Talk:Castle

Bodiam image

My argument here comes down to wp:LIKE, I fear. I think the image replaced better shows the situation of the structure on the water. I also simply don't find it the new image as pleasing visually. I support the older image.- Sinneed 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to use either image as the first one is still of good quality (it's used in the article on Bodiam Castle itself) so I've undone the edit. In the second image is less dark, partly because the distracting leaves are absent. Also, the change of angle is important. The first image is focussed on the rear of the castle, whereas the new one is of the front; the front would have been the high-status entrance and the rear was much less important, as can be seen from looking at the architecture. I don't mind an argument which might seem to boil down to "I like it", because I prefer the visuals of the second image and that's what prompted me to make the change. Images should of course be informative, but ideally in the lead they should also be interesting and make the reader want to learn more. I think the second image does this better as there's more going on, but both versions work. At the start, good visuals are important. As I said, I'm happy to use either, but thought I should explain myself. Nev1 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean to make you insta-revert. You have done magnificent work on this article, and I don't think the front image is bad, at all. As I said, I really just like the back/water-side view... perhaps it is purely a romantic appeal to me. Thanks for all your work here.- Sinneed 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

hi

a catsle is not built in these days174.23.155.89 (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not generally, no. I think this is probably adequately covered in the article.- Sinneed 21:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems with first paragraph.

The very first line says a castle is a defensive structure, the article goes on to say that a castle is also used for offensive or political purposes.

I say it should be a fortified structure, One could delete the word defensive from the first line, so as just to say a castle is a structure.

The first paragraph says that castles are found in Europe and the Middle East (Middle East should be replaced with a more specific location) and then the article goes on to say that there were castles in the Americas.

'Fortaleza Ozama in the Dominican Republic was the first castle built in the Americas.' - (JohnQposter (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

It is a defensive structure... but like any structure can be used for many purposes (say... hospital... barn... automobile storage...).

" with the Middle Ages, found in Europe and the Middle East" how about " with the Middle Ages of Europe and the Middle East" or " with Middle Age Europe and the Middle East". My thinking in placing the "the" in the brackets is that I have seen many maps labeled "The Middle East"... This is not done with Europe, Asia... you don't see The Europe, though you do see "The European Region" or similar.

More modern usage is to refer to the region as "Southwest Asia". I wonder if this might be more appropriate than the becoming-antique Middle East usage. - Sinneed 22:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at recent discussion at "Middle East" and "Western Asia" and associated projects, it seems to me that "Middle East" is still appropriate for most English-speakers, as of 2009 early 2010.- Sinneed 22:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Version 3.0 - " with the European and Middle Eastern Middle Ages"

Version 4.0 - " with Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages" - Sinneed 22:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

but I hate the Middle...Middle... *shrug* - Sinneed 22:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts at all? Good, Bad, Indifferent, Boring? - Sinneed 14:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If "Middle Ages" is causing repetition, "medieval period" works just as well. (I've got very limited time for editing myself at the moment.) Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the "middle" ... "middle" that I think scans poorly. I don't see a solution, just an unfortunate co-appearance of the word.- Sinneed 17:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to change. Obviously any fortification is tacticly defensive, though it may well be strategicly offensive at the same time. The true home of the castle is Europe & the Middle East, though there are outliers as to both time & place - see above & the FAC ad nauseam. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

There were really two purposes of castles, offensive and defensive. The offensive castle dominated an area within a days ride. This is how William conquered England, he built castle after castle within a days ride. The castle itself was defensive in the sense it was non-moveable ie. someone had to come to the castle to fight, even if the people inside the castle were the ones who started the fight, but its purpose was to dominate and control surrounding territory, it was foremost an offensive weapon. Knights could go out and harry the land and people and return after dark without repercussion. The owner of the castle could control the surrounding territory and build a string of castles to expand the reach. Compare with US military bases in Vietnam or Iraq - the whole purpose of building them is to control the surrounding territory. The defensive castle were meant to protect everything inside the walls (and nearby) from outside attackers. Such as a walled city. A monastery. A cathedral. The purpose of a castle could change over time, starting out as offensive, then becoming defensive and then eventually something else entirely (country estates, institutions, etc..), with the architecture changing appropriately along the way. A Norman-era Motte and Baily was clearly an offensive weapon used to conquer territory. An Italian late-medieval walled city clearly a defensive structure. Green Cardamom (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"There were really two purposes of castles, offensive and defensive". Can you be so sure? Historians and archaeologists who've spent their careers studying the subject might disagree. If you read the article, you'll see that castles were much more than military buildings and were important centres of administration and display. Nev1 (talk) 12:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

..and if you read what I wrote above I agree with you, my comment is not an absolute ultimatum with quotes to be cherry picked. It is re the question were castles offensive or defensive - the answer is, it depends, but castles were very often offensive in nature. It just depends on location and time period. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The behaviour you describe sounds defensive to me - controlling territory already conquered. I think you'll find the harrying was normally done before the castle was built at all. The immediate, tactical function of a castle is to provide safety for the people inside, by keeping hostile people out. That is defensive (contrast a prison, where the immediate function is to keep people held inside from getting out). Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Very often the people inside a castle were the hostiles and the people outside where being subjugated. A territory in the middle ages isn't conquered just because William won at Hastings, he spent decades cementing his rule by brute force - think Nazi's in France. Read any history of the Norman Conquest (post 1066) or the period of rapid castle building in France and Germany. Small fortified castles were typically built so that the owners of the castle could act with impunity and the local population had no recourse. German and French Kings hated castles (except their own) and did what they could to stop castle builders, though they were often too weak to do so. Castle builders were generally looked on disparagingly. They were not just big private stone houses put up to protect from bandits. They were intentional offensive weapons to dominate and control territory (as Nev1 says "centres of administration and display"). Once a castle was in place, it was extremely costly and difficult for a King to get rid of it, meanwhile the owner of the castle could collect "taxes" and basically do whatever he wanted within a zone surrounding it. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It bothers me to no end, that the first sentence of the first paragraph says; 'A castle is a type of defensive structure built in Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages.

Then the second sentence of the second paragraph contradicts the above line with; Castles controlled the area immediately surrounding them, and were both offensive and defensive structures; they provided a base from which raids could be launched as well as protection from enemies.'

Why are castles 'defensive structure(s)' in the first paragraph and in the second they are 'both offensive and defensive structures'?

The word defensive in the first paragraph ought to be changed to fortified or deleted outright, say 'A castle is a type of structure' or 'A castle is a type of fortified structure'

The entire article contradicts the first line, because the first line contains the word defensive.

Why does it HAVE to say defensive structure in the first line?

(Sinneed, I do not understand the correlation between castles being categorized as defensive structures and barns and Hospitals being used for other things. That one is totally lost on me.) (JohnQposter (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

This editor's posting style seem amazingly familiar. Nev1, if compromise is needed, how about "fortified", instead? I find the argument against using "defensive" to be a bit specious... a space shuttle is primarily a means of lobbing payloads into space, but it can be used militarily, quite effectively, as an offensive weapon.- Sinneed 22:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And further, no, the 2nd line does not contradict the first.- Sinneed 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand JohnQposter's point now. The article explains that the defensive side of castles was just one of many facets and that giving it top billing in the first sentence perhaps doesn't quite fit with have the situation is presented in the rest of the article. The user's quite right to say that castles were used offensively, and Cathcart king explains how they could be used as bases from which raids could be launched. I initially changed the opening sentence to "A castle... is a type of high-status structure". Correct, it doesn't quite sound right and sounds vague, so I've gone for "A castle... is a type of fortified structure". Nev1 (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Britain's Medieval Castles (2005) by Lise E. Hull, Chapter 1: "Castles as Offensive Weapons". The author devotes the entire first chapter of her book to this notion of castles as being offensive in nature. Chapter 2 is called "Castles as Defensive Weapons". It's well known among scholars that castles were both offensive and defensive weapons. It's sort of basic really. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wording in lead

"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 development of concentric fortification – and drawing on earlier defences such as Roman forts for inspiration."

seems a bit unwieldy. I propose:

"These changes in defence have been attributed to a mixture of castle technology from the Crusades such as concentric fortification and inspiration from earlier defences such as Roman forts."

Any objections? Main page linkage scheduled in short hours according to the page top here.- Sinneed 21:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That sentence has been problematic. Your suggestion sounds good to me. Nev1 (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I also added a pair of commas. I was trying to read the article with "new eyes" before its front page appearance. - Sinneed 23:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also in the first paragraph, there was no recognition given to the Muslim world, where the crusaders first got the idea for building castles.

European innovation?

The Japanese version of this article says that the first castle is noted in literature as Mizugi in the year 664. [[1]] Wakablogger2 (talk) 07:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This article is fully referenced to high quality sources. Nev1 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article claims that castles are a European invention and that they were developed around the ninth century. This shows an extreme bias that does not include a worldwide view. Mention of castles in India has been made on this page and the article Japanese castle demonstrate that there is either serious restructuring work to do or else the article should be renamed to show that the focus is on European castles, not castles in general. Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't support this idea. This is an article about what is referred to in English as a castle. There are certainly direct translations into many other languages, and similar words that refer to some or all of what are called "castles" in English. I think this article represents a global view of this subject. It certainly would not represent a global view of what is meant by all words in all languages that translate into English as "castle".- Sinneed 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see section on renaming the article for a follow-up. Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FA

Can't believe I missed the work taking this to, and reviewing it at FAC.

Terrific work, all concerned. I remember editing it a couple of years ago when it was a parochial mess with massive WP:WORLDVIEW issues. Sorry I wasn't there to help - seems to have dropped off my Watchlist - I'll correct that now. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

English castles

English castles are represented in three out of the first four pictures, and six out of the first ten. They're beautiful but isn't this a bit too much? Especially in a featured article people should be more sensible about this. --93.45.196.162 (talk) 10:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are constrained by the images available on Wikipedia. The images have been chosen for their quality and because they represent certain features. Ideally there'd be fewer English castles, but as the English language Wikipedia is the largest version and has the most editors, it should not be surprising that there are more images available from England. When more high quality, fully licensed alternatives become available, some of the ones used now can be replaced. Nev1 (talk) 11:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem to find 4 other pictures of castles not in GB. Take for example the List of Castles in Germany, there's a huge amount of medival castles to find. (I can search for some in other countries.)

The whole article focuses much on GB and France, with some spanish and italian references. But there are castles all over Europe. Especially Germany is mentioned only under neo-castle-building (Neuschwanstein) what is very distortionary, as Germany is the country with the largest amount of castles in all. 80.187.106.124 (talk) 09:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Images are chosen with a particular architectural feature in mind first, quality second, and location last. Simply crowbarring in more images from one country or replacing the current photos without paying attention to the content would not improve the article. Nev1 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Nev1 (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rename

The title of this article should be renamed "Western European Castles".

A disambiguated article should be entitled "Castles" - but not this one. All other articles concerning "fortified elite residences" can be drawn to together into one overreaching topic.

As it stands, the naming of this article "Castles" means that (by using only British and a few French examples - because that is obviously a reflection of the sources used e.g. Lidiard) this article ignores (in the Northern Hemisphere) the strongholds of Iberia, Scandinavian, Germanic, Eastern European, North African, Middle Eastern et al.

Lest we forget the ones of India, South East Asia, or China (Korea and Japan).

This article is being used to define a much too broad topic by using a limited selection of examples from Western Europe. There is nothing wrong with the content except the title. These are "Western European Castles" not all "Castles"

It is like defining all sports car by calling them Ferraris. Because they all have four wheels, windows and engines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.0.240 (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Much time has been spent debating the definition of "castle", not just here but by academics. The definition that is generally accepted by them is the one the article uses, and that's how it should be. The Iberian peninsular is mention, as is eastern Europe and, of course, the Middle East. In a general article, there is not time to list each country and detail its little variations when there is so much ground to cover and much commonality. Let's be clear that England, France, and the Outremer were the three most important areas in the development of castles. If those areas figure more prominently in this article, it is because the Normans and Crusaders were such a large part of the castle story. Nev1 (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Typical answer from Nev1 with the "and that's how it should be". These are Western European Castles, which of course are Castles but they do not globally represent culturally all "castles". Are you therefore saying that because we use English that it must be taken as read to be mean only the first identifiable structures to Western people.

So we will just ignore the fact that Japanese Feudal daimyos were living in "seriously defended residency of a lord" since the 7th century...what about the Chinese strongholds in the 1st century BCE? Or is the English language version of Wikipedia just going to sub categorise them too?? This article makes the fallacious assertion that until primarily Westerners developed castles they did not exist anywhere else??

This is classic Eurocentric thinking and borders on reductionist reasoning. The article is dealing with Western European Castles not Castles per se. As I have rightly pointed out, the groupthink that I am trying to challenge (aka the wikiality) is: all Hoovers are vacuum cleaner but not all VCs are Hoovers!?

BTW The Crusader castles in the Outremer were built by the Franks, er who were western Europeans!!

Change the name to "Western European Castles" as this is what the article is all about. using the word "Castles" is certainly not "how it should be". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.0.240 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't support anon's idea. This is an article about what is referred to in English as a castle. There are certainly direct translations into many other languages, and similar words that refer to some or all of what are called "castles" in English. I think this article represents a global view of this subject. It certainly would not represent a global view of what is meant by all words in all languages that translate into English as "castle".- Sinneed 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is an article about what is referred to in English as a castle, where is the mention of such buildings as Osaka Castle and Himeji Castle, buildings in Japan that *any* English speaker would call a castle. And just as British castles developed from Roman buildings, so did Japanese castles develop from an earlier structural style. Yet while the Roman antecedents are discussed, nothing of the antecedents of Japanese castles are discussed. And that is just to speak of Japan. There is a very heavy Western European bias here. This article has excellent content, but unless the name is changed (or the entire article is seriously reconstructed), the article remains severely lacking in a global viewpoint. Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"buildings in Japan that *any* English speaker would call a castle" - I believe that you might not speak for all of us.- Sinneed 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you look at the photos of those castles in those articles? If you came across those buildings, what would you call them? And how do they differ from the definitions given in this article for castles? Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wakablogger, I cannot read a word of Japanese but it seems pretty clear that the article you are referring to is unreferenced. As I stated above, this article is fully referenced. The definition this article uses is the one used amonst academics. That is explained in the article. What you or I call castles is immarterial. Neither you or I are experts (if I may be that presumptuous). Japanese "castles" and castles are separate entities, hence they have separate articles; Turnbull states that the buildings you are referring to "[have] a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". Moreover, they were used in a different way. Hence they are excluded from the literature on castles, and I don't just mean Wikipedia's article. However, there are interesting parallels, which is why there is a link in the see also section but that is all that is required. Nev1 (talk) 19:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The articles I referenced in this section are in *English*. The article on Japanese castles talks about (Japanese) *castles* and this article talks about (Western European) *castles*. Wakablogger2 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to this, which you mentioned earlier. Please take the time to read the article, it is not restricted to Western Europe and I cannot take any such assertion that it is seriously, or any comments by someone who it seems has not bothered to read beyond the lead. Nev1 (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The assumption that I seem to not have *bothered* to read beyond the lead demonstrates that this is not a discussion, but a crusade to keep the bias in the article without changing the name. I will not comment further on this matter unless there is a vote to change the name, which I will vote for. Wakablogger2 (talk) 20:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for starters you ignored the inclusion of castles in the Outremer which, contrary to the IP's assertion, were built by both sides. Nev1 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Distinction from Japanese castles (moved from "Rename" section)

The article is titled "Japanese castle", so if this article is not going to encompass Japanese castles it should explain why. This article says that scholars regard Japanese castles as something separate from European castles, but doesn't elaborate on the reasons scholars draw the distinction. A different history is obvious, but what was so fundamentally different about the structures' designs and reasons for being? A. Parrot (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree, A. Parrot, that is (edit to add: one of the reasons) why we attach sources to text: so that the detail is made available in a useful way to readers who want to know more than fits in the WP article.- Sinneed 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the division between Japanese and European castles has to be explained somewhere. This article is titled "castle" without further qualifiers, and would give the initial idea that it covers all castles—and a Japanese castle could easily be classed as a castle, because it is a "private fortified residence" which arose in a feudal society. If the article doesn't include Japanese castles, it must explain why. Currently it explains quite well why a castle is different from other types of fortification, but only cursorily covers the European/Japanese distinction even though that distinction is finer. I do understand that distinction; the two structures developed separately, the word was invented to describe the European version, and the word was only later applied to the Japanese version based on analogy. But in the article that is more implicit than explicit. It comes off as rather dismissive, and puts the burden all on the Japanese castle article to explain why a Japanese castle isn't really a "castle". A. Parrot (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the flow thing is too bad. I see your argument. I can't really agree, but Eurocentrism is a trap: I don't think we are in it, but certainly it is always worth watching for. Do you have wording to propose to add and a place you propose to add it?- Sinneed 21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I propose we refactor this to its own section, perhaps "Distinction from Japanese castles (moved from "Rename" section)",immediately below.- Sinneed 21:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I separated the section. I'm not sure yet what wording I would add, though the section that already mentions Japanese castles would be a logical place to put it. I'll think about it, but I'm a bit hampered at the moment, partly by real life (darn thing always gets in the way) and partly because I don't have the sources on castles and don't know what they say on the subject.

I'd also like to note that it's unlikely that European and Japanese castles are the only private fortified residences that have arisen in history; it's just that Japanese castles are the only non-European examples I knew of for certain, and are probably the best-known worldwide. I'd be surprised, for example, if feudal pre-Qin China didn't have analogous buildings. I don't know, either, whether any other analogous buildings are actually called castles (if they aren't, we could probably leave them out; if they are, it might be necessarily to briefly mention them alongside the Japanese ones). While I don't go as far as User:Wakablogger2, I do worry that the worldwide parallels haven't been dealt with thoroughly enough. A. Parrot (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue does not appear to have ever been resolved. The origin of a structure, of a particular object, rarely has anything to do with labelling analogous objects within other cultures. Neither Merriam-Webster's nor the American Heritage Dictionary mention "Europe" in their definitions of the word "castle". The definition of a castle regards function, not location. Just as a "palace" is still a lavish residence regardless of what country you find it, a "house" is a modest but permanent residential dwelling, etc. As it stands, the wording of the present entry is not only Eurocentric, but elitist, as it asserts that only Europeans can build "private fortified residences".

The editor states that he is "not sure yet what wording [he] would add", and was not able to modify the entry because he does not possess sufficient knowledge or sources concerning other countries, and because of a busy perosnal life. I have written a paragraph as a modification to the entry, explaining and providing examples that demonstrate why the Japanese fortified buildings are indeed "castles". That's what Wikipedia is about: contributions based on an expanded pool of knowledge. I believe my modification should be allowed to stand. Boneyard90 (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The issue was discussed at greater length during the article's FAC. Not everyone agreed, but the consensus was that how the article currently deals with the subject is the right way. With regard to Merriam-Webster's nor the American Heritage Dictionary, neither are particularly relevant, and as I explained at he FAC is we're going to use tertiary sources such as dictionaries then Darvill's Oxford Dictionary of Archaeology is far more appropriate, and it does specify Europe. Your changes, while well intentioned, were not adequately sourced and bordered on original research. In a nutshell, castle texts focus on what is covered in the article, but shiro are curiously analogous and deserve a mention. Nev1 (talk) 00:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the discussion in the Article's FAC, I must say, I did not see any consensus on the issue. It appears that the proponents for a more inclusive article simply failed to convince you. It even appears that a minority of the contributors support your view. Even though there is no other recourse and, as you said, the decision has been made, I feel it necessary to make these points. I would also like to point out that in the Japanese Wikipedia entry for "shiro", it covers both Japanese and European castles as well other examples. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

While I cannot read Japanese, the lack of footnotes in the article is concerning. I don't think it should be used as a yardstick to measure this article. Nev1 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I found twelve or thirteen footnotes in the Japanese article, fewer than the English version, but there nonetheless. I also find it irresponsible that the "Castle" article quotes Stephan Turnbull's book "Japanese Castles 1540-1640" out of context as a means to support the Anglo bias (the phrase "completely different..."). Turnbull repeatedly uses the term "castle" throughout his book, as he does in his book "War in Japan 1467-1615". Boneyard90 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an article in the Japanese Wikipedia about the English word "Castle" and its meaning? I find that rather doubtful. I do expect there is an article about what is meant by a Japanese word which translates generally to "Castle". However, Wikipedia is not a language translation dictionary. The Japanese word that includes some, most, or all of the meanings of the English word Castle is not terribly interesting here. This is an article about what is meant in English by "Castle", not what is meant in Japanese by a word translating to English as "Castle".- Sinneed 07:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

"Not terribly interesting"?? I thought an encyclopedia describes and explains the nature and features of a topic, without confining the description to what an editor finds "interesting". If that were the case, the section on "physics" might be terribly short.

Second, I find the present article not so much about "what is meant in English by 'Castle'", but it is rather about "the structure that English-speakers think of when they think of the word 'castle'". You confine your view to the structures you associate with the word "castle", even though there are others that contain the same architectural features and fulfilled the same purposes. Boneyard90 (talk) 08:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I see two appeals to emotion, but no case for removal of information from the lead of this English language article. I do understand there is a Japanese word that translates as castle that refers to fortified structures in Japan that are similar.

Perhaps, as suggested more than once, above, a section on them? Perhaps title it "Japan". Perhaps a 1st line of "*whatever-the-Japanese-word-is* (jp:pronunciation) (castles) were built from whenever to whenever, and like European castles were..."

On my talk page, you asked how to proceed. 1st, I encourage you to focus here on how you would like to change the article, rather than how misguided I am... I am not in the encyclopedia. Starting with suggestions for the body, which the lead should summarize, would be good. Should you be unable to find support here, and still believe that the broader WP community would have that support, you may want to follow wp:dispute resolution, for example, you might propose an wp:RfC. Hammering content removal into the wp:lead is unlikely to work well.- Sinneed 15:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, since they have an entire article, possibly change the hat note to point to Japanese *whatever in Japanese* (castles), instead of just to the dismbiguation page, which is ugly. I will update the disamb page, because it does not mention the Japanese castles article at all.- Sinneed 15:16, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Boneyard, but the article simply reflects the sources. That's the job of an encyclopedia. If you disagree with that, I suggest that you forge a career in academia combining the study of what are widely considered castles and shiro. Until there are reliable sources they shouldn't get more a mention than they currently do. It's represented as what is essentially a minority view because of the dearth of sources; yes there's Turnbull, but the vast majority of castle texts do not include Japan. This may change over time. If this article had been written as little as 10 years ago there would have been little significant material to go into the castle landscapes section. I think the way the article currently deals with the subject is sufficient, and certainly reflects the literature, however Sinneed makes a good suggestion about the hatnote. Nev1 (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

--Gentlemen (I'm assuming you're both male), where to begin? - To Sineed, it was not my intent to suggest you were "misguided", but rather appeal to your sense of reason. Perhaps my own choice of wording was misguided.

---To Nev-1, I think I'll take your suggestion that I "forge a career in academia combining...castles and shiro" as a compliment, though right now my anthropological focus is on Japanese funerary rituals and the translation of epitaphs. Perhaps someday I'll turn my attention to something regarding castles.

--As for the ongoing topic, I pulled several (I believe) very reputable sources on architecture. I've marked certain pertinent passages in Bold that I believe illustrate my point.

Gwilt, Joseph. (1867) The Encyclopedia of Architecture: Historical, Theoretical, and Practical. New York: Crown Publishers, Inc.

“A building fortified for military defence; also a house with towers, usually encompassed with walls and moats, and having a donjon or keep in the centre.” (p1168) In a discussion of Norman castles, the author elucidates on the features of the more developed castles, but at no time does he specify England or Europe in general as the sole locations for castles (p170).

Fleming, John, Hugh Honour, and Nikolaus Pevsner. (1999) The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. 5th Edition. London: Penguin Books, Ltd.

“Castle. A fortified habitation. The planning and building of castles is primarily directed by the necessities of defence…” One of the features is the keep or donjon, which is “a tower spacious enough to act as living quarters in time of war for the lord or governor and garrison.” Examples rely on castles in England, France, and Germany, though the definition does not mandate that castles are restricted to any one area (p100). Regarding Japanese castles, it refers to Himeji and Nijo castles without reserve or qualification (p304). Regarding variation, many English castles were “symmetrically composed” (p100), while in Japan, "the fortified castles...[as in Himeji] the asymmetry of its several storeys may have been determined to assist defence.” (p304)

Moffett, Marian, Michael Fazio, and Lawrence Wodehouse. (2004) A World History of Architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing Ltd.

Japanese castles of the 16th- 17th centuries were “[b]ased on earlier fortifications…these castles are unusual in that they were built to accommodate and resist firearms that had been introduced by Portuguese traders in the course of the sixteenth century. The castle at Himeji (1609)…shared a number of defensive features with medieval masonry castles in Europe: a strategic location on a promontory, massive foundations for the central donjon, heavily fortified gateways, and walled enclosures protected by moats.” (p106-7) After a description of features, it says that “Like its European counterparts, [Himeji Castle] was meant to dominate the surrounding countryside for which it served as an administrative center.” (107)

On European castles: “Castles were constructed for defense, guarding strategic roads and rivers, and they also served as administrative centers for the surrounding territory. (p267) “From Islamic castles in present-day Syria, the Crusaders learned to build corbelled stone galleries (machicolations) projecting beyond the face of the wall to serve as a fighting platform” (p267).

--As for what should be done regarding the article; the "hat note" suggested by Sineed in one option to consider. I also make a list of proposals, some of which are, I hope, acceptable compromises:

(1) In accordance with the above sources, remove the restrictive wording in the leading paragraphs. I believe my last (undone) edit shows what I mean. Remove "built in Europe" from the first sentence. Paragraph 2: change "European innovation, castles..." to "Castles that were built in Europe...". In the "Origins" section, Line 1: Change "Castles..." to "Castles in Europe..." Modify other, similar phrases to bring them into agreement. Looking at the this Talk page, I can see I'm not the only one who has a problem with the wording as it stands. I count three other contributors in three Topics that have similar critiques; topics "Rename", "Distinction..." and "Front Page". After reviewing the FAC closely, and regarding this issue only, I found three contributors that supported the Europe-only (or European-influenced, i.e. Crusades-era castles in Middle East, Dominica) criteria, whereas I found six in favor of a more inclusive, geographically neutral description.

(2) Remove the Turnbull quote regarding Japanese castles entirely. It's used to support the Europe-only criteria, but as I point out, it's used out of context, which is implicitly conceded by Nev-1 in his last comment.

(3) Remove Japanese castles from the "Defining Characteristics" section. I suggest a new sub-section, or possibly a paragraph in the "Etymology" section, saying something like:

The word "castle" is also applied to fortified structures in other parts of the world, that may have developed independantly, but nonetheless meet the same criteria, contain the same features, and served in the same functions as castles in Europe. Among the more notable are the [Japanese castles|shiro] of Japan, which are popularly referred to as "castles". While there are texts written by professors of history and architecture that do not include geography as a defining characteristic of a "castle", some of which specifically use the terms "Japanese castle" in comparison to "European castles" (reference Fleming et al., Gwilt, Moffett et al, and Turnbull - or another history source), there remains some dispute over the scholarly application of the word "castle", in regard to whether a fortified structure that originated outside of the European sphere of influence in history can be regarded as a true castle (reference something that specifies Europe only).

I know I've written alot here, but if you've made it this far, I thank you for your patience in reading this.

Boneyard90 (talk) 16:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be struggling to understand a couple of points here. You say "...at no time does he specify England or Europe in general as the sole locations for castles", but England has nothing to do with this; nowhere, either in the article or on this talk page, has it been claimed that castles are exclusive to England so I'd be surprised if the author did. Also, you seem to ignore the fact that the article talks about castles in the Holy Land. In fact, the article quite clearly says "It is generally accepted that castles are confined to Europe, where they originated, and the Middle East, where they were introduced by European Crusaders". So you've misunderstood something somewhere. The point about the bit about castles being generally confined to Europe and the Holy Land is sourced.

While the sources you've provided undoubtedly satisfy Wikipedia's WP:RS policy, they are not particularly better than those already used in the article. For example, Gwilt is well over a century old; castellology has come a long way in nearly 150 years. Pevsner & co (of course highly respected) over simplify matters. For example: "The planning and building of castles is primarily directed by the necessities of defence" is very controversial. There was a whole spectrum of concerns when building a castle, while defence was important and one of the main concerns, it was not the sole concern which The planning and building of castles is primarily directed by the necessities of defence seems to suggest; but that's a whole other discussion. The point is, none of the sources you've provided are primarily about castles. The majority of books on castles, rather than generalisations about architecture, do not include Japan. The information in the quote from the article I gave earlier is sourced from Allen Brown; a military historian who helped found a multi-national journal on castle studies. Certainly better qualified to explain what a castle is than the sources you've provided. That some people call shiro castles is fine, but the sources specifically about castles don't. The article reflects this minority use by mentioning them as intriguing analogous structures. It doesn't matter that some people call them castles, otherwise the likes of Maiden Castle (an Iron Age hillfort) would have to be included, which is nonsense. The weakness of using a general source rather than a castle-specific one is highlighted by Moffett, Fazio & Wodehouse. They claim that one of the features of masonry castles in Europe was a promontory position; this is a popular misconception as castles were more often sited at centres of population or along important communication routes (such as roads) than hilltops which would have provided a natural defence. That's not to say castles weren't sited on promontories, but it wasn't as common as most people assume. The source also says that what set Japanese castles apart from other fortifications was "reliance on timber as the primary structural material"; so... Hen Domen and Sycharth Castle were made from stone? Early Norman motte and bailey castles were not wooden? The first phase of the Tower of London didn't use timber, despite what the sources say? This is the problem of generic texts trying to bite off more than they can chew. I suspect what it may have meant was contemporary fortifications didn't use timber, but it's not clear.

As for the proposed changes to the lead paragraph, you're suggesting ditching sourced information for more vague unsourced original research. I'm afraid that's not acceptable. That pretty much rules out option one. Option two seems a little bare; you want to reduce the amount said about shiro in the article? Option three: that's pretty much original research. Nev1 (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

PS. 86.172.0.240 (talk · contribs) is a recurrent (used several sock accounts as well as IPs) troll on this page who accused good faith editors of being racist and went so far as to threaten one user with the FBI. Their "opinion" is trolling and should be ignored. And uninformed opinions of editors do not outweigh reliable sources. Nev1 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Struggling"? I don't think I'm struggling to understand your explanations, I just find your reasoning is spurious and inconsistent, and your conclusions unfounded. However, I am struggling to understand your obstinacy. But, let us procede:

(1) On the issue of TIMBER: This is another example where you use a quote out of context. Yes, I thought about including that part of the quote as a matter of full disclosure, until I read the description under European Castles: "The earliest such fortifications were wooden…easily visible are the earthworks that accompanied the early wooden castles, motte and bailey (mound and yard) being the most common form of these.” (Moffett 2004:265) So I regarded the whole issue of timber as somewhat irrelevant. Many European castles were made primarily of timeber, Japanese castles retained timber as a primary medium for the main structure. The article in fact states that castles in Denmark as well as "castles in Eastern Europe were usually of timber construction", sourced to Higham and Barker (1992), Timber Castles. The whole issue of timber in castle construction should be completely moot, and so should not disqualify Japanese castles from being mentioned.

(2) On the sources I have cited: I have gathered sources old and new, British and American, yet you refuse to accept them, and with such selective reasoning as pointed out above. But consider this source on the topic, which is more specific than those above: "When considering the design of castles, medievel lords had a fairly consistent set of requirements [including a hall, sleeping quarters, bailey, tower, etc]...But the way these requirements were expressed VARIED ENORMOUSLY and there is little sign of the consistency of layout seen in ecclesiastical architecture. Most castles were in fact an amalgam of seperate buildings, built at different times by different owners, forming an agglomeration of structures rather than a single monumnet. The preference for sites with natural fortifications, on a cliff edge or rocky outcrop, was a further impediment to unified planning" (83) It goes on to say that the keep also had great variety (88), and discusses the evolution of the keep from "wooden towers, some of which are known to have been structures of great complexity", citing the "wooden castle at Ardres" as an example (88). Here is a source on medievel architecture that makes plain that although there are a few architectural features that define a castle, the description of a castle can not be too narrowly confined. He makes several references to wooden castles, and cites examples where the functional emphasis of some castles lay heavier in one direction than in another (military versus residential, or residential versus administrative, etc), with exceptions given for layout or structural features.

Stalley, Roger. (1999) Early Medievel Architecture. Oxford University Press.

(3) On the Turnbull quote already in the article: You still haven't addressed this issue. You have not defended its use, nor disputed my charge that the article irresponsibly quotes Turnbull out of context in order to promote a biased view.

(4) On the Europe-related wording: Yes, I sometimes say "Europe and England" because some people draw a line between the two. People who say "The Continent". Really not too big a deal, when I say Europe, I mean England as well.

(5) Castles in the Holy Land: I'm not ignoring castles in the Holy Land. I mention in one of my sourced quotes: "Islamic castles" and the hypothesis that some technology was taken from the Middle East to Europe (Fleming et al. 1999). The Castle article says "Both Christians and Muslims created fortifications, and the character of each was different". So if there were Muslim castles, and the character of each was different, meaning each side applied its own technology and adapted their castle to their own requirements while maintaining those features prescribed that maintain the defining functions of defense, residence, and administration, then you have a structure that meets all the definitions of a "castle" and indeed IS a "castle", and is RECOGNIZED as a "castle", but not in Europe, in the Middle East. So, if you include the Middle East castles, why not other castles of countries, as long as all requirements are met regarding form and function?

(6) Regarding my proposed paragraph revision: I dispute wholeheartedly the assertion that there is any "original research" there. I have mentioned both sides of the issue, and I have provided sources. I have not even gone into specifics over Japanese castles, rearding form, function, or history. Your accusation of "original research" is misleading, and looks like a dishonest attempt to discredit my proposal. The paragraph revision is not unreasonable. I worded it to be a compromise on the issue, and I think it is perfectly acceptable to both sides.

Boneyard90 (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Machicolations

"Machicolations were stone projections on top of a wall with openings that allowed objects to be dropped on an enemy at the base off the wall in a similar fashion to hoardings". I can make sense of this as it stands, though the word order is odd. I suspect that "base of the wall" was intended. John of Reading (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I've changed it to "base of". Nev1 (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Front page!

Well done!

But I don't like the opening!

"castle (from Latin castellum) is a defensive structure associated with Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages. The precise meaning of "castle" is debated by scholars, but it is usually considered to be the private fortified residence of a lord or noble."

• I realise exactly why this has been worded like this, but "associated with.....during...." is waffle!

The association is a present association. You could say that castles are "associated with the Middle ages in Europe", which means "When a person thinks of castles, they think of the Middle Ages in Europe", but to put it the other way around is a real stretch of the association. What I mean is, one looks at a castle and thinks "Middle Ages". One does not look at a castle and think "Europe and the Middle East".

Let's drop the "associated with..." and say "constructed in...". That is what happened "during the Middle Ages". We don't need use a loose, backward-looking current-thinking verb when we can use one that states what actually took place.

• Secondly: "The precise meaning of castle is debated, but it is usually considered to be...."

This reads as if nobody knows what a castle is! It's as if it was some object far out in a distant galaxay that appeared as a blip, or a hazy blob.

It's not the "meaning of castle" that is debated. It is "the definition of the word castle" that is debated.

Or to put it differently: It's not actually the word that is the problem. It is the scope of that category of buildings which ought properly be known as castles that cannot be agreed upon. Scholars agree that some structures constitute castles beyond any doubt. However they do not agree as to the entire scope. Some scholar's notion of what constitutes a castle is much narrower than others.

OK....think...think...think....

• How's this?

A castle is a type of defensive structure that was built in Europe and the Middle East during the Middle Ages. While the word "castle" is applied to a wide diversity of buildings, and scholars are not in agreement as to the scope of its definition, a castle is usually considered to be the fortified private residence of a lord or noble.

The addition of the word "type" (of defensive structure) implies and allows for other types of defensive structures, (city walls, fortified manor houses etc).

In the second sentence the word "castle" is used twice. This is not accidental or redundant. It is the difference between what the word "castle" means and the actuallity of was the structure castle is.

How about: While the name "castle" is applied to a wide diversity of buildings etc

Amandajm (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Those sound like some well reasoned suggestions to me. Go ahead and make the changes! Nev1 (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made the changes myself, although as someone else had edited in between it's different. How does this read? Nev1 (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I liked Amandajm's longer version better on this page, but in the article I think the shorter version is more appropriate. I did change the quotes on castle to italics, as I *think* that is more wp:MOS-appropriate. I'll defer to anyone with a strong opinion, with appologies.- Sinneed 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the lead reads well now. Thanks Nev!Amandajm (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncomfortable places to live?

I think this needs clarification:

"While castles continued to be built well into the 16th century, new techniques to deal with improved cannon fire made them uncomfortable and undesirable places to live." How? Brutannica (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As this is from the lead, I don't think much more is needed. It is explained in the rest of the article, but basically the best way to cope with artillery was to build stubbier, thicker walls. Living space was limited by these developments and ornate decoration went into decline. Nev1 (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Note misunderstanding

I do believe there was some sort of misunderstanding concerning note Number 96 (Chartrand 2005), where (as all can see) only the name of the author of the book is acknowledged, but no page. I do not think the whole book is the note, or is it? Hopefully there'll be some clarification of the matter. --Mortdefides (talk) 06:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparing the very general point referenced, and the title of the book, it seems likely it is. Johnbod (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

At first it seemed to me to be so too, but then I noticed there're two books from Rene Chartrand - one about French (2005) and the other about Spanish fortresses (2006). Now the reference clearly points to two sentences, only one of which is about French forts, the other about Spanish ones. So... Probably both the books need to be written as notes... if it is at all acceptable to reference a whole book. --Mortdefides (talk) 15:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote was actually from the 2006 book on Spanish fortifications, so I'm not sure how that got linked with the 2005 book. The quote is available here. I've not got the 2005 book to hand, but I'll try to find the exact page number. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a million, mate. In the moment I write a translated article and I need all things sorted out. Hopefully, you'll cope with the book on Spanish forts and clarify the mistake [unpunctuality]. Sorry, if I caused any inconvenience, just wanted everything to be completely perfect. --Mortdefides (talk) 19:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pound sterling

There's a current argument going on in BG Wikipedia's castle article whether the pound sterlings in "Construction" are actually normal (contemporary) - in other words the currency of UK now, or medieval? If they're medieval shouldn't there be some sort of clarification (e.g. how much is a medieval pound compared to a contemporary pound)? --Mortdefides (talk) 06:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The figures are medieval. Conversions would be useful, but in this case I opted not to as the website used to convert from old to modern values doesn't go back far enough. This website only goes back as far as 1264, so I think the only value it could be used for is the £80,000 spent on the Edwardian castles. My view is a conversion would be nice, but unless there's a reliable source to back it up and the conversion is applied consistently it's not much use to the reader. The source originally used doesn't give conversions either, so while it might be a niggle, it's one that the academic world has to deal with too. Nev1 (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

So that's the case. OK, we'll just leave it be. Thanks, though, helped me a lot. --Mortdefides (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Boiling oil or water

Is there any reliable source to use as a reference to write down that boiling oil and/or water was or was not used back in the Middle Age? Thanks. --GetFresh (talk) 19:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The article says "It is a popular myth that so-called murder-holes – openings in the ceiling of the gateway passage – were used to pour boiling oil or molten lead on attackers; the price of oil and lead, and the distance of the gatehouse from fires meant that this was completely impractical. They were most likely used like machicolations, to drop objects on attackers, or to allow water to be poured on fires to extinguish them", with a reference to pages 98 to 99 of McNeill, Tom (1992), English Heritage Book of Castles, London: English Heritage and B. T. Batsford, ISBN 0-7134-7025-9. It doesn't mention boiling oil or water in general, but that would probably be a decent place to start. Nev1 (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

very interesting~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.70.111.211 (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations for a minor edit.

I made the following edit which is simple and straightforward. Yet you claim it needs citations. I am trying to understand what citations you need:

But it pains must also be taken to note that fortified palaces, walled citadels and other structures with similar features to European castles were :being built long before the advent of castles in these areas, by the Islamic Empire, Persia, Ancient Armenia and the Byzantine empire. :This includes similar structures built in Spain and North Africa as a result of Islamic conquest.

Are you claiming that the Islamic Conquest of North Africa is something so obscure that it requires more than a wiki reference? Not to mention the many many fortresses, ribat and mosques dating from the 7th and 8th centuries all over North Africa. What sorts of citations do you need? It is like saying you need a citation for the fact that the Egyptians built pyramids. Likewise, the fortresses of the Byzantines are likewise all over Eastern Europe and the Levant, so what is it that is obscure here? Surely you don't suggest that these things don't predate European castles or that these cultures had palaces, pomp and ceremony and royal prestige assigned to such structures? Common folk and peasants have never ever built fortifications or palaces and these were always a mark of royalty and those connected to it in all cultures throughout history. The Umayyads are not obscure and well known for their architecture and influence in Early Islam. What here is obscure and needs more than a wiki reference? They are well known for building many palaces and fortresses throughout their domains and many still exist even if they are in ruin, like Qasr Mshatta. For example the Desert Castles, not to mention religious structures and towns.

Similarly Persia was at war with the Byzantine Empire for hundreds of years before the crusades and the emergence of European castles. There are many fortresses and structures built as a result of this history, some of which still exist and existed at the times of the crusades. Likewise Armenia is a very ancient culture going back thousands of years and during the time of the Byzantines built many important fortified cities and fortresses, many of which directly derive from older traditions of places like Urartu and other cultures. The city of Ani is a perfect example of this. Not to mention that many Christian motifs in architecture and culture derive from the Crusader alliance with Armenia.

Unfortunately the subject of Persia and Armenia is not something that is as widely written about in Europe as in the East, ie. Russia and Eastern Europe. But the facts I stated are really so easily verifiable that they don't need more than a reference to other wiki pages on the subject. I don't mind getting citations from books if you like but I question your desire to omit contemporary history around Europe to paint a picture that is not accurate.

The point of the edit being that it wasn't as if there was nothing going on in terms of fortresses, palaces and other structures being built by various cultures before the Europeans started building castles. That is totally false and a misrepresentation of history. There was a lot going on. Big-dynamo (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

In this article you must provide citations even for minor edits because this is a featured article and one of the criteria is "consistent citations". That said, on Wikipedia verifiable sources are always required if you want to make sure the information you add are kept in the article. Without such references your contributions are your opinions. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The article does not of course claim that the European castle represents the first or only type of fortification. There has been a lot of discussion of how much, and what, should be said about other traditions, both before, during and after the period of the castle. I personally agree that there is probably more that could be said about the relationship to non-European traditions around the time the castle developed, but this needs to be carefully done with heavyweight references. Fortified towns and forts that were not the main residence of a leader of some sort were of course very widespread, but not close enough, nor are buildings (like Coptic monasteries for example) with high walls & other elements of fortification enough to deter a raid, but not a serious siege. The scholarly references so far used do not cover this matter much or at all, but I suspect there are others that do somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem looking up citations....Big-dynamo (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Big-dynamo, have you actually read the article? Nev1 (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

But it pains must also be taken to note that fortified palaces, walled citadels and other structures with similar features to European castles were being built long before the advent of castles in these areas, by the Islamic Empire, Persia, Ancient Armenia and the Byzantine empire. This includes similar structures built in Spain and North Africa as a result of Islamic conquest.

There is an entire section on the antecedents of castles, outlining the relevant traditions of fortification in broad strokes. It goes from the start of fortification in places such as the Fertile Crescent, explains that Europe was slow to catch up, and up to the Romans. No where does the article claim that castles were the only fortification of their period, or that there were no other fortifications before. As such, the above text which was added to the article was unnecessary. This article is about castles; the immediate influences are included, there is no need to trace back the origin of crenellations, or arrowloops. Doing so would bloat the article unnecessarily and lose focus on the subject. If a reader wants to know more on the origins of a particular feature they are free to click on the relevant wikilink. Supposedly "The point of the edit being that it wasn't as if there was nothing going on in terms of fortresses, palaces and other structures being built by various cultures before the Europeans started building castles." Well the article makes that clear and I'm confused as to how anyone who has read the article could come to the conclusion that it asserts that medieval Europe has a monopoly on fortification. Nev1 (talk) 15:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I added it to the following paragraph because the implications are that a) prior to castles being built by the Crusaders in the Near East, no analogous structures existed and that the only analogous structures were all the way in the Far East in places like Japan. The point being that the distinction between castle and structures built by other cultures is not clearly defined. For example, how is a place for entertaining guests unique to European castles versus other cultures? That is how the paragraph reads as it is currently written. I think that the whole sentence starting with "It is generally accepted that castles..." should be removed or put in its own paragraph as it really is a different subject altogether and should be fleshed out on how castles were distinct from structures in other contemporary cultures, but one sentence of half-baked information is simply misleading.

Sometimes misapplied, the term castle has also been erroneously used to refer to structures such as Iron Age fortifications, for example Maiden Castle, Dorset.[12] A castle could act as a stronghold and prison but was also a place where a knight or lord could entertain his peers. Over time the aesthetics of the design became more important, as the castle's appearance and size began to reflect the prestige and power of its occupant. Comfortable homes were often fashioned within their fortified walls. Although castles still provided protection from low levels of violence in later periods, eventually they were succeeded by country houses as high status residences.[13] It is generally accepted that castles are confined to Europe, where they originated, and the Middle East, where they were introduced by European Crusaders;[14] however, there were analogous structures in Japan built in the 16th and 17th centuries that evolved independently from European influence and which, according to military historian Stephen Turnbull, had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature".[15]

Big-dynamo (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The implication is not that there were no structures with similar features in the Middle East, what it says is there were no castles in the Middle East. That is referenced to Allen Brown 1976, pp.2–6. If you believe it is wrong, you need to provide a reliable source saying as much. Please make sure you understand what the article is saying. Nev1 (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but what does that one citation have to do with Japanese structures and why would you include the two in the same paragraph? They are totally different time periods and totally different cultures. Sure, the sentence on Japanese structures not being castles is cited, but it has nothing to do with the preceding paragraph. I am not saying that Muslim, Byzantine or Persian structures were castles per se, but I am saying that they had structures that served similar roles within their corresponding cultures as castles: royal prestige, warfare, royal residences, etc. If you find it necessary to include Japanese structures from hundreds of years after the first castles in Europe, then why not include structures from much closer by which are within the same time frame? Why include one and not the rest? The implication is that outside of Feudal Japan and the ancient world no other culture in or near Europe had anything anywhere near what you call a castle within the same time frame Europeans were building them.Big-dynamo (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The situation with shiro is because they're not included in major castles texts, however to most readers to see an article called Japanese castle not included in an article called castle needs explanation and to be fair they are analogous. I'm not sure where else it would go really, I thought the section of defining characteristics seemed most appropriate. So while there are structures elsewhere which share features with castles, there's a less pressing need to explain why the article doesn't cover them. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is not very good, really!

Bottom line there should be a tag on all protected articles stating that the reason no one can edit, except the "sacred few" is because it's content is perpetually disputed. Therefore as this is the case, there should be a warning to note that the article contents should be read with a pinch of salt because it contains cherry-picked details that ignore global historiographies. It also pays scant regard to current trends in academic research or present theories. I notice that generally the only people allowed to edit here are those with an agenda, like Mr Nev1, who reverts anything that isn't in a book by Arnold or Cathcart King. It's all very sad.

It's not to difficult to understand the reason for the editing problems, put simply it's because a "castle" is an abstract concept. This article takes a very narrow European definition and extrapolates it to encompass a global perspective. However a castle's structure is only the physical manifestation of its being. A castle can simply not be defined in this way (unless the notion of castle is specified exclusively to one distinct geographical version e.g. British castles, French castles, Spanish castles, Italian castles, German castles and so on etc ).

Look it this way, a steak knife and a Bowie knife are different but are both knives. No one would want to make one article called Knife and then try and describe all knives from one viewpoint, would they? (but using the logic on show here, that could change). By using broad sweeping generalisations, the article to falls into a fallacy of purpose because it is trying to address all things to all men but in effect is only defining what it means to be a European caslte.

Embarrassingly the exclusion of other non-white "castles" is bordering on racism, for instance the scant regard of other fortifications that fulfilled castle-like purposes in the East such as Chinese towers, Forts in India or the Japanese castles of the Nara period. It's like the whole article is written for a white-thinking Victorian audience who have little or no regard for anything not created by Europeans. (Addendum: OMG I have just reread some of the earlier comments from above and I see that Mr Nev1 has accused people of trolling if they bring up racism over the exclusion of cultures types of castle. OMG dude you are being racist. I was a complete neutral until I tried to change an article error and found that I couldn't. It then led me down this horrid rabbit hole of a discussion page to discover that I innocently concluded what has been mentioned many times before. But don't you see, the article is crap so it's going to go on ad infinitum because the article doesn't work you deluded lot. It's polarised to such a narrow extent it's content is almost meaningless. For an idea on how an article can engender scope, have a look at the one on Black people, you'll be surprised they don't all live in Africa you know!!).

I am just stating using occam's razor that the reason this article is protected is because it is wrong on two crucial levels: scope and meaning. If peace is to be restored, it needs to be pulled apart and not pander to the idealogical viewpoints of a small number of white-European editors (and whoever thinks this is a good article need their head examined). If you broke the article up into respective articles that all reflected the many spectrum of what castle is and could be, it would work. There will never be happiness if this jaundiced work continues to try to be an all-encompassing answer as to what a "castle" is.

If you don't change it then this article will need to be protected forever from anyone and everyone who has an abstract vision of what a castle is to them!! Thus failing the very notion that Wikipedia is based on, the one about "good faith". I will end by noting that an English proverb wisely says "Advice is least heeded when most needed." If you want the problems associated with this article to end, then changes are going to have to happen. But in reality that is going to be a definite problem as some people, and you know who you are, are going to be very, very upset if that happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.251.74 (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)