I would say it still dominates the city centre, though one could temper that by saying, mainly from the north, less so from the south and west, and hardly at all from the east unless at a distance. But that kind of exactitude makes for a dull read. Kim Traynor 17:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV is not a requirement to make everything bland. Saying Edinburgh Castle is a feature of the skyline of Edinburgh is like saying the CN Tower is a feature of the Toronto skyline. While both statements are essentially true they are not very enlightening to the reader. If you look at the definitions of "dominate" and "feature" you could surmise that many structures are features of both those skylines but only a very few could be considered to dominate. It seems clear to me that Edinburgh Castle meets the definition of dominates quite well. UNESCO in their description of Edinburgh as a World Heritage Site explicitly states Edinburgh is "dominated by a medieval fortress". This is only one of many verifiable references that describe the castle as such and most make reference specifically to the skyline. I am not convinced sourcing is a requirement since the dominance of this feature is self-evident is so many of the images of the Edinburgh skyline. At a minimum "dominates" is a better descriptor than "feature" as it provides useful factual information. It came across to me as an assertion of fact which would generally be uncontested. Google the sentence "What dominates the skyline of Edinburgh?" for fun. I think you will see my point about uncontested. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well unsurprisingly if you google that sentence you get this page and its mirrors! How about it "dominates the centre of Edinburgh", or is a "principal feature" of the skyline? I think we could be more specific while allayiing Escape Orbit's concern? Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure you get a few mirrors but for 20+ pages on numerous sites it uses 'dominates'. I am all for compromise but it is unclear why dominates is not factually correct. It certainly looked that way to me when I was there the week prior. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

A quick Google Books search shows that it is a certainly common way to describe it in the popular literature, and in some more specialist works. I'm not convinced that using the term is POV; one definition of dominate, after all, is "to overlook from a height", which seems pretty accurate here. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not "factually correct" because it's not a factual measure. If it stated the height, or size, of the castle then that would be indisputable fact. But using "dominates" is adding opinion to the mix. What if someone replaced it with "crowds the skyline" or "looms over Edinburgh"? They are both correct in so far that the castle is tall, prominent and high, but the manner in which it is is opinion.

Using Google hit counts is original research, and it doesn't really matter how many references can be found offering descriptions of the castle. Wikipedia still has an obligation to be neutral, particularly in the lead. If we found 20+ pages that described the castle as "awesome" does that mean the article lead can describe it "awesome" too? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

What part of fun did you not understand? I am not using google hits to conduct "original research". I was just showing that I wasn't the only one using this term to describe the castle. Regardless, if we look at other wiki articles where features dominate skylines we see then described as:

• CN Tower ...signature icon of Toronto's skyline.
• Mount Cargill ...dominate the skyline of Dunedin, New Zealand.
• Château Frontenac ...is the most prominent feature of the Quebec City skyline as seen from across the St. Lawrence.
• Atlantic City Casino hotels dominate the skyline...
• Calgary Tower ...It dominated the Calgary skyline.

Any modifier that we add to the statement that Edinburgh Castle is on the skyline is subject to being called an opinion. Is it a feature? Some might argue it is not. Is it prominent? Others might argue this as well. At what point does it become factual? My argument is that feature, prominent and dominate are all factual statements with respect to this castle and its relation to the skyline.

Saffron Blaze (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Calm down. Do you think you can Google something "for fun" and then use it to demonstrate your point as well? In that case, I suggest it was OR, for fun. You don't get to reply to that, because it was for fun.

Obvious all words carry a certain baggage. We can only attempt to be as neutral as possible. And just because other article sometimes fail to do this does not mean this article should to. "Dominate" has overtones of the castle surpassing all other features. Being the one and only. "Feature" and "prominent" do not have these overtones. Therefore they are more neutral. That's all. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

• Overtones? Aren't we at risk of trying to define the term "dominates" while a perfectly good definition already exists. The castle meets that definition. Moreover NPOV specifically directs that we are to avoid presenting uncontested assertions as mere opinion. At this point all we have is an opinion that perhaps it doesn't dominate the skyline despite all the photographic and verifiable sourced evidence to the contary. Moreover I am now getting lost in what is actually being contested. Is it that it doesn't dominate enough that it should be phrased as such? Would you actualy be against saying the CN Tower dominates the Toronto skyline as well? My concern here is that in an effort to be NPOV we may actually remove some valuable information in the process. Not every feature of a skyline should be said to dominate, even prominent ones, but when it does dominate we should be confident enough to say it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I feel it is a prominent feature of the Edinburgh skyline but am often asked by tourists where the castle is...If UNESCO feel that it dominates the Edinburgh skyline then let it be so as they have much expertise in this area, unless you have a better way to put it? Sure from certain places in Edinburgh you can't see the castle but this is true in every city which has something that 'dominates' their skyline.NotMiserable (talk) 22:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't we settle for the first sentence being: "Edinburgh Castle is a fortress which dominates the centre of the city of Edinburgh, Scotland, from its position atop the volcanic Castle Rock." I can't see much wrong with that as plain English. It's in the centre and if you also happen to be there it certainly seems to be a dominating presence. Kim Traynor 22:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

"Edinburgh Castle is a medieval fortress whose position atop the volcanic Castle Rock continues to give it a dominant presence on the skyline of Edinburgh City." Is medieval still correct despite what UNESCO said? Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Not that there's much mediaeval to it now, apart from its basic ground plan, St. Margaret's Chapel and the remains of David's Tower and the Well-house Tower. Kim Traynor 14:59, 25 February 2012 (UTC)