The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 14:48, 3 December 2009 [1].

Castle

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

Castles are one of the best known symbols of the medieval period and are there's no doubting their popularity, so it's about time the article was knocked into shape. It covers the development of this medieval institution and has sections on the different aspects of its use. The main points are covered, but due to the sheer size of the subject, not everything can be included in one article without digressing from the main subject; hopefully the article is still comprehensive and interesting. Any and all comments are welcome, so please do review. Thank you in advance anyone who takes the time to read the article. Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on criterion 3

Images not yet cleared, but discussion moved to talk for length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images have now been cleared Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text clearance moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: A vital article to be made FA, well-done on your work so far. I would argue that many more terms in the lead: moat, gunpowder, cannon, flanking fire, all need wikilinking.
"lay of the land" it's accurate, but not articulated.
Are two pictures at the lead necessary? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added more links to the lead per your suggestion, and substituted "lay of the land". [2]
The lead images are tricky. It is a subject that has lead to some prickly discussions on the talk page stretching back years (usually an editor popping along and asking why a castle in their country isn't the lead image). The use of two evolved over time (probably to ease the concerns about representation), but I can't say I'm particularly attached to the idea, and one would work well for me. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response I chose the two pics, and I think two is justified, given 1. that there is plenty of room for them; 2. that they serve a purpose. They were selected to represent two very typical types of castles that are found all over Europe: those which make defensive use of a rugged position, and those that do not, and rely on massive walls and often a moat. The two images also depict two qualities associated with castles: the "romantic" image and the "forbidding" image. No single picture of a castle (that I can find) sums up what we mean by "castle" as well as the combination of the two.

Provisional Support At long last a real encyclopedia article! Let me go out on a limb and offer provisional support on the basis of Criterion 0(a) ("Notability"). I will, of course, go through the details later and my support could be withdrawn, but this is a good start. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Before I start reading the article, I wanted to make sure that you are not saying that private fortified residences did not exist in other parts of the world. In India, for example, they are simply called "forts," and most are/were residential. (Here's Britannica's lead: "Castle (architecture): medieval European stronghold, generally the residence of the king or lord of the territory in which it stands. Strongholds designed with the same functionality have been built throughout the world, including in Japan, India, and other countries." (I am assuming, though, that you're not saying this.)
  • It seems to me that the lead is being a little coy about mentioning the 800-pound gorilla (named "Europe") in the room. (I see words like "symbolic," "Middle Ages," but no "Europe.") From what I have quickly gathered (from other sources), "castle" is the medieval European version of the private fortified residence of royalty and nobility. Strongholds with the same functionality (to use Britannica's language) were not only built outside Europe but also before the medieval period. The lead will need to acknowledge that up front.

I'll write my detailed comments on the talk page of the article in a compressed box. Hopefully soon! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very particular thing about castles is that they are lordly fortified residences. Not only a defence, they are centres of administration and display. I would say that, in this instance, Britannica is not a reliable source; I think more useful is Darvill’s Dictionary of Archaeology which makes a specific link between castles and Europe, and does not include places such as India (although tertiary sources such as Britannica and dictionaries should always be treated with caution). There are of course fortified private residences that do not belong to lords or kings etc, but these are not castles; for example some farmhouses were fortified such as bastle houses but are not considered castles. It’s not enough for “someone” to be living there, there’s got to be that feudal link, either a lord or his representative. It’s also important who they were built by (ie: the same type of people who lived in them as opposed to built by the state).
I’m slightly confused by your assertion that “Strongholds with the same functionality … [were built] before the medieval period”. The article does state that castles were a departure from previous fortifications (not just in Europe) which had generally been much larger and communal whereas castles were smaller and private. That’s what the source said anyway. As for extending beyond Europe, yes they did; castles were introduced to the Holy Land by the Crusaders. But the literature does not indicate that the permeated further east.
Hopefully this edit makes the lead a little more blunt (although the implication was that they originated in Europe). Nev1 (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed reply! I'm a little strapped for time right now, but I'll mull it over and then continue on the article's talk page. All I am saying really is that you need to say something explicit along the lines of: "A castle is a private fortified residence associated with the nobility of Medieval Europe; private fortified residences were built by the nobility in other parts of the world as well, but these are generally not referred to as 'castles.'" (In other words I would use "Medieval Europe" (redirected to "Middle Ages") rather than the "Middle Ages," to help out the uninitiated. And state the scope of the article up front.) Many of the forts in the template Template:Forts in India are in fact the private fortified residences of "rajahs" or (little kings); some are bigger and belong to maharajahs (the big kings), and a few even mini-townships (of the Emperors). Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: You present castles of Western Christian Europe as the only castles. That's a bit narrow. Either you define your topic better or you include castles from all over the world. Wandalstouring (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect Wandalstouring, I fail to see how you can come to that conclusion if you actually read the article. It devotes a large amount to castles in the Holy Land and the influence of the Saracens, and touches on the handful of late castles in the Americas. Perhaps you have some suggestions of how the article could be improved? What exactly do you think is missing? Nev1 (talk) 16:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mention large parts of Eastern Europe, Spain and Asia and Africa. I don't think a rewrite is feasible during this review. Make a better definition of your scope and explain to the reader how castles in other regions of the world were different. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not happy with the caption to the Bodiam Castle pic: Bodiam Castle in Sussex, England, was described as "an old soldier's dream house" in the 1960s, although its defences are now considered more ornamental than practical.[1] The bit about how it was described in the 60s, comes across as rather sentimental. It's OK for the article specifically on Bodiam, which might present a range of quotations, but it's out of place in this general article. Secondly, the bit about its defences being considered more ornamental than practical needs discussion and clarification. Once again, I think it's not relevant to the generic page. Amandajm (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point so I've stripped back the caption. Nev1 (talk) 16:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You’re quite right, I went back to the sources and it seems that first time around I misread Dutch as Danish. A silly mistake, but shit happens. As to your second point, it is addressed below. Nev1 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied below so it is highly visible as several people are concerned about this issue. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding criterion 1b I can speak only from the books I have read relating to the subject of castles. Not one has mentioned any of the countries that have been suggested by the above editors. I have to wonder why. While compiling the article I read beyond those included in the bibliography section; the reason they were not all used is that many repeated the same points, and usually one particular book covered the subject better than the others. Although some were focused on Britain, many took a wide view of castles. For them to ignore what several editors have suggested above is peculiar if they are correct in their assertions. And so I come to the conclusion that they are sadly wrong.

The fact of the matter is, I have taken this article as far as the literature allows it; to brand that as incomplete is not a judgment on the article, but on the scholarship of the subject. That is not the purpose of WP:FAC. The castle is a primary European development, so it’s hardly surprising that the article concentrates on Europe - although I have already noted that Saracen and even American castles are included. That’s why chivalry is linked with castles in literature, and why Gothic Revivalism was sparked in Europe. The entry for “castle” in Darvill’s Oxford concise dictionary of Archaeology declares that it is a European concept. Should you doubt that Darvill takes a wide ranging view of things, his dictionary includes terms such as the Cashibocana Phase (a South American cultural grouping), Quynh-van (a Neolithic site in Vietnam), and Babylon. If you disagree with his definition (as well that used by the likes of those included in the bibliography section, heavyweights of castle studies), I put it to you that you are going against the policy of WP:RS. There may very well be a gap in scholarship that should link castles with other things such as Tibetan fortifications, but that is not Wikipedia’s place as it would be original research. Twenty years ago it would have been impossible to have the landscape section as there simply wasn’t the literature about it. As more research is done into the subject of castles - an already heavily studied area - the scope of the article can increase, but until then it should work with the sources and not be synthesis.

I cannot say myself that there are definitively no castles in China, or Vietnam, or Indonesia, but common sense tells me that writers did not feel it necessary to spell it out in the same way they did not feel it necessary to state that there are no castles on the moon. If you still believe the article is incomplete, please give me some examples of what should be included with an explanation and some good sources. If that is not possible, then I shall stick with reliable sources and the article’s scope will remain as it is. I applaud those who say we should include as many things as possible as castles for their egalitarian attitude, but sadly in this case it is not compatible with Wikipedia’s policy that there must be no original research. I understand how it may seen that this article has gaps, but I hope I have demonstrated that that is not the case. My apologies for not replying sooner, I should have foreseen this.. Nev1 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a quick search I find for example Japanese castles 1540-1640 and Castles of the Samurai: Power and Beauty. I can't speak for the quality of the books, but considering there are books like these, I find it hard to believe that it is not a subject that should be explored in the article. --Harthacnut (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Japanese castle (Shiro in Japanese) is in see also here. They are certainly a case of parallel development, apparently beginning just as the European castles were ceasing to be of military significance, but a different phenomenon. I've argued at the talk page that they are worth a few sentences in this respect, but they certainly don't belong in the main sections. See page 5 of the first book you link to, for example. Johnbod (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The case with literature might be a result of authors being unable to read papers in other languages. Concerning the crusades it's quite common that European historians don't have a clue about medieval Arabian, Syriac and Hebrew and for this reason leave out a lot of sources or only quote English translations of a few works. Same is often true for the modern languages in which works on these subjects are published. Same could be applied for castles, however the term castle is used in English for Chinese, Japanese, Muslim and ... structures. I stand by my suggestion to make a clear definition that you talk about castles of Western Christianity. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That writers may not be able to read reports etc in other languages has crossed my mind, and it does hinder the spread of information. But what can Wikipedia do about it? It means that we're reflecting the literature, criterion 1c: "[a] representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic". But no, the article is demonstrably not restricted to the castles of Western Christianity, so please stop insisting it is. Again, I’ll go back to Darvill's summary that emphasises Europe, as do many, many other sources. If you disagree with that, you are going against the sources. There are many things called castles, not all actually fit the definition. It may, however, be worthwhile including a brief section on Japanese castles due to their similarities, despite that they had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". Nev1 (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Castle comes from the Roman castelum, simply meaning fortress. If you feel there's any other definition to it, please make it clear and say why other structures called castles aren't considered castles by your authors. That someone has written a book about castles doesn't mean it completely covers the topic. Books are written for selling and you sell to people what interests them. Wandalstouring (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition in English is clear, and given and cited in the article. Despite some stately country houses, usually on the sites of former castles, having "castle" in their name, the English term is much clearer than the French or German one (though I think the Italian "castello" is also more restricted). What exactly are you suggesting? A disambiguation page for "castle", going to Western castle, Japanese castle and, er, what else? There is clearly no point in merging the long Japanese article here. Most other cultures, for example China, have concentrated on fortified cities. The Tibetan/Bhutanese fortified monasteries, dzongs, are the next nearest thing I'm aware of, but these are not referred to as castles. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have this definition of castles in the article and the different use in other works where castle is refered to structures in different parts of the world like some ribats in Spain. The problem is that the definition of feudal isn't clear, does it exclusively refer to the Western Christian organization of society or is it the general structure of a society like we also find it in Muslim countries and in Japan. Another problem arises with semi-non-feudal societies in Europe that hold control over "castles" like the Swiss. Does a castle become a fortress with the change of ownership and why is it still called a castle in literature? I know that sounds pretty much like hairsplitting, but we have to make a very clear point because of actual differing common use in English as opposed to a few scientists's definition. Wandalstouring (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition in the article doesn't bring in feudalism at all, or any particular form of social organization. Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The definition given in the lead seems to be "a fortified structure that also served as a private residence (in medieval Europe)" and this is repeated under "Definition". Even if we for the sake of the consistency of the argument decide to entirely ignore the fact that Japanese daimyo appear to have lived in their own "Japanese" castles, does that mean that "medieval Europe" ends somewhere west of the Vistula (except where Western Christians like the Teutonic Order set up shop)? At least that's what the actual content of the article seems to imply.
I agree that there's probably a good reason to limit this article to Christian European structures, maybe even just Western European ones, but I think it requires a better summary of the definition among historians. The current one is either too vague to be this narrow or hasn't been reported clearly enough.
Peter Isotalo 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another title that seems to discuss castles on a worldwide scale.[3] The table of contents appears to imply that non-European fortifications aren't quite defined as castles, but it most certainly includes Eastern Europe. Peter Isotalo 11:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think Eastern European castles are excluded from the article as it is, though i agree they are not much mentioned, but then nor are many other areas. The literature I've seen suggests that France, England and the Crusader States mostly led technical developments, but then I've never read a Polish book on the subject. Perhaps a vmention should be added when brick is being discussed. The book above gives 16 i think pages to Eastern Europe, half what it gives to Spain & not much more than Ireland gets. The WP article is not a geographical survey in this way. Johnbod (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see no information at all about Eastern Europe except for the picture of the Teutonic Order castle in Malbork and a mention of "the Baltic". If I've simply missed it, you're welcome to highlight it for me.
Again, an overall focus on Western Europe isn't unreasonable, but in this case there doesn't seem to be any other information to speak of at all. I agree that the availibility of literature should to one degree or another decide the article focus, but in this case it just seems quite obvious that we're dealing with a systemic bias. That Ireland and Eastern Europe are given equal treatment seems like an obvious indication of this. We could afford to at least describe Eastern Europe just a smidgen more than we are right now. And we should probably also include something about Japan as long as the verifiable definitions fail to explicitly excude them, especially now that we have a source available through Google Books. 1b does not automatically overrule all requests for neutrality just through sheer quantity of references. Peter Isotalo 13:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are relatively few indications of place in the article at all, other than the examples given, which are indeed mostly from France, England and the Crusader States. What should be said about Eastern European castles, other than that they exist? The book on Google on Japan arguably excludes them itself by saying they had "a completely different developmental history, were built in a completely different way and were designed to withstand attacks of a completely different nature". In other words, they need their own article here, which they have. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You call them castles. They may derive from a different source, but it's common English usage to call them castles. This pretty much cristalizes the issue around the definition. We have few scientists arguing against the common English use. Wandalstouring (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically wrong. You're suggesting that the article be expanded to include hill forts such as Maiden Castle because they're colloquially and wrongly called castles. People in the medieval period called walled cities castles, but the article uses the academic definition as it obviously should. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wandalstouring and other commenters here that this is a fine article, but that it is geographically biased. There is one photo of a Central European castle built by Germans and none from Eastern Europe. This reflects the text well. It is very interesting to learn that brick castles are common in Scandinavia and why, but there is no mention of comparable trends in the Balkans, for instance. There are also some phrases such as "the 13th-century ruler of the Saracens," which could be clarified. In this instance, it is worth noting that there never was one unified Muslim state in the Near East. The works cited for this article are slightly unsatisfactory, but that does not get in the way of FA status, in my opinion. innotata (Talk | Contribs) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References have been found which explicitly call the structures in Japan 'castles'. I visited Japan last year and they were called 'castles' there on all the English-language signage I saw. There is no reason to exclude them from this article and I'm surprised that they haven't been included. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well there is a reason. They may be analogous, but they are not the same. I'll give you an example, recently I came across the description on Wikipedia of the Hellots of ancient Greece as serfs, a medieval concept. Academic sources are split on whether to describe them as such because it's anachronistic and there are many differences, but the term serves as a convenient short-hand so many do use it. Some academics attempt to apply modern models of economy and society, such as Marxism, on ancient societies despite evident differences, incompatibilities, and anachronism; it's not necessarily wrong, it's used as a short-hand to aid people to understand something they are unfamiliar with by associating it with something familiar. What we have in the case of "Japanese castles" is something that was used because it was an easy term despite their obvious differences. They should be recognised as a separate, though similar, phenomenon which is why Japanese castle is an independent article. Nev1 (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 'Castle' article, not the Castles in Europe and the Middle East article. As such, it needs to cover 'castles' worldwide. I'd suggest that you either expand this article to include Japanese castles or, perhaps better still, create a new article which covers the European and Middle East tradition of castle-building. Nick-D (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) The argument that something is too different to merit inclusion requires some kind of backing from references, or it's just a subjective editorial choice. And if you're saying that academic sources are split on this issue, then there's even more reason to include the Japanese castles (and others) on grounds of neutrality. Peter Isotalo 09:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Finding a solution for 1b. We have scientists of the Middle Ages defining "castle" because castle is a term that's not always used according to this definition. That's why it's necessary to provide this definition in the introduction. We are writing for wikipedia, thus we have to reflect the opinions in science and use the most common English name. If an object is classified differently in science than in common use we have to point out this difference. So the whole issue boils down that you point out that the term castle is commonly used for different structures than what scientists of the Middle Ages define as castles. It would be good if you give as many example of different "castles" that aren't considered castles in the science of the Middle Ages to give the reader an idea where to look them up. Is this an agreeable solution? Wandalstouring (talk) 09:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this clear things up: [4] [5]? Nev1 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a step forward, but it doesn't solve the issue. Not every structure called castle in Europe is a castle after your definition and there are structures called castles in more parts of the world than Japan. Just search castle and a random country. Thus you have to point out the common use for walled structures (that leads to fortification). Wandalstouring (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How this? Nev1 (talk) 20:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That hillforts have been called castles is new to me. Do you have it sourced? Are historians the only ones saying these are castles or is this definition also used by archaeologists? Otherwise it looks OK. Perhaps you should say castles according to the definition are found in Europe and the Middle East. Wandalstouring (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's just some hill forts that have been called castles rather than all (such as Maiden Castle in Dorset and its namesake in Cheshire), and it’s a common term rather than an accurate one; neither historians nor archaeologists consider hill forts as castles. The point is referenced (in the article rather than the lead) to Allen Brown. Nev1 (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's verifiable: the source states that other European words for castle derive from castellum, but that's not to say all of them do. The section is about the derivation of the word "castle" so it's relevant to mention other similarly derived words. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest rephrasing the section for clarity, then, because currently "other European words" implies what I said above. Peter Isotalo 08:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've made the phrasing less ambiguous. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In German, castle is Schloss; don't know it's origin is though. Parsecboy (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The German article is at Burg in fact. Schloss has as its lead pic the highly unfortified rococo Sanssouci, and even more than chateau means a grand country house or "stately home", regardless of architectural style. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are to some extent the successor of the castle, & could be mentioned as such, but are essentially different: "the star fortress was a very flat structure composed of many triangular bastions, specifically designed to cover each other, and a ditch". Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point; the article talks about the obsolescence of castles with the advent of gunpowder artillery, and should really mention the trace italienne, which succeeded the castle in the role of area defense. Yes, the walls were shorter and thicker, but the point was the same: to project power over a local area. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning them in the sense that they were major fortifications with their roots in castles (with the Henrican artillery forts as a notable predecessor of star forts, but only in a one liner. To state simply that their purpose was the same is to take an old fashioned view of castles and focus solely on their military role at the expense of other important facets. Country houses are already mentioned as their successors in social terms, a mention of castles' immediate military successors would not be amiss. Nev1 (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Nev1 (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above, Nev1 wrote in his explanation of the castle, "It’s not enough for “someone” to be living there, there’s got to be that feudal link, either a lord or his representative." - I'm wondering if the article could do with a bit more explanation of what feudalism was and what the relationship between the lord and his tenants was. I'm thinking here of a very basic explanation - just a reminder for the reader of what feudalism was. This could be added to the "Defining characteristics" section or the "Social centre" section.
  • The material on courtly love seems like a tangent in the "Social centre" section. I would suggest removing it or explaining what about courtly love was related precisely to castles.
I rather agree about the text as it is, but there is a lot of literature on courtly love as largely a product of the enforced intimacy of castle life, and also the role of the lord's wife in running the show when he was campaigning. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little of servant life inside the castle is described. Would it be possible to add something on this?
There wasn't the Upstairs, Downstairs waterline in the Middle Ages, so the term is rather anachronistic, but over the course of the period the lord's family did succeed in carving out private space for themselves. Early castles were pretty crowded, but archaelogy is not very useful in working out who slept where. At the end of the period an architect's plan did mark the head washerwoman's bedroom, but presumably her staff laid their matresses down next to the tubs, just like live-in staff did in shops, workshops and the like. Johnbod (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source is a children's book and thus does not meet the requirement of "high quality" source. There is only one fact sourced to it, however ("Brick castles were predominant in Scandinavia and the Baltic"), so replacing it with a good source should be easy.
  • At times, some of the sentences ran a little long and a few were a bit awkward. I plan to put a list of these sentences on the article's talk page in the coming days. These are very small issues and will not keep me from supporting.

I hope these comments were helpful. Awadewit (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave a note on my talk page when these issues have been addressed or if you have any questions about the issues I've listed. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added an explanation of feudalism. Courtly love was included as it's associated with castles because that's where the aristocracy lived, I've made this more explicit in the article. The children's book has been replaced and I'm working on copy editing the article per your comments on the talk page (I'll do more today and hope to get it more or less finished tomorrow). As far as servants go, they get only a fleeting mention in the article pretty much because of what Johnbod says. It's difficult to read much into the archaeological record regarding social layouts of casltes, and the historical record focusses much more on those at the top. I'll look for sources tomorrow as I'm focussing on ironing out the prose at the moment, but I doubt there'll be much I can add. Nev1 (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found a little on servants, but it was very litte. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to Japanese castles is already in the article, so I removed it from the see also section as per WP:ALSO (links in the main body of the article are generally not repeated in the see also section, but in this case I think it may be worthwhile so have re-added it. Nev1 (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have considered this at some length. I have great respect for the work you have done on this article: I love the topic and the content, but it continues to grate me that your arbitrary definition of castle does not match the article title in the context of the multinational Wikipedia. On a scale of 1 to castle, what is the Kremlin? Mention of Japanese castles as analogous structures appears in the last sentence of the eight paragraph after you have drawn contrasts between your definition of castles and
  1. Fortresses (a weak, generic catchall)
  2. Country homes (at least thrice)
  3. Hill forts
  4. Anything outside of Europe and the Middle East (Is this not supremely arbitrary? Europe, the Middle East and the Dominican Republic?)
  5. A chateau
  6. Walled cities
  7. Non-medieval period (with reference to Western history)
  8. Walled settlements and forts named by the Franks (Western slant)
  9. Iron Age fortifications such as Maiden Castle (Western, arguably British slant)
  10. Combined "bastion and prison"
Then finally: "there were analogous structures in Japan ... that evolved independently from European influence" but we have already been told that "A European innovation, castles originated in the 9th and 10th centuries...", and they are outside Europe (phew) so your arbitrary definition is safe. These are some of the most important historical structures in Japan and they are so blatantly down-played that I find it disrespectful.
As you yourself note, the concept of private residence clashes rather badly with administrative centre so the internal consistency of your definition is even in question.
I believe that in laying claim to the article title Castle you are in flagrant breach of 1c and arguably 1d and deserve to be in breach of 1e. As I said, I have great esteem for your work, but it does not fit under this title.
Image count, by country: England 8, France 3, Other 6. I think you see where this is going.
I would propose that you take out the dismissive references to analogous structures, et al. and accept a FA-worthy article under the name Castles (Western Europe). The beauty of this solution is that you would not need to take up so many bytes and pixels defending an arbitrary definition that you share with authors with similar bias.
Sorry about the oppose, as I've said, not a comment on the quality of the work at all and consider it stricken on change of article title. Dhatfield (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out that this definition of castle is not "arbitrary" nor is it the editor's. It matches with all of the other reference works I've consulted. We may not like that situation, but there it is. Awadewit (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am very flattered that you hold my work on the article in great esteem, but you do seem to read into it motives that are not there. Let's start with the definition of castles: It's not my definition. It is widely accepted among academic works, including the bit relating to Europe. Regarding images, as someone wisely said on the article talk page, "This is an encyclopedic page not Miss World!" The images have been chosen to represent particular features (eg: a gateway with flanking towers, or an elaborate donjon) rather than because they depict a castle from a particular country (well, except for the Crusader castle); if one country is over-represented it is because those images are the best at illustrating a particular feature, not because I'm trying to push an agenda. Could you point out how "the concept of private residence clashes rather badly with administrative centre"? By the way, kremlins are pretty low down on the scale as they are citadels, not castles (hence their exclusion from the article). Nev1 (talk) 21:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had a similar discussion at Computer Graphics. For obvious reasons, the scholarly works defined computer graphics in terms of Computer graphics (computer science). Owing to it's broad use as a term, we made Computer graphics itself an overview and spun off the scholarly article. The author of the original article defended his 'ownership' of the term vehemently on academic grounds. Is there a WP policy on whether we stick to the referenced definition or the one in use in common parlance - I am tempted to say the one that makes sense in the context of the tree structure of an online encyclopedia? High quality images of Tanks in the public domain are dominated by US Army ones, so I understand that problem. Just pointing out that it could be perceived as part of a pattern. None the less, point taken, I will bow out of this debate since the community appears to have come to a consensus. I apologise for implying bias where none existed, if that is indeed the case. Dhatfield (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More