Talk:Harlech Castle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Harlech Castle has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Good topic star Harlech Castle is part of the Castles and Town Walls of King Edward in Gwynedd series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
August 16, 2012 Good article nominee Listed
February 19, 2013 Good topic candidate Promoted
Current status: Good article


That links to an article that doesn't contain the word "siege" at all... and neither the year "1468" when it was supposed to end. It does seem to talk about various other sieges, but it doesn't look like a very appropriate link to me. Shinobu (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

posible pic[edit]

Great find, the article doesn't seem to have a picture that really sets it in the landscape. As it was published before 1900 I think we're in the clear with copyright. The page even says "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on reproduction". Nev1 (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Just as an aside, with the anonymous Library of Congress pictures, I'd advise a little bit of caution - a photograph taken in England in 1900 such as this by a photographer aged, say 20, could very easily still be under copyright: he'd only needed to have lived to the age of 60-odd for his rights not to have quite expired on it. Thus the "Rights assessment is your responsibility." tag they put on it. Still, its a question of risk assessment I suspect (and it is a nice photo!). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:21, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Fortunately only commons worries about UK law not en.wikipedia. If worried find an american to upload it.©Geni 19:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Ah, but one could could potentially argue for Restored Copyright status, which could then make a difference in the US courts! :) I'd just note that the issue isn't simple, and add it in. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
published in the US pre 1923. Thats pretty solidly PD in the US.©Geni 13:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Not necessarily...
  • Firstly, Commons requires, for example, that "Uploads of non-U.S. works are normally allowed only if the work is either in the public domain or covered by a valid free license in both the U.S. and the country of origin of the work" (my italics). The "country of origin" of a work is generally the country where the work was first published." Photochrom Prints were certainly created in Switzerland and Detroit through the photo-lithographic process; one might well find, however, that the original black and white photograph could be considered to have been first published in the country in which it had been taken (there are no records of who and where the original no-lithographic photographs were acquired from prior to the process being applied, for example); thus, if first published in the UK, as might be considered by some to be rather likely, this would imply that the UK's laws would apply and uploading could be an issue under Commons processes. The only exception under Commons processes are "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional works of art", which these are clearly not.
  • Alternatively, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act can apply, creating "restored copyrights" even in the US, depending on the date on which publishing first occurred, and if that publishing was considered by a court to have occurred legally. Ironically, a work can equally be in the public domain in its source country but still under copyright in the United States under this rule.
All of which still leads me to think that we should use it, but in the awareness that without an author and a precise date for publication, one does so at an (admittedly minimal!) level of risk. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


I've gone through and given the article a scrub over and expanded it a bit, removing some close paraphrasing in places, and drawing on some of the latest research from the 2007 conference. A couple of points:

  • I've dropped the reference to a "seven year siege"; it isn't used in the more recent literature, probably because it summons up images of encamped armies outside the castle for seven years, which certainly wasn't the case. The current literature talks about a final month-long (or three week) siege, which is what I've gone with here.
  • I'm really not sure if Harlech counts as being in North Wales or not; I think so, so I've opted for North Wales here, but more experienced hands may feel it is in Mid-Wales: please correct if necessary!
  • I couldn't find a wikilink for Egryn Abbey - if anyone knows of one, do add it in... Hchc2009 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • NB: I also updated the references from Arnold Taylor's various monographs to the latest 2007 edition. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)