This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Calling it a "Byzantine" castle in the lead is POV-pushing. As you say yourself, "nobody knows definitively" when the castle was first built and by whom. The 8th Ephorate speculates that the Despots of Epirus had something to do with it, but adduces no evidence for this. The fact that there were some tombs built in the 5-7th centuries, and possibly a fortification, is not evidence that the castle is Byzantine. Hetherington (a source that you brought in) is skeptical that it is Byzantine: "It may be a Byzantine foundation although it must be said that (for its size) it is not in a typical Byzantine site...". There is no documentary evidence of the existence of the castle before 1272. --Macrakis (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Is the tentativeness in that language not clear to you?come across as abusive, aggressive, tendentious and insulting. I know you may not see it, but that's exactly how they come across. I thought that my reply made that clear but I was wrong since you came back with more admonitions and rude insults. As far as the reliability of sources or your quest for the truth I have made my points multiple times. In short: You cannot second-guess the onomatology conferred upon this castle by experts on the subject. If you haven't got the idea, that's your problem, not mine. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 02:29, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Michaēl S. Kordōsēs (Μιχαήλ Κορδώσης Καθηγητής Ιστορικής Γεωγραφίας, Πανεπιστήμιο Ιωαννίνων) (1981). Symvolē stēn historia kai topographia tēs periochēs Korinthou stous mesous chronous. Vivliopōleio D.N. Karavia. p. 140. Retrieved 19 September 2013. "Εκτός άπό τό βυζαντινό φρούριο, στήν περιοχή τοϋ Άγγελοκάστρου παρουσιάζουν ένδιαφέρον καί δυό παλιές έκ- κλησίες, πού ...Ο Buchon, που επισκέφθηκε το καστρο, υποθέτει οτι χτιστηκε ατα τελη του ΙΒ' αιώνα από καποιο μελος της οικογενειας των Αγγελων Κομνηνων, σε μια ταραγμένη εποχή που ευνοουσε προσωπα με κυρος να γινονται ανεξαρτητα απο το κεντρο. Τα τειχη του, γραφει, μαρτυρουν βιαστικη κατασκευή.": Michaēl S. Kordōsēs (Professor of Historical Geography at the university of Ioannina (CV in pdf)): Aside from the Byzantine Castle, in the area of Angelokastro there are two old churches...Buchon, who visited the Castle supposes that it was built at the end of the 12th century by some member of the Komnenos family...
Stamatopoulos, Nondas (1993). Old Corfu: history and culture (3 ed.). "On a precipitous rocky peak dominating a wide range of coastline around Palaeokastritsa stand the crumbling walls and battlements of the twelfth-century Byzantine Fortress of Angelokastro, not far from the village of Krini."Angelocastro was probably built during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Comnenos (1143 - 1 180).(p. 164)[...]
A. B. Tataki (Director of Research of the National Hellenic Research Foundation) (Online bio at the National Hellenic Research Foundation website) (1983). Corfu: History, Monuments, Museums. Ekdotike Athenon S.A. p. 20. Retrieved 15 September 2013. "It was at this time that the fortress of angelokastro was built on the west coast of the island, to protect the inhabitants against Genoese pirates.[...] Angelokastro, one of the Byzantine forts on the island. It was built by Michael Angelos I, Despot of Epiros. (p. 69)"
Archaiologikon deltion. 45 part 2 (1). Hypourgeio Politismou. 1995. pp. 260–271. Retrieved 19 September 2013. "... βρίσκεται το Αγγελόκαστρο. Η παράδοση αναφέρει ότι το Κάστρο κτίσθηκε από τους δεσπότες Αγγέλους Κομνηνούς του Δεσποτάτου της ...": Archaeological bulletin: Hellenic Ministry of Culture:Tradition mentions that the Castle was built by the despots Angeloi Komnenoi...
Paul Hetherington (2001). The Greek Islands: Guide to the Byzantine and Medieval Buildings and Their Art. Quiller Press Limited. p. 57. ISBN 978-1-899163-68-7. Retrieved 15 September 2013. "as Angelokastro is in the tradition of small but virtually unassailable strongholds that make use of exceptional natural ... In 1386 it was besieged by the Venetians and in 1403 the Genoese regarded it as sufficiently crucial to besiege it for a [...] There are claims that this medium-sized castle may have been built during the reign of the emperor Manuel Komnenos (1 143-1 180), and it must in any case have been established by 1272 as it was then taken over by the Italian Giordano di San Felice...(p. 57)"
Griechenland. National Geographic De. 2002. p. 323. ISBN 978-3-934385-56-6. Retrieved 15 September 2013. "Jahrhundert von Michael Angelos Komnenos IL erbaut, dem byzantinischen Despoten von Epiros. Er veranlasste auch den Bau des Angelokastro, der heutigen Festungsruine in der Nähe von Palaiokastritsa an der Nordwestküste" National Geographic Deutschland: Gooogle Translation: ...century by Michael Angelos Komnenos IL built, the Byzantine despot of Epirus. It also prompted the construction of the Angelokastro today's ruined fortress near Paleokastritsa, on the northwest coast
It may be a Byzantine foundation although it must be said that (for its size) it is not in a typical Byzantine site, as Angelokastro is in the tradition of small but virtually unassailable strongholds that make use of exceptional natural defences; ...
Response to third opinion request: |
It seems to me that the sources used, all of which seem reliable, describe the castle as "Byzantine" in their summaries, titles, and so on. The majority of the doubts aired, such as they are, concern who exactly built it, not it's general status as Byzantine. Since there doesn't appear to be any clear evidence that it could be anything else, I think it's perfectly reasonable to describe it as such in our own lede.
This is not to say that any doubts about its origin should not be covered in the bulk of the article, although I'd like to see a more clearly referenced explanation of what the alternatives might be, and why they are not considered fringe views. But unless there's a major dispute among the experts, I don't think the lede is the place for that. If you want a more vaguely worded "probably Byzantine" phrasing in the lede, then I think that would have to be supported by references to a serious debate between the experts in the pro- and anti-Byzantine camps, or at least an academic article on the alternative theory. As well, of course, as sources showing that the pro-argument is more widely accepted, but we already have those. Anaxial (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) |